The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-27 00:00:00

~

~+~ w

.._

•

between the 24. articles of Octolpr and the guaranty of
February respecting the debt. From what the Noble
Earl (Grey) had said, he believed that he (Earl Grey) had
not had time to attend to those transactions. The Noble
Earl said that the guaranty was that Belgium should
pay 8,400,000 florins of the renter. But to place it on
that footing, the consent of the creditors of the Dutch
Government must be obtained to take the King of Belgium
as debtor, inste id of the King of the Netherlands. That
they would not do, without the guaranty of the British
Government. But that was not the arrangement. Ths
whole remained still the debt of the Dutch Government—
(Cheers). The interest was to be paid half-yearly in
Brussels and Amsterdam. So that there had been no such
transfer as the Noble Earl supposed.—(Cheers.) Certainly
the Noble Earl had no time to attend to these details. If
he had, there would doubtless be less reason to complain.
But what, then, was the nature of the guaranty? If the
Belgians should fail to pay the interest, how was this
country bound to Holland ? Was each of the Five Powers
bound to pay one-fifth of the amount, or was Great Britain
bound to pay the entire? It was true their Lordships had
heard nothing of an Act of Parliament upon the subject
to give the Attorney-G:.neral another opportunity of deli-
vering an opinion that the money must be paid.—(Loud
cheers.) But the King's honour would be bound ; and his
Majesty would be obliged to come down to Parliament
and say that he had guaranteed the payment, and call on
Parliament to enable him to make good his guaranty.—
(Cheers.) But the guaranty was not confined to the
debt ; it extended to all the details of the navigation of
the Rhine and the canals. The Noble Earl had been
pleased to state, that the arrangements of these twenty-
four articles were in strict conformity with thebasis agreed to
by the King of the Netherlands. Now he (the Noble Duke)
wished to know if the Noble Earl would find in any part
of the basis to which that Sovereign had agreed, one
word which could give the Belgians the right of passing
from the Scheldt to the Rhine ? He knew not whether
the Noble Earl had read the letter from the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs to the Ambassador of the King of
the Netherlands respecting the second article ; but in
that letter the Noble Secretary assured the Ambassador
that tile Conference (as we understood the Noble Duke)
would not deviate from the settlement to which Holland
had already agreed. The third article of the Treaty of
Separation left the Belgians the free navigation of the
rivers which cross the territories of both the States. The
Ambassador of the Netherlands had waited on the Confer-
ence to give the King's adherence to the treaty ; and he
must have protested against that third article, or the letter
would not have been written. But the Noble Earl
(Grey) said that the treaty of the Rhine secured the navi-
gation of the rivers and canals connecting the Scheldt and
the Rhine. But he (the Duke of Wellington) could assure
the Noble Earl that the treaty of the Rhine did no such
thing. That treaty said, indeed, that the branches of
the Rhine, and the rivers flowing into it, should be free to
the navigation of the parties to the treaty. But there was
riot one word in it about the canals. How, then, could the
Noble Earl say that the navigation of the Dutch canals was
given up by that treaty to the Powers who were parties to
it ? Even if the King of the Netherlands could be in-
duced to consent to the navigation by the Belgians
of the Dutch canals, it must of necessity be on
payment of the duties both on the Rhine and on
those canals. It was only by England that the
demand originated. It was not to be found in any previ-
ous protocol. Adverting to the right asserted on the
part of Belgian commerce passing through Maestricht, he
contended that the case was not at all similar to that of
the permission granted by Prussia to some of the minor
Powers to pass through the Prussian fortresses, to which
it had been compared. It was not at all likely that the
King of the Netherlands would be disposed to acquiesce in
such propositions. But if he were induced to grant these
concessions, why was he not to have the benefit of making
a treaty of commerce front which he would derive all the
advantages of them ? Let their Lordships consider what
Holland had paid for I3elgium. By the treaty of 1814,
Belgium was restored to Holland ; but Holland was to
give compensation to Sweden for the cession of certain
colonies, and to advance money for the restoration of the
fortifications in the Low Countries. For that purpose
she had sold four of her colonies. Holland had to pay one
million to Sweden, two millions for the Netherland forti-
fications, one million for the share of the contribution of
Paris, and other sums, amounting altogether to seven
millions sterling; besides twenty millions of francs. Such
was the sum which Holland had paid for Belgium ; and
the compensation which it was now proposed she should
receive was 600,000 florins, or about 60,0001. a year.
The Noble Earl (Grey) had told them that all this was
done to avoid war; but he would tell their Lordships that
was a question not of war nor of peace, but of justice.
—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Their Lordships
had of late heard a good deal about foreign war upon
this subject, and about civil war upon another subject;
but he would call upon their Lordships not to take
alaran at these threats, for there was no danger of either,
unless the system of the Noble Lords opposite were
adapted. He denied that there was any danger of either
unless it arose from the policy of the present Adminis-
tration, which policy was, of all others, most calculated
to bring on both foreign and domestic war.—(Hear,
from the Opposition.) True it was that all the Powers
had agreed to the basis in this treaty ; but then that
basis had been departed from, and the three northern
Powers hesitated—he said " hesitated," because the Noble
Earl (Grey) had toed the word, but he might say, he
believed, were determined not—to ratify the treaty until
it had received the consent of the King of the Nether-
lands, who never would consent to it in its present form.
He would only add, in conclusion, that he trusted their
Lordships would not be deterred from doing their duty on
this and on other subjects by threats eirher of foreign or
domestic war.—(Hear, hear, from the opposition.)

