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

' . 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 commonplaces—(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 two
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 two parts. 'the firs,
was, whether or not the country was hound, by the most
obvious principles of
public faith, to continue these pay
meats? secondly, did Government 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 there was not one amongst
them who did not mix both these topics ; and that
confusion of those questions 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
lion.) Yes, according to the letter of the treaty we were
to the letter we might 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.) Principles such as those ware never meant in au
li Int
gr y
the to appliedbpeeue o r
the to
fatsth constructionof nations.
Reference, of corn
-
pacts
of present argument, had 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-street
to the table ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, had
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 cot.
ornfuarnf.t.r t iLn
agung Ittearl
.fp)e n h per erp
rgoapl loosne
rus pao d
the amendment had been, over and over again, charged 00._
spoliators. He (Sir C. W.) denied that this amendment
had been postponed for election purposes; the discussion
had been cunningly conducted on the other side, and that
asssrtion hed‘vicieenn
tahrattfuHllyon.mGne
adee; u
and gave Ministers meal for their tnalt, notwithstanding
the
be b
principles charged by the Hon member
For
Caine.s
Gentleman
nat
nh
said
a threw
that
ith bn cs
tg:
was
the withholding of necessary dosurnents?—(Cheell“j
,
ot pettifoggingetpcoicy,
did he mean to apply the maxim to
steps, in fact, had Ministers taken upon this s° ti
lest that were consistent with honesty ? Had they des
honestly by the people ? • No. Had they dealt laone'oi
try the Emperor of Russia ? No. Had they dealt Do,
nestly by Holland ? No. Had they dealt honestly 11
House? No, Had they dealt honestly even by their
t°l,o
Attorney and Solicitor-General? No. Where
,thipg
was their vaunted virtue ?or rather did not evern, h
i trut-Z
shots that what they called honesty was, ing.)
disgraceful diplomatic duplicity 2--(Loud ewer
_lv
The only question really was, whether the
ney was due under the treaty ; and the opinion 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 con_01:11..
doubtful case to take the opinion of Parliament as the
rntietit
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 .un
ewerable speech. Unanswerable it certainly was
_id was
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 (Inest.lo,
,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 Lir
and Caine hall omitted to advert to the secret artic,l "
Britain ? He contended, that the Members for I°lc.b..7te.rf

i~

the treaty, which alone was important to the decision '
While they had read every other part of it ; no part t'ey
bad read having the smallest bearing upon the true point
at issue. He begged to ask whether, under the new re-
l'r.fried system of Government, it was part of the duty of
'ltuisters to guard the public purse? Some of the pre-
aent servants of the Crown were to be candidates for
districts of the Tower—an ominous vicinity, where
People were sometimes called upon to mount higher
than Ministers might like to ascend.—(Cheers and
laughter.) What would they say to any demarvi
Why they had neglected their duty as guardians
of the public purse, and why they ha-I been parties to ex-
Puision from Parliament 6,f the unfortunate Boroughmon-
get's, who would fain have saved so much of the public
tn:aney at a time when it could ill be spared ? Ministers
'night contend that this guardianship of the public purse
Was an old-fashioned doctrine, not fit for these reformed
and enlightened days, but would they succeed in per-
suading the people that they were right in the course
they hid pursued? With a view to approaching
elections, Ministers had made many popular harangues ;
they had scattered the largess of language, and then sweet •
tne,ts abroad ; and he (Sir Charles Wetherell) would
scatter his.—(Cheers.) The Secretary for Ireland was
on the point of starting for Lancashire—the Noble Lord
(Althorp) was thought certain of winning in his county
----the Secretary at War was stare of coining in again for
Westminster—and the two law officers of the Crown fur

Nottingham and Marylebone; so that it was not won-
derful that they should endeavour to stand as weil
possible with their cons•ituents. They would, however,

find it very awkward to iedly to the question, why they
had been guilty of such a gross derelictio❑ of du•y,
that even an unreformed and rotten House of Corn-
.

