The Sun. — London, England, 1832-07-13 00:00:00

"~_ lie unchangeable.—(Cheers.) I for one am quite ready to believe that truth is eternal ; and if the British Go. vernment declare that such and such facts have tal:en place, no appeal to the non-ratification of Russia can alter those facts.—(Hear, hear.) Beside., let me here obset ye, that when this treaty went to Russia to be ratified, it was ratified ; and, therefore, it would hardly now do to rely on the previous no n-ratification.—(Hear, hear.) We are now at stage the second of the proceedings : it is now solemnly recorded, that on the 16th of November, IS,; the great contracting Powers came to the conclusion that a separation had taken place between Holland and Bel gium, and that an agreement did not exist between the let ter and the spirit of the former Convention. But there are some other facts to which I must call the attention of the house. In the latter end of December, in order to perfect it by the beginning of January, the Commissioners of the Treasury directed another payment to he mailer their declaration of the letter and spirit of the treaty bring different, nen cbstante. And here, let me observe, a row feature pres e nt s it se lf i n t h e t ransac ti on , o f th e g reatest importan ce . The Lords of the Treasury felt themselves etiolated to make this payment, no doubt, on the opinien giecn by the Law Officers attic Crown, although the Ministers themselves hod expressed an exactly contrary opinion in the convention which I have just read to the House. But another process was necessary besides the mere direction of the Lords of the Treasury. It was necessary to draw on the Exchequer for the money to he disbursed. On this the principal officer of the Exchequer (Lord Grenville)— than whom, I will venture to say, none knows better how to discharge his duty, or is more deeply conversant with the law on the subject—tells the Treasury, I cannot pay this money, the Act of Parliament making the treaty sub ject to a condition. That condition his occurred—it is notorious to all the world. It was announced in the speech from the Throne that there was an independent Sovereign of Belgium, and that consequently di it country Lad passed from under the dominion of Holland ; for which reason this money cannot be pay able. The way in which the Auditor of the Exchequer was at length pre vailed on pay this money, is a matter of no little conse quence in our consideration of the question. He submit ted that he could not pay the money, unless others in a higher situation than himself would take tile responsi bility, and likewise obtain the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. It appears from what has subsequemly taken place in this House, that the Ministers, under this difficulty, once more applied to the law officers of the Crown, and on the 24th of January obtained their opi nion, on the admission that the separation between the two countries had taken pl ice ; that opinion was, that under the law as it then stood, the Auditor of the Exchequer was authorized (and if authorized, of courae bound) to pay the money required. The Auditor in consequence wrote a letter, which in my opinion was highly becoming of his character and station, in which lie submitted himself under those circum stances to the direction of the Lords of the Treasury; but at the same time OA c ire to make it understood, that the payment was not in accordance with his own opinion.—( Hear, hear.) On this occurs the question— is it possible that the law officers of the Crown, who n giving this last opinion, could have sern this new conven tion, and read its preamble, which I have already stated to the House?—(Hear, bear.) I do not hesitate at once to ask the Hon. and Learned Gentleman whether, in giving this opinion, he was aware that his Majesty's Ministers had solemnly declared that an agreement 'lid not exist between the letter and the spirit of the former convention ? —(Hear, hear.) There is also another part of the ques tion which has been kept entirely in the dark. I should like to know whether the negotiators on the part of Rus sia were put in possession of the other part of the story.-- (Hear, hear.) I should like to know whether, when they agreed that the Government should submit this question to the reconsideration of the Parliament, they were aware that the Ministers were already in possession of the high est legal authorities that such reconsideration was altoge they unnecessary..(Cheers.) I am sure that if the Ilus• slap. negotiators had been aware of this, they would at once have said—" No ; by those legal opinions you are bound to pay us; and therefore we will not consent to any Parli amentary proceeding on the subject."—(Cheers.) But I proceed with the further facts of the case. Two days after this occurrence followed the debate of this House. In the whole course of that debate, the Governmerr, took one broad, plain, standard course of argument. They admitted the whole of the facts. They at once said, " The reparation has taken place; but we nevertheless con . tend that we were right in issuing the money ;" and the prig - eipal ground relied on tar this argument was the expressed opinion of the law officers of the Crown. But the House cannot help recollecting, that in the whole of that discus :shin not one word was said about a new Convention (hear)—there was not a syllable of a hint of such a thing. (Cheers.) It has, however, been talked of abundantly since ; but then we have been carefully reminded that at such and such a time it was not ratified.—(Hear.) It was not, how ever, until after that debate that we were told that a new convention would be necessary : if Ministers wished to deal ingenuously with the House, why did they not tell us so at once ?—(Cheers.) And if they had told us so, does any man doubt that the House would have called for a suspension of the proceedings until the new convention was laid on the table ? It has, I know, been argued that the separation, though completed by an act of Great Britain, was not completed by an act of Russia ; and that, there fore, though we were bound to the separation, Russia was n ,t. But surely this argument places the Ministers in a state of no little inconaistency. They had before urged that the convention was foun ded on this doctrine—that the Emperor of Russia was bound, by the spirit of this en eaaement, to follow the policy and wishes of the King of Great Britain ; and where, therefore, would they lead us by this other doctrine ? On the one hand, they say that the Emperor of Russia is bound to accede to the separa tion ; and on the other, they tell us, that because he has not acceded to the separation, he is entitled to the payment of this money.—(hear, hear.) I do trust, however, that the House will never consent to put the payment of public money on such a frivolous and unsound pretence.— (Cheers.) If this argument is to do as a justification, we may as well in future have no argument at all; for I really think that this is worse than none. If I may use a vulgar phrase, it is something like " Heads, I win ; you lose !" It was, however, shortly after this that the truth began to ooze out. The Noble Lord, in anew. r to a question from the Hon. Member for Worcester, stated to the House that a now convention, in point of form, would he required. In point of form I—l beg the House no mark—that was the phrase of the Noble Lord.— (Cheers.) In answer to the statement, my Hon. and Learned Friend who now sits near me rose for the pur pose of pointing out the inconsistency of the Government, and observed—" Then you will want a new Act of Par liament: you have been doing that which is illegal, and you will want an Act of Indemnity!"