Viscount GODERICH observed, that the case which
had been adduced by the Noble Duke, in the time of
Charles the Second, bore an analogy to the case which it
was intended to illustrate. In the former case, it was
proved that both the King and his Ministers were bribed ;
and he was sure that his Noble Friend would allow that
that was not a very opt parallel to the case under conside-
ration. He utterly denied that throughout the whole ne-
gociation anything had occurred by which the honour of
this country had been compromised. Difficulties existed
in the very commencement of the negociation, not created
by his Majesty's present Ministers, but found by them on
their accession to office. Previous occurrences had led to
the feelings of animosity between Belgium and Holland,
which the Noble Duke ascribed to the proceedings of the
Conference. The remarkable step taken by the Prince of
Orange of placing himself, in opposition to his father,
at the head of the Belgians, and the step taken by
the Belgians themselves, of declaring their inde-
pendence, constituted the climax of all the antece-
dent difficulties. It was at that time clear to him
that nothing but the force of all Europe would re-
store Belgium to Holland. Such was evidently the opinion
of the King of the Netherlands ; for he called upon the
Allies not to act as mediators, but to put down what he
termed insurrection by force of arms. Then came the
declaration of the decheance of the House of Nassau by
the Belgians. He by no means intended to say that the
five great Powers might not, by an exertion of force, have
re-united Belgium to Holland ; but their views and mea-
sures must have been concurrent, and there were various
ob,tacles in the way. It was, therefore, most unjust to
charge his Majesty's Government with a premature and
improvident admission of the independence of Belgium.
Before such a charge could be substantiated, they must
look to the whole course of events. Without having done
SI, it would be unjust to condemn Ministers to perpetual
infamy (for such would be the consequence of adopting
the Noble Earl's proposition) for their conduct, under cir-
cumstances which they could not avoid, and over which
they had no controul. As to the article respecting the
rivers and canals, that was derived from the treaty
of Vienna ; and the principle of snaking the rivers
free to the borderers upon them, was to facilitate
commerce, and to render nations less strangers to
one another than they were before. The Noble Duke
had spoken of these rivers as canals ; if they were so,
they were what might be called canals of the sea, or in-
termediate waters between the Rhine and the Scheldt. He
could not see what possible injury Holland could have sue.
t tined on this subject. It was singular, if she bad, that in
the Dutch Papers submitted to the Conference so little stress
had been laid on the fact of the opening of these waters.
It was true one subject connected with this matter had
been made the ground of complaint by the Dutch : he
meant the regulation of the duties to be taken on these
waters being submitted to the order of the other Powers;
and they said such a course was utterly unprecedented.
That such was not the fact must be evident to any one
who considered the treaty made on the 23d of May,lBls,
by Hanover with Prussia, relative to the navigation of the
Ems. That treaty stated the tolls that should be payable
on that river, and the sum was settled by common accord
of Hanover and Prussia; and although the river in its
course passed through other territories, the 91 article of
that treaty fixed the tolls payable from them all. Then
the Dutch objected to that article of the treaty which re-
lated to the fishery. He could not see in what way that
article was injurious to Holland; and its principle certainly
had a precedent on a former most memorable occasion.
In 1783, a treaty was made between this country and
the United States, in which we agreed that certain
fisheries should be enjoyed by the United States ; and

. ~

;;:vr.1:44

OT;,qcf

.