mons had complained of the unnecessary and illegal
payment of the public money. The Hon. and
Learned Member contended, that all the Ministers
'who had ever held office since the Revolution—all

the Tt,;y Ministers—even Mr. Pitt, stiff-backed though
he wits—had come down to the House when they had

trespassed on the law, and demanded a Bill of Indemnity.
In this case, the reasons for following the same course were
very strong, for the motives of the Ministers, he admitted,
were very gcod ; and indemnity would, therefore, have
been granti'd them, and they ought to have applied for it.
lie approved of the note written by Earl Grey, in which
he said he could not answer that Parliament would sanc-
tion the payment of any instalments ; but that note was
a condemnation of the arguments and conduct of the Gen-
tlemen opposite. He declared that he had never known a
more flagrant breach of the statutes than had been com-
mitted in this case by Ministers, and he had never voted
with a greater conviction of the correctness of his vote,
than he give in his support to the motion of his Right
Hon. Friend.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would request the in-
dulgence of the House but for a short time, as he thought
that all that could be said on the subject had been already
*aid by his Hon. and Learned Friends.—(Hear, hear.)—
If that was an admission of which some Gentlemen op-
Po'iite could take advantage; and if any of them claimed
so. much superiority of understanding, as to find fault
with the arguments of his Honourable and L arned
Friends, he could but envy them the very good
°Pinion they entertained of themselve,.—(Cheers.) A
great part of his Hon. and Learned Friend's speech bad
referred to his conduct as Attorney-General, and that part
of his speech which had been most cheered and was looked
"Pun as most triumphant, was an attack upon him
founded upon a complete ignorance of facts, as he for-
merly stated. He did not much wonder at this, in this
crapulous debate, for it was an old debate got up again,
in attempt to revive the enthusiasm of yesterday, to recast
the censure of January 26th. His Learned Friend sup-
Posed that he had given his opinion alter the second treaty
was signed—that was a mistake—the opinion lie was re-
quired to give was upon the treaty of 1813. That treaty
and the documents connected with it were laid before him.
.Ile was not asked anything about that treaty which was
In the pocket, or, as his Hon. and Learned Friend said, in
iocuio ; for his opinion was asked in June, 1831. What
hadinduced him to form that opinion he had before stated,
and that opinion he had before, he hoped, scccessfully de-
fended. His Learned Friend had thrown out insinuations
of his opinion being formed because it was agreeable to
the political views of the Government. If his Honour-
able and Learned Friend thought the Attorney-General
was to crouch to the Government, he would declare, if it

was meant to insinuate that he did so, he would repel
the insinuation with disdain. He would tell his Hon. and
Learned Friend that he had done nothing which was unwor
thy of his professional and personal character. At the
Bayne time he thought it was the duty of the Attorney-
General to be on fair and liberal terms with the Govern-
ment, or not to be connected with it ; aot like the At-