—" On, no!" said the Noble Lord ; and he seemed quite suprised at my Bon. and Learned Friend venturing to make such a supposi tion. And when further pressed on the subject, the Noble Lord remarked—" I said nothing about the necessity of an Act of Parliament. I only said that the ac tual separation of Belgium from Holland had so altered the relative position of the contracting parties that a new Convention, in point of form, was necessary." Here, I then, again the Noble Lord led the House to believe that an Act of Parliament would lie unnecessary—and at the very time, too, when he bad a treaty signed for three months, in his pocket, which bound him to come to Par liament for an Act, and which recognised the fact that the King of Great Britain could not proceed without so cool ing to Parliament.—(Cheers.) After this intimation had been again conveyed to us, that HO Act of Parliament would be necessary, the subject remained in abeyance from the beginning of February till the beginning of June ; then, at length, the secret was fully divulged to the House. Then, at length, we were told a new Convention was in progress; and this important fact was added—that till the convention was laid before the House, and Parliament had sanctioned it, the further payments on accaunt of the Russian Dutch Loan would be suspended. In the pro priety of that suspension I most entirely concur ; but as by the Ministers did not pursue the same course in January is a matter which they still have to explain to the House. --(Hear, hear.) They still have to show why the prin ciple which applies to the payments in July, did not also apply to the payment in January.—(Hear, hear.) It is fitting that I should state that we have other documents connected with this subject lying on the table ot the House. The agents for the Russian Loan called on the Govern ment in May last to make good the payment due from them in regular course on the Ist of July. To this the proper officer replied, " I am commanded by the Lords of the Treasury to acquaint you, that a new convention tea burn entered into with the Emperor of Russia consequent 03 the change in the circumstances of the case relative to the payment on the part of Great Britain of her portion of the loan. Should the Parliament consider that this COLVt:U.. lion ought to be acted on, and its ratification duly arrive from Russia, the payment will be made as usual ; but till the sanction of the Parliament has been obtained, the Government has no authority to make the payment."— ( Hear, hear.) In the terms of this letter I quite agree; but what I wish to do is to contrast this very proper lette with their former acquiescence, to pry--(hear)—nay not only with their acquiescence, but with the actual compulsion on the Auditor of the Exchequer to make lion nay.—(Cheery.) Let us recollect, also, that this Conven t on noas actually two months old when the fulnaimtory Idecree was issued to the Authies of the Exchequer—and although it !nay be said that, thoueli signed, it was not ratified, neither was it citified in this other instance; that, as far as that goe=, the facts of the case are pre cisely the same.—([Tear, hear.) In the course of this debate we must never lose sight of the fact, that it is the conduct of the Ministers in January last that is really on der our consideration ; and I therefore entreat the House to read these documents, and then decide whether the doctrine they have now propounded is not a complete condemnation of what they did in January last.— (Cheers.) I do not know by what subtlety of argument these facts can be stated differently. I most sincere!y b lieve that I have laid them before the House in a plain and straight-forward manner; and I do not see how the Go vernment is to avoid the conclusion to which every un prejudiced mind must come. With these facts before us, and with this new evidence proceeding from the Government itself, I call on the House to reconsider that judgment which it formerly gave in the abseece of these facts, though at that very moment they were all in the pockets of the Ministers. The effect of the resolution which I slisll take the liberty of put ting in your hand, Sir, is to repeat in substance what I as serted on the former occasion respecting the facts which render the first convention null and void, and in addition thereto to refer the House to that knowledge of facts which have since been revealed to Parliament, arid once more to call the 'Lease to pronounce its judgment on the payment that was nettle in TIMM y last. I can assure the House, that I should not again have core forward on this subject but for the deep sense which I have of the obliga tion which rests on nie of obtaining the solemn judgment o f the House on the facts of the case, as they now appear to the public.—( Hear, hear.) It is this sense of obliga tion which makes me ask the Parliament whether we are entirely to sink this which I can call by no other name than a flagrant transgression of duty on the part of the Government ? It is this sense of obligation which in ekes me-ask the house whether they think that our honour, as the'guardians of the public purse—that our character as regards the due execution of the interests of the nation, are of less importance than the question of any issue of money, whatever may be its amount. If, inde;(l, they do think so, all I can say is, that I feel bound by my duty —humbly, hut most decidedly—to differ entirely from them.—(Hear.) If there are asy grounds to justify the conduct of the Government in this infraction of the law, I shall be glad to hear them ; if policy has required them to abstain from suspending the payment of this interest, let them make out that case of policy, and ask for an indemnity for what they have done; but if the indem nity be warranted upon a consideration of all the par ticulars of this transaction, I must confess that it seems to me that such an indemnity is wanted. I feel confident that those who voted with me on the former occasion, which I beg leave to observe was not a division of a p arty, —(Hear, hear)—so many Hon. Members quite indepen dent of any party joining with me in the division, I say , that I f-el confident that those who voted with me on that occasion, must, a fortiori, vote with me now, strength ened as the circumstances have been by what h is since come to our knowledge. The resolution which I shall move, is an amendment on that proposed by the Noble Lord, and is to the following effect :—" That it appears to this House that the payment made by the Commission ers of the Treasury on account of the interest due by Russia on the loan made by Holland in January last, when the obligation and authority to make .ens such pay ment, had, according to the terms of the convention of 1815, and the Act of Parliament founded thereon, closed and determined ; and also when a new convention, not then communicated to this House, had been entered into recognizing the necessity of recurring to Parliament for the power of continuing such payment under the circumstan ces attending the separation that had taken it out of the case of the convention, was an application of money not warranted by law." Dr. LUSHINGTON—Though I have listened to the Right Hon. Gentleman with great attention, I have ex perienced no small degree of astonishment at the length at which he has found himself able to address the House. on a question that has been before so completely exhausted. —('Hear, and a laugh.) In doing so, he has exhibited no little industry in the digest he has made of arguments previously delivered—a digest, which only the interest he takes in the subject, and the ability which he pc,ssesse-, would have enabled him to frame. But I am of opinon that this question has been once before substantially d:- eided, anti that if the circumstances which have occurred since ceuld have been the subject of our previous delibera tion, those circumstances would rather confirm the opinion we formerly expressed, than produce any alteration in our recorded sentiments.