we agieNl to that on the principle, that when the United
States formed part of the British dominions they had en-
joyed the use of these fisheries. He thought that it was
quite enough to take the matter of the fisheries out of the
category of horrid acts of injustice with which they had
been charged. The address that had been moved was
one of the most condemnatory he had ever heard ; but
he should go to the vote upon it, without being the
least uneasy in his conscienee.—( Hear, hear.) He should
go to the vote, convinced in his own mind, that in the
midst of the greatest difficulties with which a Govern-
ment had ever found itself embarrassed, Ministers had
conducted themselves throughout with the most scrupu-
lous attention to the honour and the interests of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) That was the principle on
which their conduct was regulated. He defied any man
to show that they had been regulated by any other,
or that the result of their efforts had any other
effect.—(Hear, hear.) With that conviction, he re-
peated, lie was prepared to go to a division, convinced
that they did not deserve, and should therefore not re-
ceive, the reprobation of that House.—(Hear.)
Lord ABERDEEN, in reply, said, that he was no
longer surprised at the engagements into which the Noble
Earl had entered, since he bad heard the Noble Earl's in-
terpretation of those engagements. But he must say, that
he was almost in dottlat whether the Noble Earl had read
the treaty. The Noble Earl spoke as if he were per-
suaded that their Lordahips would see that a certain
amount of the Dutch debt had been transferred from one
great book to another, and that that was all. But that
was not all—for by one of the articles of the treaty, this
country engaged to see the due execution of all the articles
in that portion of it. By one of the articles, the payment
of the suns of annual rentes therein mentioned was secured
at Brussels or Antwerp, in ready money, without any de-
duction of any nature whatever, either present or future.
If the Noble Earl understood a guarantee, such as that as
he spoke of understanding, it must be admitted that the
Noble Eirl might, with perfect safety, guarantee the
course of the winds and waves.—(Hear.) If that treaty
was entered into to-morrow, he defied the Noble Earl to
see one-half of it executed. The Noble Earl called it a
development of preceding engagements. It seemed to hin,
a development by contraction. If the Duke of Ne-
mours was to be rejected by one party, and the Duke of
Leuchtenberg by another, what became of the indepen-
dence and of the undeniable rights of a country thus sub-
ject to the veto of another State ? His objection to the
treaty was that it rendered it scarcely possible to avoid
war. He admitted that the Government had been some-
wh it embarrassed, but asserted that it was but slight. lie
asserted that, with a view to tl-e continuance of peace, he
had the utmost reason to regret the retirement of the Duke
of Wellington, whose character and whose deeds inspired
our allies with love, our enemies with fear, and never at
any moment did he do so with more success than at the
moment of his retirement from office. After all that bad
been done, what slid it amouut to ? Why, that whether
peace could be preserved or not depended OR the question
whether one Paris banker or another gained the upper
hand. In answer to the partition of Luxembourg, the
annexation of part of Saxony to Prussia and of Genoa to
Sardinia had been stated ; but he denied the resemblance,
for these were conquered territories, that were of right, at
the disposal of the conqueror. On the whole, such was
the distorted view of the subject taken by the Ministers,
that he could not possibly understand the reasons by which
they had been actuated.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Contents—Present 39 ; Proxies 56
Not Contents—Present 59 ; Proxies 73 132
Majority against the Address —37
Adjourned at a Quarter to One o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JANUARY 26.

Mr. HolmEs moved for a new writ for a Member to
serve in Parliament for the borough of Dunwich, in the
room of the Earl of Brecknock, who had accepted the
Chiltern Hundreds.—Ordered.

Mr. F. POLLOCK presented a petition from (as sce
understood) the Royal College of Physicians, praying that
some legal provision might be made to supply the schools
of anatomy, which was read, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BERNAL brought up the report of the Committee
on expiring laws.
Colonel ROCHFORD presented a petition from cer-
tain parishes in the county of Westmeath, against the
present system of education adopted by the Kildare-street
Society, and complaining that the Bibles were withheld
from Protestants.

➢lr. CHMIAN supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. O'CONNELL would support the prayer of the
petition, if the facts were true, and if it could be show°
that Government had made any regulation to take away
the Bible from Protestant children. The only regulation
he knew of was that the use of the Bible was not ea'
forced on Catholics, which in his opinion was a veil
good regulation. The present opponents of the new measure,
by their arguments in support of such an opposition, ea'
tirely contradicted the assertions which they made this
time last year.

Sir R. BATESON said he knew that in a short filo°
the table of the House would be covered with similar peti-
tions against a system which, in his opinion, was repti
nant to the feelings of the Protestants in Ireland. Tile
Bible vial only allowed to be used in a mutilated forint
only selecting such parts of it as suited the religioo.
views of the parents of the children. The inhabitants at
tl. e North of Ireland, he was sure, would not submit to it'
Mr. CRAMPTON assured the House that there wai °
great deal of misrepresentation and misconception upon till
subject; he denied that the Bibles were used in a mutilate('
form, and to show that the new system was highly bent'
ticial, very many applications for schools had been made
to the Board of Education, not only from Protestant°
but from Catholics, and there were also applicatioo°
from Protestant and Catholic clergymen united.—(Hear.)
The attacks that had been made on the Board of Educa'
tion by the opponents of the new system, were made upon
a gross perversion of the facts. Ile exertions of tiler
Board were at all times made with a view to suppres'
a system that tended to keep the people in total darkne6°
and ignorance. He wished that every person should l'e
supplied with a Bible, and he was sure that the best mode
of enabling people to arrive at the truth was to abstsi°
from persecution.—(Hear.)
Mr. RUTHVEN felt thankful to his Majesty's o°'
vernment for taking away from the people of Ireland 00e
of the great causes of dissension.
After some further observations from Sir R. Bansoi,
and Mr. O'CoNNELL, the petition was read and order&
to he printed.
Sir J. NEWPORT presented a petition front DubliS'
relative to the arrears of ministers' money. He hope"
that the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland would intro'
duce some legislative measure to lessen the grievance copy
plained of by the petitioners.
Mr. STANLEY was aware of the extent of the grief
mice; but in a measure he introduced last session, a clad►.
was introduced which would limit the period of arrearg
the Bill would he again introduced in the present session'
and that clause would still make part of it.