torney-General of 1829, who had continued to serve a
Government which he declared was subverting the Con-
stitution of the country.—(Hear, hear.) The views 01
the Government were not laid before him, but the treaty
was, and according to the large and liberal spirit in which
treaties ought to be construed that were to regulate the
Peace of the world, his opinion had been given. In No.
vetnber following another treaty was signed, and he had
no doubt th it his Noble Friend would explain the al.
te,red cuinstanceslunder which it was necessary to nego.
hate that new treaty. He remembered that it was said
on the other side, that they should not go out of the four
corners of the treaty to interpret it; hut that was not the
spirit in which it ought to be construed. He was sure
that Vattel laid down such large and liberal rules for con-
struing such treaties, that he was almost sorry to hear the
allusion made to Jurists by his Hon. and Learned Friend;
and Vattel stated that such treaties were not to be
O,tnstrued in the interest of the party making and
interpreting it ; not by the letter, but by the spirit,
taking into consideration the circumstances and views of the
parties at the time. He had followed that course, and en-
deavoured to form his opinion fairly at the time, without
any reference whatever to party or political views. It
was something to support his opinion—though that opi-
nion was spoken of as if it rested on no good ground—
that it coincided with the opinion of the King's Advocate,
Sir Herbert Jenner. It was a question, too, not for equity
or common lawyers, but for publicists. Sir Herbert
Taylor took the lead in giving his opinion, and that showed
that his opinion was not so absurd as some Hon. Gentle-
men seemed to suppose. He again repeated that the opi-
nion was given before the convention was signed. When
Lord Grenville raised some doubts on the subject, looking
to the Act of Parliament, he submitted two questions to
the Treasury,—Whether the payment of the money was
according to the treaty, or according to the Act of Par-
liament? In their judgment it was according to the
treaty ; and if the treaty was clear, so was the Act of
Parliament. We answered yes; and as the treaty war-
ranted the payment, so did the Act of Parliament. This
was a clear corollary. The treaty passed in November
was not produced. If it had been, it would not have
altered their opinion as to the duty of this country to pay
the instalment then due, and to that alone was their
attention called. 'When it was said that the opinion
was inconsistent with the fact that a new treaty
had been concluded, he 'thought the lapse of time
and circumstances might account for the new treaty.—
Might not Russia feel some uneasiness, after the discussion
in Parliament, as to the future payments, and might not
that create a necessity for the new convention ? His
Hon. and Learned Friend said, the conduct of the Minister
was condemned by that treaty. But what said the treaty?
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman read part of the first
article of the convention as above quoted, and contended
that between that and the conduct of the Government
there was no inconsistency whatever. There was, he ad-
mitted, a difference between the letter and the spirit, and
when that was the case, which wits to prevail? He con-
sidered that they ought to give effect to the spirit of the
treaty. It was certainly not to be borne that the country
which had made the treaty, and for the advantage of
which it was made, should interpret it against another
party, when a treaty was made between two Govern-
ments. The Government in whose favour it was made,
relying on the Government who was bound hy it, woulit
not of course suppose that the Government bouud by it
would take advantage of any circumstances of its own
creation to relieve itself of the obligation. He protested
against the idea of interpreting the treaty in any pettifog-
ging spirit, with a view of gaining popularity by flattering
the passions of those who looked only to a short-sighted eco-
nomy. lie said it was one complete agreement, that was to
he acted upon in the spirit, and not according to the letter.
Where was it proved that the advice given in June was
incorrect? There were many reasons why new stipula-
tions became necessary. His Hon. and Learned Friend
had censured his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member
for Ilchester, for not quoting the whole of the additional
article. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read the
two sections of the additional article as follows :—" In
order to prevent any doubts that might hereafter arise
with respect to the meaning and operation of the fifth ar-
ticle of the convention this day signed, it is understood
and agreed betweem the three high contracting parties that,
in the event of a part of the Belgic provinces being at any
time hereafter severed from the dominions of his Belgic
Majesty, a propoitionate reduction only of the charge
agreed to be borne by their Majesties the King of the Ne-
therlands and the King of Great Britain, to be calculated
according to the population of the districts so severed,
shall thereupon take p'ace; the residue of the respective
payments continuing to be regularly defrayed, as provided

for in the said convention. It is further understood and

agreed, that the invasion or temporary occupation of the
said provinces by an enemy shall not be considered as deter-
mining any part of the said payments, unless continued be-
yond the period of a year ; in which case it shall be compe
tent fur their said Majesties the King of the Netherlands and
the King of Greut Britain to suspend their respective pay-
ments, subject to account with the Government of his
' _ .

. .
Imperial Majesty, upon the expulsion or evacuation of the
said provinces by the enemy, for the whole or such pro-
portion of the said arrears as may correspond with the state
of possession in which his Majesty the King of the Nether
lands may at such period find himself established." The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman then contended, that these

stipulations, looking to any enemy, and not to separatioi
from an internal cause, h r. )t provided for that. It was,

howevt.r, clear that the severance contemplated was a se-

verance by an enemy. (The Hon. and Learned Gentlemai
was reminded by Sir B. Peel, we believe, that the word•
in the original were, pissed away from the dominion o
. .

Holland.) He contended that Only made the severanet

more general, showing that in this, as in all human affairs.
foresight had not contemplated all the changes which might
occur. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then contended
th It the whole debate was intended with a view to the
election, for a constituency and hustings had been men-
tioned, for the first time by the Hon. Member for Thet-
ford, without sneers and contempt. It was all
intended to make an impression on the hustint.,,.
He would ask, however, for what purpose was the
debate got up ? Would the Right Honourable Mem-
ber refuse to pay the money? Aye or No? Wert
they prepared to say that the money ought not to
be paid ? He believed that they could not say they
would.—lle repeated his assertion, that it was to the
treaty they were to look—to the treaty construed in a li-
beral and enlarged spirit, according to its spirit rather than
according to its "letter.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposi-
tion.) If the other side were of opinion that they should
not look to the treaty, he hoped they would say so.—
The Hon. Member fur Worcester (Mr. Davies) had
put the question as he understood it boldly and manfully.
That Hon. Member had manfully declared, that he I Inked
-on it as one of practical economy, and if he (the Attorney-
General) could so consider it, there was no man in the
House who would be more ready to vote for the resolu-
tions. He looked, however, on the question, as now in-
troduced, to be neither more nor less than an attempt to
censure the law officers of the Crown.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. POLLOCK, ob.,erved, that the Judges were
unanimous on the subject; and that, if to decide accord-
ing to law was pettifogging, he trusted they would con-
tinue pettifogging to the end of time.—(Hear, hear.)
The question, as he understood it, was simply this :
Were the Government justified in making the payment of
January, 1832 ? In order to understand that, he would
call their attention a little to dates. On the 10th of

