The Sun.
London, England, 1801-11-03 00:00:00

PRELIMINARY TREATY.

Mr. WHITBRRAD observed, it appeared by
the Preliminary Treaty, that certain Cessions had
been made to this Country by Spain and Holland,
or rather, that certain Territories were ceded on
the part of those two Powers : he, therefore, wish-
ed to know, whether Spain and Holland had been
made parties to the Treaty, and whether they had
atually made those cessions to Great Britain.

Lord HAWKESBURY said, he had no objection
whatever to answer the question of the Ilan. Gen-
tleman. The Preliminary Treaty was made only with
France, and no direet communication was had upon
the subjea either with Spain or Holland. The ces-
sions, however, made by Great Britain in the Pre-
liminary Treaty, were understood to be made as
the condition of those Cessions made on the part of
Spain and ,Holland.
Mr. WHITBREAD declared himself perfedly
satisfied, understanding, as he did, that- Spain and
Holland were not made Parties to the Treaty.
Lord HAWKESBURY assented. He would
now, he said, answer a question proposed on a for.
mer evening by an Hon. Gentleman (Mr. GREY),
which he did not answer on that evening, because
His Majesty's Ministers were not in possession of
sufficient information upon the subject. That Hon.
Gentleman wished to know whether the Integrity
of Portugal, as guaranteed by the Preliminary
Trea:y, was to be considered as the Integrity of
that Kingdom prior or subsequent to the Treaties
made between that Country and France and Spain.
He could now inform that Hon. Gentleman that the
Integrity of Portugal, as guaranteed by the Preli-
minary Treaty, was the Integrity of Portugal, as
settled by the Treaty of Badajoz, between Spain and
Portugal, whereby the Distria- of Olivenza was
ceded to the former, and the River Guadiana made,
the boundary of the latter.
Mr. GREY said, if he understood the Noble
Lord rightly, the Integrity of Portugal was to be
so considered after the cession of the District of
Olivenza. to Spain by the Treaty of Badajoz, and
that any Treaty made between France and Portugal
since that Period, was wholly out of the question,
so far as it related to any cession of territory.-7
But the Noble .Lord had taken no notice of another
question which he asked, namely, whether that
part of the Treaty between France and Portugal,
whereby the Manufaaures of the former were to
be admitted into the latter Country on the footing
of those of the most favaured nations, was done
away or not, by the Preliminary Treaty before the
House.

Lord HAW7KESBURY said, he- wished to be
clearly understood ; at the period of the Treaty of
Badajoz between Spain and Portugal, there was also
a Treaty entered into between France .and Portugal,
the former was ratified, whilst the Ratification of
the latter was refused. It was understood that the
Preliminary Treaty between this Country and
France,- considered Portugal as subjed to the Ar-
ticles of both these Treaties, and that the Treaty
between France and Portugal was to be considered
as equal in every respel to the Treaty of Badajoz,
between Spain and the latter kingdom. With re.
spec to the other question of the Hon. Gentleman,
he was realty at a loss what answer to %tom to it.
Poctugal might, if she pleased, during a period of
profound Peace, consent to admit the Woollen Ma .
nut a&ures of France on the same footihg as those
of England, und Great Britain might, in return
consent to :limit the Wines of other Countries on
the same ternts as those of Portugal. This seemed
to him to be a matter of regulation, which. had
nothing strictly to do with the terms of the Pre-
liminary Treaty, inasmuch as such kind of regula-
tions might be made as well during a period of pro-
found Peace, as at any other time.

hi; Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for e new
Writ in the room of such Peer. It now appeared,
however, that the framers of the T.iii of Union had
not made provision for a circumstance of this nature,
ant? he did net impute blame to them upon that
account, since in the Multiplicity of provisions that
were necessary to be made, it was no wonder some
were emitted. But by the Bill of Union, the Aa
he had alluded to, was virtually and effedually clone
away, there being, in the first place, no Great Seal
of Ireland ; and in the next no Writ of Summons
could issue ton Peer of Ireland, unless he was chosen
one of the Representatives of the Peerage of that
Country in the House of Lords. Lord ROSSMORE,
whom he must call his late colleague, had succeeded
to that title, and the County of Monaghan • must
!te considered as so far =represented, Irish Peers
being disqualified from sitting in the House of
Commons, unless for places in England. That Noble
Lord, however, not being one of the Representa.
tive Peers, there was no way in which, the House
could be informed of .the fact, except by his (Mr.
DAwsoN's) assertion. Conceiving, therefore, that
a new elation. ought undoubtedly to take place, he
concluded by moving for a new Writ for the County
of Monaghan, in the room of WILLIAM WARNPA
WESTENRA, Esq. now Lord ROSSMORE.

The SPEAKER observed, that the case now
brought before the House by the Hon. Member, was
analogous to that of Lon/MAITLAND; there having
been in that case a new Writ granted in the room of
Lord Viscount MAITLAND, now Earl of LAUDER-
DALE, a Peer of Scotland, upon the assertion of 2
Member of that House. Upon further investiga,
tion, he discovered there were two instances last
Session, in the cases of Lord DoNtat,Ly and Lord
AswrowN, both in similar situations with Lord
ROSSMORE, in whose room new Writs were issued.
In those two instances they were merely stated to
be Peers of Ireland; but he thought this should be
altered to the title of a , Peer of the United King-
dom, since Peers of Ireland were, by the A 5 of
Union, Peers of Great Britain, except for certain
purposes.

DAWSON observed, that the Lords DaN-
NELLy and Asfurowti were so created, and their
cases were therefore different from that of Lord
RossmoßE, who had succeeded to his title.
Mr. CORA'Y said, there could he no doubt of
the propriety of the Hon. Gentleman's Motion.—'•
Thz fad was, however, that of the two cases men-
tioned, one of them, Lord DONNELLY, had suc-
ceeded to his title, and was therefore in the same
situation with Lord RQSSMORE. He highly ;ip..
proved of the SPEAKER'S proposed alteration,
which he considered as a part of that honourable and
manly conduit which the SPEAKER had uniformly
pursued with regard to Ireland, conducing to the
support of its honour and its dignity, and for which
he deserved the approbation and roped of that
Country.

The. Motion was then earrie4,—.-Adjo,arned.

THE S U IT,

seasui QV;; 13jCIVE TAI.II:M .41JDLAT ?