—(Hear, bear ) I think the question resolves itself into two points. The first is, whether or not, according to the faith of treaties which Great Britain has entered into with Russia, we are hound • to pay the sums stipulated in the treaty of 1815, and whether we are compelled to do so according to the true construction of that treaty ? or, on the other hand, whether such a change has taken place in the relations of the Great Powers of Europe, such an alteration in the state of nations as being contemplated by the parties, was, according to the true intent and purpose of those parties, such a change that the payment should cease when those occurrences took place? That is an important question; but there is another which chiefly occupied the at tention of the Right Hon. Gentleman, namely—whether according to the letter of the treaty, and the Act of Par liament founded thereon, the Government could make this payment without acting contrary to law ? I am prepared to contend, that according to the true construction of that treaty, the payment was fully warranted. Previously, however, to going into the argument, I beg to take the opportunity of stating that I have no disposition whatever to : construe a treaty more favourably for Russia than the strictest rules of construction would warrant. I am no admirer of the policy of that nation. On the contrary, when I look to the course of her policy since 1815, and to the conduct she has pursued, and the violation of treaties of which she has been guilty, especially with regard to Poland, I entertain anything but a feeling of favour to wards her, and if there were any power in Europe which I would hold to the letter of the law, Russia should he that power. But whatever I think of the policy of Russia, however I deprecate the tyranny with which she has exer cised the power that she possessed, I never will condescend to gratify the detestation I feel of her political conduct, to violate the treaties which Great Britain has nrade with her, and thus to put a stain upon the honour of the British name.—(Loud cheering.) Under any tempta- • tion, however strong, under any provocation, however great, if the Government of this country, either from dis like to the policy of their predecessors, or from indignation at. the conduct of any European State, should ever, from the honourable wish to lead that State into a better system for the peace of Europe and the happiness of !man kind ; if ever, I say, even under then; circumstances, the Government should be for a moment led to violate the sacred faith of treaties, there is no man, be his foresight what it may, who can tell the evils that may ensue, for they are buried in the womb of time, and when you least expect them will rise up to afflict you with their worst persecution.—(Cheers.) You are sure to suffer the con sequences of your ill faith, and the powers of the world re membering your disregard of former obligations, will shun entering into treaties with you; and whatever may be the necessity that may oppress you, they will refuse to coalesce with you for any purl °sea of common advantage.— (Hear.) The treaty, the construction of which we are now discussing, was entered into sonic years ago ; it is not fur me to go now into the policy of that measure, to canvass its wisdom, or to cast a stain on the memcry of the Marquess of Londonderry. I will go further, and say, that if with their view of the interests of England, and the necessities of Europe, they entered into a contract, whatever may he my opinion, Ic_oncsideearr, bear.)thattheA faith iy of Great Britain is pledged by it. —(Hear, sentiments upon this subject must be very strong,—in holding that such a contract is binding upon this Go vernment, when I recollect that at the time they expressed the same sentiments with myself, as to the policy then pursued. I know too ,Sir, that at this time they are inte rested in diminishing, as mulch as possible, the burdens of the people ; they wish to do so—a wish which ought to he the first consideration of all Ministers, both with re spect to their own feelings, and with regard to th t e im ir e po t p hey e_ larity with the nation at large; but at the same feel, and I have no doubt that after a full discussion of the matter this House will agree with them, that this is an obligation which Russi.a has a right to enforce, anti which Great Britain is bound to fulfil. What are the circum stances under which this obligation was contracted ? Russia had at that time rendered important services to this country. At a period when the contest with Buonapare was still doubtful, Russia had, at our desire, engaged in it ; and we considered ourselves obliged to Russia for the part she had then taken, and we undertook to pay a por tion of the interest of a debt she bad then contracted. IVe made that interest part of the burden we then took upon ourselves, in consideration of what Russia had previously done ; for it was a mistake to say that we were to pay for what Russia was about to do—it was for what she had done ; we had received the consideration, and we under took to pay the interest of Russia's debt to Holland, as n. compensation for past services. At the same time, we imposed upon Russii the conditions for our own benefit, , which remain to be considered. I may refer to that ' treaty to show, that under the hands of the Ministers of that day the obligations we owed to Russia were acknow !edged, end that the stipulations they made were made in' consequence of those obligations. What are the word , of that treaty ? " His M .jesty the Ling of the Netherlands , being desirous, upon the final re•union of the Belgic Pro vinces, to render to the Allied Powers who were parties to the treaty concluded at Chaumont, on the Ist of March, 1811, a suitable return for the heavy expense incurred by them in delivering the said territories from the power . of the enemy." No man can doubt what was the meaning of those words, " the power of the enemy," or who seas the enemy alluded to. The whole treaty was framed with regal d to France, which was then deemed the enemy against whose encroachments it was proper to guard. " And the said Powers having, in consideration of arrangements made with each other, mutually agreed to wave their several pretentious under this head in favour of hie Majesty the Emperor of Ail the Hussies," the King of the Netherlands proceeded to execute the con- vention. Russia had before that time borrowed a sum of money which she had raised in Holland, and by the sti pulations of this treaty, the consideration for which was recognized in the m toner I have above stated, as it Was agreed that one half of that stun ofensnney should be borne by ti e kingdom of the Netherlands, and the other hal by the King of Great Britain. The most important article of that treaty is the sth, which is in the following words " It is hereby uncle, stood and agreed, that the said pay ments on the part of their Majesties the King of the Ne therlands and the King of Britain as aforesaid, shall cease and determine, should the possession and sovereignty of the provinces at any time pass or be severed from the dominh.ns of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands pre vious to the cotnplete liquidation of the same." In the first place, I ask, what is the nature of that stipulation ? Is it nut a stipulation in favour Russia? Was it not then thought the most desirable object of the policy of Great Britain to secure the intervention of Russia against the sepatation of Holland, which, in the policy of that day, was considered the great bulwark against the power of France? It is a matter for consideration whether this stipulation was for the advantage of Russia, or in compli ance with the policy oil which Great Britain then acted. It was then considered a matter of impossibility that Great Britain could ever consent to a separation