November, 1830, Belgium was, clei facto, separated from
Holland, because the States-General on that day declared
themselves independent. In June, 1831, an opinion was
titled fot from the law officers of the Crown ; and they
declared that there could not be a doubt as to the liability

of this country to continue the paytnentsiiythe—terms of
the treaty. If this was the opinion of the law officere,
and if there were no misgivings, from whence, then came
the doubts that led to the negotiations for the subsequent
treaty of the 16th November? If that Convention

was of importance enough to be thought necessary fu;
making perfect the former treats', surely it was also of im-
portance enough to be communicated to the House. The
Hun. Member for Ilehester (Dr. Lushington) deal;
largely on those topics which were always calculated to fl raw
cheers from the House.—(Hear, hear.) He had talked a
great deal of the national faith and the national loan ; but
he (Mr. Pollock) contended that the national faith and
loan had nothing to do with the question now before the
House ; and it was only by mixing them up with that
question that the advocates of the Government found a
kind of apology for the course that had been pursued.—
(Hear, heir.) On the 26th of January, after the pay-
ment, and after the Auditor of the Exchequer had
expressed doubts of its propriety, a debate took place
in that House, and he would now take leave to ask
the Noble Lord (Althorp) why it was that no men-
tion was made during that debate of the convention
then i❑ progress? If one word had been uttered re-
specting that convention, the motion would not have been
pressed by any Member of that House. But what was the
answer of the Noble Lord at that time ? Why, the Noble
Lord said he had no doubt at all with respect to the pro.
piety of the payment—(Hear, hear)--and that the other
side had not proved their case.—(Hear, hear.) This was
the answer then ; hut whether the opponents of the Go-
vernmsnt had or had not proved their case, it was the
duty of the Government to have informed the House that
a treaty was pending.—(Hear.) The Government, how-
ever, took any defence that offered, trusting, no doubt,
that something would turn up in the mean time which
might save them from the reckoning which the House
had a right to demand from them.—(Hear, hear.) He
did not mean to say they acted from a bad intention ; but
there was an indifference to consequenees, to the opinions
of Parliament, and to the responsibility of their situation,
which was highly objectionable.—(Hear.) He would ask
them, if they found it necessary to have a new convention
to fufil the treaty, why it was they acted under the old
one ; and if the old one was good, and required no amend-
ment, why it was they required a new one.—(Hear.)
These were the questions ably put by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Herries), and to them no answer had been
given. The Noble Lord had doubted at one moment,
and not doubted at another—paid at one time, and ab.
stained from paying at another ; and why, he would ask,
did the Noble Lord now require an act of Parliament,
except that he had made payments after these doubts ex-
isted ? No man prized the national faith more highly than
he did ; but still he thought the conduct of Ministers on
such occasions as this required a vigilant eye ; and he
would ask why it was that, having avowedly committed a
great error, they did not require an Act of Indemnity, '
which would at once mark the departure from pro-
piety, and the necessity of compensating for it, rather
than demand an Act of Parliament to confirm the error
they had committed ? That would have been the course
anticipated from the candour of the Noble Lord.—(Hear,
hear.) For his (ilr. Potluck's) part, careless of sensure,
he should vote fur the resolutions, because he considered
them to be moved in support of that course which was
most consistent with the princip!es of the Constitution and
the practice of Parliament.—(Hear.)
Lord ALTHORP, in reply to the questions of the
Hon. Member, observed that he was asked why it was the
Government had not applied for a Bill of Indemnity rather
than an Act of Parliament ? His answer was that they had
not come down to ask Parliament for indemnity, because
they were net confident that they had committed any
breach of the law in the course they pursued. It
was asked why they had made the payment of last De-
cember, and asked authority for payment now. His answer
was, that the treaty which ratified the separation of
Holland and Belgium had not then received the sanction
of the five Powers who were parties to their union.—
(Hear, hear.) Strong criticisms had been made on his
opening speech. He had been criticised by the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) for not answering the
arguments that Right Hon. Gentleman intended to use;
and an Hon. and Gallant Gentleman (Colonel Davies,)
had complained of his saying that a vote of censure un
Ministers on this occasion must be followed by their re-
signation. In the first pllce, he did not know how he
could answer arguments he had not heard ; and in the
second, he believed if he had said that a vote of censure on
Ministers with respect to a treaty could be followed by
anything but resignation, he should have stated that which
would be inconsistent with the practice of office and the
privileges of Parliament. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman who spoke last (Mr. Pollock) had treated the
question too much like a lawyer, and confined himself too
closely to the letter without looking at the spirit of the
treaty. That Hon. Member had asked why the Govern-
ment did not mention the convention which was in pro
press during the last debate? His answer was, that the
convention was then an instrument which had no force,
and could not be urged as an argument in the questions
which were then under consideration. With respect to
the treaty itself, there had never been any opinion but one
—that this country was, under the circumstances, bound
to continue the payments.
Sir E. SUGDEN contended, that the real question
was, if there had been a breach of the law, and if a reso-
lution condemnatory of that breach of the law should be
passed, and maintained that nobody had as yet properly
addressed himself to the question; the Hon Member for
Caln e's speech would have been quite as applicable to any
other treaty during the last century as to that to which
he professed to direct his arguments. The Noble Lord
too, had spoken a great deal about the spirit of the treaty :
but construing a treaty, however liberally you might, it
was ridiculous to urge that you were to throw aside the
obvious construction of the words. The Noble Lord had
insisted that the only separation contemplated was by in-
vasion. The only danger apprehended was from France ;
but nothing of this appeared upon the convention ; and,
moreover, it was plain that the purpose of the contracting
parties was to prevent severance, however it might ar-
rive. The great object was to secure to Holland its un-
divided union with the Belgic provinces. The House
bad not suffi,iently considered this, nor had they remem-
bered that the convention was made for the benefit of Hol-
land. If, then, they talked of national faith, Govern-

