The National Register.
London, England, 1816-02-11 00:00:00

ONAL 'MOISTER.

to the Prince Regent for a copy of the Treaty between Austria,
Russia. and Prussia, done at Paris on the 26th of Sept. 1815."
Lord CASTIAREAGH was convinced that the extent of the re-
marks made by the Hon. Gentleman would not make a serious
impression upon the House, or lead them to doubt the fidelity of
the allied Sovereigns. On former occasions doubts and prophecies
in that respect had been thrown out in that House which experi-
ence had shewn to be fallacious. The Noble Lord wished now to
put in a claim for the Sovereigns of Europe, who had so conducted
theuvtives through the negotiations that no separate or partial
interests !ad turned them aside--(Hear, hear.).—Was there any
. thing in their present conduct that should have induced the Hon.
Gentieeem to find out proofs from ancient history, to chew that
they are now going to degrade their characters, when they had so
lately given such strong proofs of their favour and regard for the
liberties of mankind?—(ileur, hear.)-114must beg, therefore, to
dissent from the sentiments of the Hon. Gentleman in respect to
any jealousy of them as to their ulterior designs. With respect to
the document, he was surprised that the Hon. Gentleman should
reason upon it, as having been concluded after the signing of the
grand Treaty, for the date implied, and in fact it was sighed two
months before, when a considerable difference existed as to the
mode of conducting the interests of Europe. Nor was the spirit
of the engagement between the allied Powers such as to induce
them to couceal it from Great Britain. They had a right to do it.
If they hat entered into a treaty contrary to the spirit of the en-
gagement, then a breach of confidence would be created. But, in
point of fact, the Emperor of Russia had made to him (Lord C.) a
direct cominnnication of the proposed treaty, and slimed him a
rough draft of it. The three Sovereigns also addressed a joint
letter to the Prince Regent, inclosing a copy of it, and lamenting
that the Sovereign of this country could not join with them. An
assurance was returned to their communication, that the British
Government was not the Government least disposed to act up
to the principles of the treaty. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to
think it the prelude to some hostile attempt : he could assure him
that it was not ; it was the understanding of the three Powers that
no designs of a hostile description were entertained. The Empe-
ror of Russia, who had done so much by his power and arms, would
not found his future glory by depriving the world of a long and
lasting peace ; and therefore he (Lord C.) was disposed to hail this
treaty as the harbinger of that desirable object. Under these
circumstances, he should oppose the production of the Document,
no strictly parliamentary grounds being offered for its production.
The attempt was a dangerous and unnecessary one to shake the
Confederacy, if it.couldbe shaken ; but that was quite unlikely.—
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENNETT observed, that this Treaty contained the cant of •
the Noble Lord's celebrated Letter, when he presumed to sit in
judgment on Sovereigns and States. It was the conspiracy of the
Monarchs against the many—the strong against the weak. He
expressed his regret at the aggrandiscments of Russia, and felt
alarm for the future.
Mr. BROUGUAIK contended that dozens of Treaties had been
laid on the table to which great Britain was no party ; therefore
that objection could not operate: besides, if the Treaty was so in-
nocent as the Noble Lord described it, he might lay it before the
house with perfect safety.
The House then divided.—Ayes 30 ; Noes 104—Majority 74.
On our return to the Gallery, we found Lord CASTIIREAGH
contending against the production of a Treaty signed between
Austria, France, and England, in the mouth of January.
Mr. Baouert est insisted that he should betray his duty to his
country if he did not press for the production of this Treaty also.
Was it to he endured, that when this country was party to a Treaty
with France and Austria, to the exclusion of Russia and Prussia,
they should not know it? He cared not whether it was produced
or not.—{Hear, hear,from lifintsters.)--W hat was the result of it ?
that Russia had demanded the dismissal of Talleyrand, (No, said
Lord Castlereagh) for entering into or causing a Treaty; to be con-.
eluded to the exclusion of our faithful ally the Emperor of Russia.
He then moved " For a copy of the Treaty between England,
France, and Austria, signed Jaunary, 1815, at Vienna."
General MATHSW supported the motion.
Mr. BARING contended,That the Noble Lord was bound to pro.
.duce the treaty, which might have had the effect of breaking up
the alliance.
Lord CAsmEnE.son . did not wish to shew disrespect to the
House ; itut he conceived they would not be solicitous to enquire
into an historical fact, which had not the least effect upon the Con-
federacy subsequently entered' into, and which produced no union.
The Hon. Gentlemen might as well call for the vellums of papers,
la the Noble Lord's Office, as for this document, to make a search.

for something withivhich Parliament could not strictly take cogni-
zance of.
Mr. Hoatien had no doubt the treaty was one defensive against
Russia; and, in certain eases, offensive. It uGuld he material to
have that tact ; or at 1• aRt, by its orodnetion, he might dick• that
the views of Gentlemen on the opposite side e ere erroneous.
Mr. TIERNEY was anxious to see how the Allies felt after the
disposal of Buonaparte. The Noble Lord had called the treaty a
matter of history : so it was—hut was a history which bore on the
present times.
The House again divided —Ayes 25 Noes f):—!%fajority against
the production 67.—The lltmse then adjourned iiil Monday.