of Bel gium from Holland. Circumstances have now changed ; Great Britain has assisted in separating the two countries, and that brings us to the second point. Can any man con tend that if I make a stipulation upon the existence and the supposed continuance of a given set of circumstances, and I myself afterwards assist in altering those circulate stances, that I am no longer bound by that stipulation ? Put the question in another way. If Great Britain had excited the revolution in Belgium, would it nut have been utter fey in us to say to Russia, " You have entered into a condition for our benefit—we have prevented you from fulfilling that condition, and we have thus freed ourselves from performing the stipulations into which we entered with you ?" It is true that this has not been done by Great Britain;—then how did that revolution take place ? By the resistance of the Belgians, proceeding Fact sprite against the rule of Holland—by their resistance to the power and the control of that kingdom —hy their own energy and resolution; and by these alone have they achieved their own independence. How, then, does the obligation stand as between Russia and Great Britain ? Under these circumstances, what is Great Britain to do ? Is she to act upon her former policy, and to call upon Russia to resist, by force, the separation of the two countries? Is she to say to Russia, " You are bound, by the terms of this treaty, to march an army for the purpose of effecting the reduction of Belgium under Holland, and I call upon you to do so? Or has . she not already sa id, " I w ill not call on you to fulfil the condition which was made on my behalf, and in the furtheranc e of my t h en po li cy ; for my pol i cy is now changed, the circumstances of the world are changed, the situation of Europe is different, and that which I once believed was for the peace and happiness of Europe, I now believe, if again put into operation, would deluge the world with blood ; and it must be 'or the ad vantage of Europe that Belgium should remain an inde pendent power, notwithstanding the fear we once enter tained that she would, under such circumstances, become the dependant of France. I beg you, therefore, to hold your hand ; I am about to make a treaty guaranteeing the s-paretion -if Belgium and Holland, and I trust that you will become a contracting party in this treaty." Has not Great Britain held this language to Russia, and has not Russia acted on it? With what sense of honour then— with what sense of the sacredness of obligations can it be argued that it is consistent with the dignity of Great Britain so refu=e the payment of this loan ? Can we tell Russia that she has acquiesced in our wishes—that she has consented to our earnest request—and that for that acquiescence and that consent we shall mulct her in the sum of 1,800,0001. ?—( Hear, hear.) Had we done so, we should have incurred eternal disgrace, perpetual dishonour, and I should have been prepared to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman get up in his place with arguments which no sophistry could evade, and with a strength which truth would give him, to upbraid the Ministers not only for not treading in the footsteps of their predecessors, but for being poi ticians of so faithles a cast that the most sacred obligations were by them treated with contempt.--( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman has quoted Vette! ; but I must take the libel ty of telling him, that if he has read that great writer with no better profit than he seems to have done on this occa sion, lie has read to very little purpose; for the first and confine' rule which Vetted lays down for the construction of treaties, is the intention of the parties who made them ; and that where it is necessary to apply rules for the inter pretation of a treaty—as it is impossible that a treaty Ike another contract may not require interpretation —that you must look to the circumstances under wlrich it was made, and the relationship which the different contracting par ties bore to each other at that period.—(Hear, hear.) That is the true authority. If another rule of construe thin were adopted, the result would be, that, by the adherence to the letter, the spirit of the e ngagement would be violated ; and in s t ea d o f re lying on the fair, liberal, l and upright mode of con s t ruc tion tieing applied to a treaty', all diplomatic men would be was ting their tim e in attempting to provide for the future contingenciee— an attempt which would baffle the ability of the most foreseeing Statesman that ever lived. But says the Right Hon. Gentleman, look at the additienal treaty now on the table of the House, and you will find that the true meaning of the former treaty was a separation (le facto. I happen to hold that additional article in my hand, and the perusal of it satisfies me that the true intent and meaning of the parties was what I have stated. To prevent any mistake or any misunderstanding, it is stipu lated on the part of Russia that no temporary occupation, no invasion for a short period, should affect the payment of the loan ; nothing but an entire conquest, and a pos session not likely to he defeated, should deprive Russia of her right, That article speaks distinctly of " invasion by an enemy," and it was supposed that there might be an invasion by France, so suddenly effected, that Belgium would fall before it was possible for any State in Europe to come to her assistance. In that case, to provide against the supposition that the payment of the loan should cease, the article I have read was added. The construction of all these articles I maintain to be that which I have stated. Then we come to the Act of Par liament. I maintain that no construction has been put on that Act of Parliament which is not fully warranted by the words of the Act, and the terms of the treaty on which it is founded ; and that the law officers of the Crown were bound to advise Ministers that, under that Act, the payment of the money ought to be continued. But it is said here that there is a subsequent treaty. and that the law officers of the Crown acted as if that treaty was not under their consideration The Right Hon. Gentleman has little conception of the manner in which the law officers of the Crown have to perform their duty When he makes such an observation. If any of these law officers of the Crown had been asked for his con etruction of the Act of Parliament, he would not tl his duty if he allowed his opinion to be changed by anything that the Government haul done since that Act was passed. —(Hear, hear.) But I must inform the Right Hon. Gentleman of a fact of which he seems to he ignorant, namely, that the opinions of the law officers of the Crown were not only those of the Attorney and Solicitor- General, but of his 'Majesty's Advocate-General, who•e ability to decide on such questions no one will doubt, and of morose perfect independence all must be thoroughly con vinced. There is no consideration whatever of the parti cular policy of a Government on one side or the other that could shake or in the least degree alter the opinien which that Learned Gentleman would form ; and in saying this, I beg it to be remembered that I t n speaking of an individual whose political opinions are certainly not :in favour of the existing Govern ment.