moot should not exercise it exclusively towards Russia

to the injury of Holland. He asked them to put the treaty
of 1815, and the convention of 1532, in juxta-position,
and he would defy any reasonable man to come to the con
elusion that the latter did truly construe the meaning of
the former. The construction, it would seem, of the
convention was, that the money should be paid by Graat
Britain, whether the severance took place or not. The
Noble Lord had talked of a breach of national faith; but
in his (Sir E Sugden's) opinion, the present Ministers
stood convicted of as gross a breach of national faith as

any he had ever heard of.
Lord PALNIERSTON rose amidst nearly unanimous
cries of " Adjourn ! " He trusted that, after the debate
•hat had taken place, the House would be content to decide
the question by their vote that evening. The Hon. Gen-
tlemen on the other side had been asked whether this
country was bound to make the payment in question?
That question was simple enough, and yet not one of them
had chosen to answer it ; from which he inferred that
their answer must be that the payment ought to be made.
But nut only did they refuse to answer this question, but
actually wished to divide the House on a subject on which
the House had already given its judgment. The Noble
Lord then went through a detailed history of the loan from
its commencement, and contended, that under all the cir-
cumstances, Great Britain was absolutely bound to con-
tinue these payments to Russia. With respect to the se-
paration that had taken place, that, in his opinion, did not
come within the meaning of the original treaty, which in
its spirit was intended to have reference to such a separa-
tion as should be effected by foreign force of arms. Lord
Castlereagh, in originally proposing the question to the

House, observed that the payment would only continue as
long as Belgium was separated from France.—(Hear,
hear.) From which it clearly appeared that the severance
that was then contemplated was a severance not only by
force of arms, but also on the side of France in particular.
But what were the real circumstances of the separation ?
They were entirely intrinsic and internal, arising in the
United Kingdom of the Netherlands itself. When that
separation took place, Great l3ritain had a right (he did not
say that it ought to have employed that right) tore-establish •
the union by force of arms ; but what course did the Allies
pursue ? Holland applied to Great Britain, and the late
Ministry declined interfering by force of arms ; Russia, on
the contrary, expressed its willingness to march 60,000
men into Belgium to reestablish the power of Holland, if
England would agree to such a step ; but this also Eng-
land declined. The fact therefore was, that England
virtually signed and sealed the separation, and consequently
with what right could she turn round on Russia, and say,
" you shall suffer by the separation which we have accom-
plished?"—(Hear, hear.) The views of Russia had been
changed since 1815, for at that time she was against the
union of Belgium with Holland, but since then family
alliances had taken place, other relations had been entered