—(Hear, hear.) It is then said that the Go vernment had repudiated the treaty of 1815 by that of 1831. What are the words of this latter treaty ? " Their Majesties the King of the United Kingdom of Great Bri tain and Ireland, and the Emperor of all the Russias, con sidering that the events which have occurred in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, since 1830, have rendered it necessary that the Courts of Great Britain and Russia should examine the stipulations of their conventioi , as swell as of th e a dditi ona l arti clesolering that suc h exam ination ohfastahlneedneitllli:e(tihttahveolarehYtio 1815,gh;o contracting cn parties to the couclusiolo that complete agreement dues not exist between the letter . and the spirit of that convention, when regarded in con, nexion With the circumstances which have attended tbe separation that h is taken place between the two principal divisions of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands ; but that, on referring to the object of the above•mentiancel convention of the 19th of May, 1815, it appears that that object was to afford to Great Britain a guarantee that Ros• via would, on all questions concerning Belgium, identify her policy with that which the Caurt of London had deemed the best adapted for the maintenance of a just balance of power Lin Europe ; and, on the other hand, to secure to Russia the payment of a portion of her old Dutch debt, in consideration of the general arr ments of the Congress of Vienna, to which she had given her adhesion—arrangements which remit'n in full force." Does not this paper show that the objects of Great Britain are the same, though those objects are to be accomplished by different means? I consider the treaty now laid upon the table as in fact providing, by a different method, for the attain ment of the same end—namely, the preservation of the peice of Europe—which it was formerly thought could only he obtained by uniting Belgium and Holland as a barrier to the power of France, and which it is now seen is best to be accomplished by allowing one of these coun tries to be independent of the other. But then, says th•• Right lion. Gentleman—" You have not made the pay ment in June, as you made it in January, and that shows that you do riot think yourselves hound to continue the payment." The difference is occasioned by this circum stance :—A new treaty has since been ratified between these two parties, and all future payments will beitnade un der that treaty, and must consequently lie made after the sanction of the House. But than the Right Hon. Gen• ticmen may say—why enter into such a treaty if you thought yourselves justified under the tertns of the former ? —( Hear, hear.) Why, for this reason ; that circumstances have changed, arid that the Ministry, foreseeing they might have to deal with the mind of a Statesman of such extraordinary discrimination as that of the Right lion. Gentleman, might think proper to prepare far such an event ; and then to call on the House to give, by their sanction to this treaty, their approval of the construction of that which hail preceded it.—(Hear.) The flight Honourable Gentleman says, that Minis ters were not authorized by the Act to make those pay ments; but if he will consult the Act again, he will find that a true interpretation of its terms does justify them.— (Hear, hear.) The people of England are too good a people, too honourable and well-principled a people, to desire that Government should relieve them from a pay ment which prior stipulations had unfortunately fixed upon them, and from which they could only be relieved at the expense of the dignity of the Crown and of the na tional honour.—(Cheers.) The Right lion. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herries), in the course of his speech, endea voured to raise prejudice in the opinion of their consti tuents, at the next election, against those Members who support the proposition of the Noble Lord (Althorp); and he called upon Gentlemen around hint to resist that pro position, under the pretence of guarding the money of the people.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, the people will see through this flimsy, vain pretence.—(Hear, bear.) They will look rather to the persevering exertions in which the public lives of those gentlemen, and their friends have been passed, to diminish economy, than to their vain professions of a desire to diminish expense.— (Loud cheers.) The Right Honourable Gentleman has appealed to those Members, who, although generally supporting the measures of his Majesty's Govern ment, voted against the payment of this loan, when the question was last before the House; and he has called on them to maintain their consistency by now voting upon this amendment. But, Sir, those Hon. Members will, I trust, consider the altered circumstances under Which the question now cornea before us.—(Hear.) They will look to the additional treaty since entered into, and to the se cretew a h n a d ve t t h aen they will ffindth th t ey ie that and trai tors to their constituents if they voted with the Right ;alt)1! e arc e confirm almost the views Hon. Member for Harwich.—( Hear, hear.) I have now, Sir, gone over, according to my feeble powers as an ad vocate—(Cheers)—the leading circumstances of this case, by which I conceive Ministers to he justified in the course which they have adopted; and I trust they have demon strated to every candid mind that they could be interpreted so as to warrant the cessation of this payment, only by a wilful misconstruction.—(Vehement cheering, and cries of Order.) If Hon. Gentlemen will allow me to finish my sentence without interruption, they will find that I ' am not out of order, and that I cast imputations upon no one.-(Order, order.) Mr. HERRIES would not have interrupted the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, but that he hail, in the earlier part of his speech, used very unparliamentary language in reference to him.—(Bear.) Dr. LUSHINGTON made some explanation which did not reach the gallery. He was understood to say, that he would give any reasonable satisfaction to any Hon. Member who might suppose that he had intended to offend him. He did not think that the language which lie had used in reference to the arguments of the Right lion. Gentleman was unparliamentary or offensive.—(Hear, hear.) For his part, he only meant to say that the argu ments were sophistical and ingenious.—(A laugh.) Mr. HERRIES—WiIfuI misconcaption.—(Hear.) Dr. LUSHINGTGN would still say that, in his opi nion, nothing short of the words misconstruction and perverted ingenuity could be applied to the arguments upon which the opposition to the present motion was sup ported.—(Cheers.) He had a right to say that the arguments of the Right lion. Member for Harwich were the offspring of perverted ingenuity—(Cheers)--if he had not a right to say so, then there was an _end to freedom of debate in that House.—(Hear, hear.) He would not occupy the time of the House further—(Hear)--and would only repeat, that the construction which Ministers had put upon the treaty of 1815 was the only sound one. —Vile Hon. and Learned Gentleman, at the conclusion of his speech, was loudly cheered by both sides of the Ileuse.] Mr. A. BARING said, that the speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Lushington) was undoubtedly ingenious, and abounded in pleasing declama tion; hut it left the question before the House just as it was before. Nothing which had been done since January last altered the position in which Ministers had placed themselves, by continuing the payments to Russia after the separation of Belgium from Holland. The case was so strong—the violation of the law was so obvious—and, in his opinion, so unquestionable—that he was surprised that a man of the Noble Lord's (Lord Althorp's) charac , ter for manliness and candour, did not come down at once straightly and honestly, to ask for a Bill of Intlein nity.—(Cheers.) That was the course which, in his judgment, would have become the Noble Lord's charac ter; and he was therefore surprised to see the Noble Lord, instead of adopting such a course, come down and say to his friends in that House, that if they did not sup port him in his proposition that night, he must go out of , office --(Cheers.) The Noble Lord roust have felt himself pushed hard for arguments, to convince his friends of thel justice of his case, when he thought it necessary to ad dress them in that way.—(Hear, hear.) The lion. and Learned Gentleman, who showed himself —not, as he said, feeble advocate, but, in fact, a very z.alous and ingenious advocate of the Ministers—did as all professional gentle man do in advocating a weak cause,—(A laugh)—and suppressed all the facts which were adverse to his client'. —(Hear, hear.)—But the Hon. and Learned Gentleman did not lose the opportunity of addressing part of his speech to the Tower Hamlets.—(Hear, and laughter.) For his part, although an enemy to the system of exacting pledges from Members of the House of Commons, yet, if he had voted for the grant of money for those payments to Russia, he would feel bound to give a satisfactory explanation of his reasons to his constituents at the hustings.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushing ton) had misrepresented the treaty. It contained no men tion of France. It arose out of circumstances in which but the three Powers—England, Russia, and Holland— were concerned. England was indebted to Holland, and the latter was indebted to Russia. At the close of the war the Government of England, wishing to retain the Dutch colonies, the Cape of Good Hope, Essequibo, De merara, and Berbice, of which we had obtained possession during the war, induced Holland to cede those colonies to her, upon the payment of certain sums of money which were afterwards to be determined by Commis sioners of the respective Governments. Now, Holland being indebted to the Emperor of Russia fifty millions of florins, which was the proportion of the expenses of the war assessed upon the former State, as one of the lesser cmh osnee y o that h e was o i d o u n e i e t s o ; I t i h o i l s l attl conditionh y this b c e i o n u g n tray,: annexe, that Powers, it was agreed that England should pay to Russi the pur that the payments should cease if Belgium should be se parated from Holland. The reason of the condition was obvious—it was only because Holland possessed the large territory including the Dutch and Belgian provinces, that she was subjected, by the ass essmen t, to so h eav y a t a x ; and it would be unjust that wh en s h e cease d t o p ossess th e me ans of paying the imp ost , it ea r s h . u continue t i wordsnue to of f e ti, ex actedthe front her.__(ll ear , h treaty were simply, that " the p tyments shall cease and determine, should the possession and sovereignty of the Belgic provinces at any time pass away, or be severed from the dominions of the King of the Netherlands, previous to the complete liquidation of the same." If it were-I, really the sole purpose of the contracting parties to guard ! against the aggression of France, the treaty would ' . ll have said se ; hut the most comprehensive term ! teen used to express their meaning, that the p iy ments should only be made whilst the King of I land possessed the extended territory, and sleoild cease and determine when that territory became di minished, by the sovereignty and possession of Belgium passing away in any manner from his dorninion.—(Heat• ) Those provinces had passed away from his dominion, tot! he had accordingly ceased to make the payments.--(llear, hear.) Why, then, had we continued them ? We realty owed nothing to Russia—we had been paying a de`a f Holland to Russia, and we were under no liability frem which Holland was exempt.—(Hear.) if there was any justice in the world, it must be acknowledged that, if the money be now due to any party by us, it was to llui land we owed it.—(Hear, hear.) The King of Holland, being the party wao gave to England the equivalent for the money which we undertook to pay for hint to Russia, had a double tight to be made a party to the continued payment, end to be consulted as to what was to b, done with the money, now that Russia's claim to it, under the treaty, had clearly terminated.—(Cheers.) He (lid not mean to say that the claim of Holland upon this country was not terminated at the same time. It could not now be said to us that we must not have the colonies and the money too.—(Hear.) For we bought the colonies front a party who sold them on a political contingency, which had turned against him ; and by the very conditions of the sale, his right to demand further payment no longer ex's - ed. Be (Mr, Barin) had been this morning very much struck by a passage pointed out to him in a report of a speech delivered at a dinner yesterday by the Noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government. He knew that the accuracy of newspaper reports was not to be idled on ; but as the parer from which he was about to quote was known to be favourable to Government, it would nut be supposed that the reporter had intentionally misrepre sented Lord Grey. He (Mr. Baring) knew, from what he had heard from tie Gentleman who pointed out the speech to his notice, that the expressions of the Noble Earl had given rise to very great alarm. The Noble Earl was reporte i to have said, after some c ommonplaces—(Hear, and laughter)—that " he hoped that all the united bles sings of peace and liberty would fal upon the city of London. Still he would not hide from the meeting that there never was a time in which it was more important that the people of England should assume a firm and imposing attitude. There were many questions of foreign policy, of first-rate importance,still undecided."—(Cheers.) Now, if such expressions had fallen from any young man in the heat of a debate, or in the excitement of a public meeting, he should not have been surprised ; hut when a person of the high character and known discretion of Lord Grey spoke in that way, he looked upon the words as conveying a very important meaning.—(Cheers.) When he coupled that with the fact that the Lord Privy Seal had lately been sent to Petersburgh—nobody knew for what— (Hear)—he could not imagine that the people were called upon to assume an imposing attitude to overawe the opponents of the Ministers.—(Laughter.) He was quite sure that Earl Grey would not use language so offensive. It seemed to him, therefore, that those ex • pressions could only refer to the Belgian question. It was too much that the House should be called on to sanction a new treaty with Russia, for the payment of the debt which had now cased to be owing, at the moment when the head of the Government thinks it necessary to call upon the people of England to assume a firm and imposing attitude, respecting " questions of foreign policy of first rate importance, anti still undecided."—(Cheers.) At leas', under such circumstances, the House should first be informed of the actual state of our relations with the two Powers—Holland and Russia—who were parties to the former treaty. By the stipulations of that treaty, our obligations to continue the payment had terminated, and the Mitisters had made out no case to show that it ought to be renewed.