. .
into, and now Russia was opposed to the separation of
those two countries. Then they had been asked why the
payments hail not been suspended in December last, and
why the ❑ature of the convention then agreed to had not
been laid before Parliament? His answer was, that by
honour and good faith they were bound not then to suspend
those payments, nor until after the treaty of separation
was ratifie,i. By the terms of the treaty, the payments
were not to be suspended till a year after the separation,
even if that separation had been effected by force of
arms ; and, surely, the separation effected by internal re-
&stance could not be more effective to do away with the pro-
visions of the treaty. The treaty had not been ratified
till lately. They bad brought it down to the House at as
early a period as possible, and had taken the usual means
to bring it under the consideration of the House. The
Government were bound in law to continue the payments

up to the last month ; and the House would not consult
its dignity if to that extent it did not hold the conduct of
the Ministers justifiable. It had been objected to his
Noble Friend that he had yesterday said the country should
'ake an imposing attitude. The observation was correct,
looking at the circumstances by which she was surrounded.
She should take an imposing attitude ; but he trusted the
time would never come when she took an attitude of im-
position.—(Hear.) If that House refused its consent to
what had been done—if it set at nought the stipulations
of solemn treaties, he believed that the character of the

country would suffer such damage that be should despair
of her being able ever after to enter into intimate con-
nexion with the Continent, or to obtain the confidence
which it was always most necessary a nation should possess
among the other nations of the earth.
Sir R. PEEL said that toe Noble Lord, like all who
had preceded him on the same side of the question, had
most studiously confounded two questions that were per-
fectly distinct from each other—the question of good faith
and the question of law. They relied so much on the
former, because they felt that on the latter they were
hopelessly weak. If the information now possessed by
the House was, as some seemed to think it, insufficient to
enable them to decide this question with propriety, why
had not other documents been furnished—and why had
the Government forced the House into the position of
being compelled to adopt or repudiate what they had
done ? As to the existence, however, of other docu.
ments, he must declare, that as far as he knew anything
of the matter, there were no others relating to the nego-
ciations of 1815 than what had already been produced.
The Noble Lord had told them that if this question were
decided against the Government, they could not continue.
He threatened them with a resignation if that vote was
against them. In the present state of England, of Ireland,
and of Europe, of trade and of finance, it was not sur•
prising that the Noble Lord should make such a declara-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) The proper question for the
House to consider was, whether the issue of money
made in January, in payment of this interest, was war
ranted by law; and on that question, and in order to pre-
vent the conduct of the Government on this occasion
from being drawn into a precedent, he should put his vote
on the journals, although it might be attended with the
consequence of the Noble Lord's resignation. Suppose
this matter was, as it had been contended to be, a casus
omissus in the treaty, still that did not justify the cm:Kille-
d the Government, who ought to have applied to Parlia-
ment to supply that omitted case, and who were not war-
ranted by law in acting without the authority of Parlian
ment. The course they had pursued would have been
correct if the treaty had been one that depended upon the
Crown for its construction and maintenance; but it did
not—it was a treaty that could only be performed, inas-
much as it was for the payment of money, by the sanc-
tion of Parliament, and therefore the conduct pursued by
the Government was unjustifiable. If the Noble Lord
Lord meant to contend that the subsidy was granted to
Russia, so long as her policy with regard to Holland and
Belgium concurred with the policy of England, how did
the Noble Lord account for the circumstance that, accord-
ing to the treaty, England was bound to pay the subsidy,
even though the high contracting parties were at war ?
Did that prove that the subsidy was made in consideration
of Russia's pursuing the same policy towards Belgium as
England? In his opinion, the House ought not to address
the Crown declaring the issue contrary to law ; he did not
now call on the House to pass a vote of censure ; but it
was clearly a mistake, and therefore they ought to bring in
an Act of Indemnity.---(Cheers.) Nor was that without
precedeut ; for when Mes.rs. Boyd and Benfield made a
contract which they were unable to fulfil, Mr. Pitt ad-
vanced them forty thousand pounds, on good security, and
which shortly afterwards was duly paid. Yet, when the
affair transpired on the Commission of Naval Inquiry in
in 1801, Mr. Fox and Mr. Whitbread thought that a Bill
of Indemnity ought to be passed, and Mr. Lascelles
brought in a Bill to that effect. There was no question
before the House which could by possibility involve any
infraction of national faith. They were merely called upon
by their vote to prevent the possible consequences of Mi-
nisters, who believed themselves guarded by triumphant
majorities, undertaking to make such issues on their own
authority, without previous reference to Parliament.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not understand why, if
a vote of censure were to be passed upon Ministers, the
month of January should have been fixed upon. At this
time the separation had not been recognised by Russia,
but in the month of June the treaties had been ratified by
that Power. He thought it strange that neither the
Right Hon. Gentleman nor any one who had spoken on
the other side of the House had thought proper to state
his opinion whether he believed the nation bound in honour
to make these payments.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman had, indeed, said, that if bound in honour
we ought to pay them : but he had cautiously abstained
from saying whether he thought that Ministers, in honour
were bound to pay them or not.—(Cheers.) If, then,
Ministers were bound in honour and good faith to continue
these payment•, what just ground of complaint had the
Hon. Gentleman against them ? They had no possible
motive for taking up this part of the question, except for
the sake of aiding in a peroration, and winding up their
sentences with allusions to the expenditure of the public
money.—(Hear.) If they considered that in honour and
good faith they they were not bound to pay it, the mere
objection existed to a payment in July, as in January ;
but this was put as a question affecting the character of
Ministers—the question of the public money was not con-
cerned at all. He must therefore say, that upon a due con-
sideration of the treaty of 1815, he thought the nation
was; bound to make these payments to Russia, if it wished
to preserve good faith and adhere to the treaty.—(Cheers,
and loud cries of Question."
Mr. CROKER said the Noble Lord complained of his