—( Cheers.) Colonel DAVIES could not give his support to the re solutions moved by the Right Hen. Member for Harwich as an Amendment to the proposition of the Noble Lord, (Althorp.) The treaty into which the Ministers had found it necessary to enter, since they made the first pay ment to Russia, after the separation of Belgium from Holland, showed that they did not feel themselves justi fied in having made that payment. He must protest against that doctrine laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which he affirmed, that if a vote of censure were pronounced against the Government, or any impedi ment thrown in the way of any liquidation of that debt, that then the inevitable consequence must be the resigna tMo of that Government. He really conceived it impos sible to broach any doctrine more incapable of heir g rationally maintained ; and he must say that he did not think that the Noble Lord was fairly dealing with the House in using such means for procuring their consent to the positions f r which the Noble Lord and his friends were contend ng. It by no means foliowe lin these times as a matter of necessity that Ministers were to go out because they occasionally found themselves in a minority. He had no doubt in a reformed Parlia ment they would often find themselves in a minority. The question before them divested of its legal subtilities, was a question which a child might answer, and no one could answer it otherwise than by declaring that the payments must cease and determine so soon as the tw o countries became separated. But there was another question—was it right, or prudent, or just, in the pre sent condition of the revenue, to think of continuing such a payment ? and was it consistent in a Government composed of men, who out of office were constantly de claiming against extravagance, to set an example them selves of such a wanton anti gratuitous waste of public money ? And last of all, was there any consistency to be found in the conduct of a Government so acting, when the most eloquent speech delivered against these payments at the time the question was first mooted, was the speech delivered by Lord Grey himself. Mr. MACAULAY, as he could hope to adtl nothing to the unanswerable and admirable speech of his Noble Ft lend, should only occupy the attention of the House for a few minutes, for such, he was sure, was the effect of that persuasive and convincing statement, that it was al most unnecessary for any one else to make the slightest at tempt to augment the force of his arguments, or to add to their number. Ile could have wished that the conduct to be pursued, by the Gallant Officer who had last addressed the House were to be the direct reverse to that he had an nounced himself it would be, and that on the vote of cell sure upon the Government he should vote against them ; and in that respecting the violation of national faith, he should be with them. It was of little importance by whom the affairs of the country were administered, lint it was of the deepest moment that the national honour should be preserved inviolate. Considering that upon this subj et hung the national faith and honour of England, he con leased it did in the highest degree astonish nim that Hon. Members should think of introducing topics which had not the slightest relation to such a subject. If we we re hound by the solemn obligations of a mutual compact, of what importance to us was the general condo t of the Monarch with whom that compact might have b sen con tracted ? Were we at full liberty to enter into as many treaties as we pleased with all the Monarchs of the world, and yet keep faith only with those who proved to be mer ciful, liberal, and constitutional rulers? We entered into treaties with the Burmese and Siamese Governments, and were we to require of them that they should conform their respective principles of Government to that which we con ceived might be suitable and becoming as between them and their subjects? Colonel DAVIES—No, no. _ _ Mr. MACAULAY resumed—Why the Hon. and Gal lant Member talked as if we paid tribute to Russia. On what ground else did he speak of economy ? To exercise economy in a case of this description, the payment must be optional, for he had rot yet heard anybody rise in the House and say that economy was to be preserved at the expence of national honour. If the common sense inter pretation of the treaty called upon this country for its exe cution, the Hon. and Gallant Member might as well call upon them to economize by a reduction of the Three per Cents., or non-payment of Exchequer Bills.—(Loud cheers.) The question which they were then engaged in debating naturally divided itself into tw o p ar ts. 'the firs , was, whether or not th e coun t ry was h oun d, by the most obvious principles of public faith, to continue these p a y meats? secondly, did G overnmen t act illegally in con tinning them without obtaining a new Act of Parliament for the purpose? All the Hon. Members who spoke upon the other side professed to pursue the object of keeping these questions perfectly distinct; and yet it, strangely enough, happened that the re was not one amongst them who did not mix b oth these topics ; and that confusion of those ques tions was strikingly conspi clloll9 where Vattel was referred to. Referring to the treaty of 1515, he must admit, that if they ex amined the letter of that treaty, they would find that the proviso had arisen, and that we were absolved from the l i on .) Yes, according to the letter of the tr eaty we were to the letter we migh t be absolved; but were they payment of the debt.—(Loud cheers from the Upposi absolved.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial side .) Av . cordingnow be told fur the first time, that the foreign policv of this great and renowned country was to be govermr by such pettifogging rules of construction wliich were en 1111- elated from the other side ?— (Loud and continued cheer jog.) Princip l e s su c h as those ware never meant in au l i I n t g r y the to appliedb p e eue o r the to fatsth constructionof nations . Reference, of corn - pacts of present arg umen t, h a d been made to afp,ga,rectstoiriaeffe:pcaut the opinions of Jurists ; but, he knew enough of Jurists to know that they were the most convenient authorities that could in any case be referred to for the purposes of such a debate as the present. In the early ages of the Church, the Fathers were frequently quoted, and many of them so frequently to serve opposite ends, that it became a pro verb, that you might apply to the F ethers and obtain their authority in support of either side of almost any question.--(Cheers.) If they adopted the rule of literal construction, there must be an end of all that had heretofore been considered the faith of treaties. Hon. Members on the other side had spoken much and emphatically of the authorities which they had plated in support of their respective opinions ; but he would call their attention to one authority which few amongst them would be disposed to dispute—he menet the authority of the Duke of Wellington. One of the great conventions to which he was a potty bore dete in the same year with that which they were then discussing. It related to the entrance of the aided armies into Paris in 1815. By the convention it was strictly stipulated that all public property other than military stores should he respected ; and it was further agreed, that if any doubt should arise respecting the coo btruction of any part of that convention, it should be con strued favourably to the city of Paris, yet all the pictures of the Louvre were removed. The people of France held up the letter of the treaty, and assisted that the works of art of which Napoleon had despoiled the notions of Europe should still remain within the French capital ; but they were reetoreel to their original possessors, and the British nation and all Europe approved the act, for it was under steed at the time of signing the convention that the pictures at the Louvre were to be restored. There was an understanding that an exception hail been made in respect of them particularly. He was aware it might be alleged that the rules of construction required, that when any exception whatever was specified, none other ceuld be introduced or added ; but let the House only look to the circumstances of 1815—look to that very convention in which the Duke of \Vellingtoh himself was concerned. The treaties entered into at the period when what was called the settlement of Europe hat been effected were directed to objects which could not from their very nature be long maintained ; but was the pe cuniary part of those treaties to be, therefore, set at nought by a people calling themselves free, liberal, and en lightened? The treaties of that period could certainly ac complish no object of a permanent kind, for these Govern ments thought but of their brother Governments, and no thing of the nations. In all their partitions they looked to making up compact states—they looked to nothing beyond the convenient frontiers which an acquaintance with the state supplied—they attended not to the national charac ters, habits, feelings, religion, morals of the several na tions whose fates they presumed to decide ; and what beter proof could be supplied than that very plausible but hollow union of Holland and Belgium supplied ? Hut though in those various points of policy England had failed, that failure, so far from furnishing an argument in support of breach of pecuniary faith, had quite an opposite o ndency. It was well known that Russia was averse front the union between Holland and Belgium ; and as a means of reconciling the Court of St. Petershurgh, the payment of the debt due by Holland was guaranteed by England.