Right Hon. Friend for not answering a question, which
the Noble Lord in fairness was not entitled to put. His

Hon. Friend had endeavoured to separate the two ques-
tions—the one was the lirbiliry of this country ; the se-
cond, the legality of the conduct of Ministers in taking
upon themselves to renew the convention without the
authority of Parliament; this was the question which the
house had to decide when they came to the vote. His
Noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, when his
Hon. Friend asked him if he would continue to subsidize
Russia, even though she should go to war with this coun-
try, nodded assent. It was complained of that no indivi-
dual Member on that side of the House gave his opinion.
Now lie would say, that if it was intended to propose so
absurd a doctrine that we were bound to subsidize an
enemy, though at war with him, he should ftel no hesita-
tion in voting against such a subsidy.—(Cheers.) His
Noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs bad alleged
the non completion of the arrangements as a reason for not
bringing this convention before Parliament. Yet it was
entered into the same day, or the day after, the treaty
which had been alluded to in the King's Speech, as having
been entered into between the Five Powers and the King
of Belgium, and which his Majesty seas then represented
as ordering to be laid before Parliament.—(Loud cheers.)
Yet the convention now in question bad been entered into
at that very time.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that the treaty of 1815
contained a clause, providing that the payments on the
part of the King of Great Britain should not he inter-
rupted in the event (which God forbid) of war breaking
out betweim either of the three contracting parties.—
(Cheers.) He now wished to ask the Hon. Gentleman,
whether lie now gave his vote for so preposterous a thing
—(Loud cheers)—as the subsidization of an enemy during
war--(Repeated cheers)?
Mr. CROKER Ali, but that was a case of bargain
and sale for the annexation of Belgium to Holland—(Loud
cries of " oh, oh !")—and the payment ought only to con-
tinue as long as the annexation—(Oh, oh !)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House proceeded to a division, when there appeared
For the Amendment
Against it 243
Majority for Ministers - 46
The House then went into Committee, pro forma, and
the Chairman obtained leave to sit again on Monday.

The House resumed.
In anwser to a question from Colonel SIBTHOB,PE,
Lord ALTHORP said, that the arrangements were in
a state of great forwardness, and that next week a Trea-
sury minute would be issued for the distribution of the
Decan Prize Money.
The other Orders of the Day having been disposed of,
the House adjourned at a Quarter to Five o'Clock.