—(Cries of " No, no.") He certainly under s oed, and believed lie could show from good autho rity, that Rus.da was opposed to that union—it was stated at the time—he could show it had been recorded—it had been stated in that House that, in 1815, Russia was averse front the union ; the treaty was concluded under that view, and with the express object and intention of inducing Russia to accede to it; and in order to prevent Russia hiving an interest in disturbing that union, the p:tytnente were made to depend upon its continuance. The period fixed for the determination of those payments was the dissolution of the union, not because there was any natural connexion between the two, but because it was from Russia that danger was cniefly apprehended. If looked at iti that view, the treaty was intelligible, in any ether it had no meaning.—(Hear, hear, hear.) S nee that period the policy both of Engl.nd and Russia had changed. Russia, however averseehe might originally have been to the union, was still more averse from the means by which the separation was brought about ; whereas England did net oppose that separation, nay, did eventually sanc tion and support it ; and was England then to say to Russia, " You did not frustrate my wishes with re spect to Belgium, and I will now take advantage of the separation which I promoted, and which you might have prevented, but did not, in order to evade pey ments which literally, though not according to the spirit of the treaty, were made to depend upon the continuance of the union."—( Loud cheers.) He had co difficulty, then, upon grounds such as these, broadly and roundly to assert that Government had deserved well of the country, and therefore he paid but little attention :o the taunts corning from tl e other side, about the diffi culty that Members might have in facing their constitu ents, after voting in favour of a continuance of those pay ments. For his part, he should have no difficulty in de fending such a vote before any constituent body in the empire; for the people of England had long shown that they knew and felt there was a fixed identity in the State —that public and private morels were the same—that honesty was the best policy—(Cheers)—and they believe - I that to pay what they owed was the truest economy— that tire State could not be guilty of a breach of faith in one instance without bringing suspicion on all its engage ments, and thus reducing itself to a situation at once dis graceful and perilous, putting to hazard that peace through out Europe now happily so long preserved--a peace, in the continuance of which every artisan, every ploughman, every shopkeeper in the land knew that he was deeply in terested ; and he need not say, that to preserve peaces patine faith must be maintained inviolably. Upon these principles, Members of Parliament might go before the people of England—upon these principles Members of • Parliament might be willing to act, and content to suffer. —(Loud and continued cheering.) Sir C. WETHERELL contended, that the dsbt was ' one to which England was not liable on her own accounts nor as guarantee on behalf of another. The Attorney.- General had good reason to complain of the gross dupe ry practised upon him, since Ministers had required him to assert that the payment was valid under the treaty of 1815, while they kept him in total ignorance of the treaty of 1831. Had he (Sir C. Wetherell) been the chief law officer of the Crown, under such circumstances he should have called upon the Cabinet to look out for another Attorney-General.—(Hear,) The Hon. Mein her for Caine had asserted, that on this question he should not tear being catechised by his constituents: the tor-General was to be a candidate for the representation of Alarlsebone; and he (Sir C. W.) would much like to hear him catechised on this point when be presented him self on the hustings. In order to exonerate himself he must charge the Noble Foreign Secretary with more than political duplicity, in c mfronting the law by a new treaty , which showed that the opinions of the Attorney and Ste' licitor-General were the merest trash in the world.---t (Hear.) The whole House haul also b ten the victims °' the deception ; for why had the Noble Lord so studiously forborne all mention of the supplemental treaty, which at last only accidentally found its way from Downing-stree t to the table ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, ha d tre rted the whole matter as briefly and as slightly as 1 the question were only on the fitness of imposing a dory cider,pe supportersr r c ot . o rn f u a rn f . t . r t i L n a g u n g I t t e a r l . fp ) e n h per er p r g o a p l l o o s n e r u s p a o d the amendment had been, over and over again, charged 0 0 . _ spoliators. He (Sir C. W.) denie d tha t this amendm ent had been postponed for election purposes; the discussion had been cunningly conducted on th e other side, and that asssrtion hed ‘v ic ie e n n t a h r a t t fu H lly on. m G n e adee; u and gave Ministers meal for their tnalt, notwithstandi n g the be b principles charged b y t h e H on m e mber For Caine. s Gentleman na t nh said a threw that it h b n c s t g: was the withhol din g of necessary dosurnents?—(Chee ll “ j , ot pettifoggingetpcoicy, did he m ean to apply the maxim to steps, in fact, had Mi n i sters ta k en upon t his s° ti les t that were consistent with honesty ? Had they des h o nestly by the peopl e ? • N o. Had they dealt laone' o i try the Emperor of R uss i a ? No. Had they dealt D o , nestly by Holl an d ? No. Had they dealt honestly 1 1 House? No, Had they dealt honestly even by their t ° l,o Attorney and Solicitor-General? No. Where ,thip g was their vaunted virtue ?or rather did not ever n , h i trut-Z shots that what they called honesty was, i n g.) disgraceful diplomatic duplicity 2--(Loud ewer _ lv The only question really was, whether the ney was due under the treaty ; and the o pinion Warn 9 in 3A , delibly fixed in his mind that the payment already in " a was illessal, and at all events Ministers were bound tryst guardian of the national honour. It ever a Govern had stood self-convicted And self-condemned, it was toe oresent. Their own treaty contained their own c on_ 01 : 11.. doubtful case to take the opinion of P a rliament as the rn ti e ti t of duplicity and dishonesty. The Hon. Member for be chester (Dr. Lushington) bad been complimented nan I, l_ . lion. Member for Caine (Mr. Alacauley), on his . u n ewerable speech. Unanswerable it certainly was _ i d w as souse, since it contained nothing to be answered, n at least on the side it was intended to advocate. The I .00, and Learned Gentleman had blinked the whole (In est . l o , ,chick was whether, extrinsic of the treaty, to his (Sir C. W.'s) mind the very reverse of conavinflioT thete_ _" eat istringent claim for this money upon the honour Li r and Caine hall omitted to advert to the secret artic ,l " Britain ? He contended, that the Members for I°lc.b..7te.rf