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

atituents and the country the vote which he felt himself
conscientiously bound to give on the question now before
it. The question seemed to him a very plain one. Was
there a treaty, and what were its conditions? The con-
ditions were few, and stated with sufficient perspicuity.
They were, in fact, but two—one, that the parties were
bound to ply the money, even although a war should break
out between them, and the other, that if the union be-
tween Holland and Belgium ceased, then the payments
were to cease also. This point of the continuance of the
payment in the event of war was one of the strongest ar-
guments possible against the construction of the Hon.
Member (Mr. Rice), because it chewed plainly all the
conditions on which the payments could take place had
been foreseen and provi,led for, and, therefore, there were
no proceedings nor no Conferences to be consulted with
respect to the true construction of its terms.—(Hear.
hear.) He thought, therefore, the time must came when
the payments must cease, and the Government had really
no discretion left with respect to the course they were to
pursue towards Russia and the parties interested.—( Hear,
hear.) He could have understood the propriety of the
Government making some concession, and consenting to
some sacrifices, for the purpose of avoiding a war ;
but that was not the case here. It was the separation of the
two countries which was to regulate their decision ; and he re-
peated they had no alternative but to avail themselves of their
situation to get rid of the burthen which the treaty had imposed
on them. He could not understand the propriety of the argu-
ment of the Hon. Member (Mr. Rice), that the smallness of the
sum made any difference. The sum was five millions and a
half, and it was the bounden duty of the Government to relieve
the country from its payment. He had been anxious, indeed,
that the question, important as he considered it in every point
of view, should not be brought before the House incidentally,
as on the present occasion; but that time should be given the
Government to look at the propriety of retracing their steps.—
(Hear.) Why, indeed, had they not considered it themselves in
the first instance, instead of consulting the Law Officers of the
Crown ? The Law Officers of the Crown indeed! Why, it was
a question so plain and so easily seen through, that none but a
Law Officer of the Crown could misunderstand it.--(Cheers
from the Opposition.) Why did not the Ministers trust to
their own good sense rather than consult them ?—(Hear,
hear.) He admired the candour with which the Noble Lord
(Althorp) had admitted, that if they had erred, it was through
bad advice.—(Cheers and laughter, with, as we believe, some
expressions of dissent from Lord Althorp). He certainly did
understand the Noble Lord to say that, doubti having arisen as
to the construction of the Act, they took the opinion of the Law
Officers of the Crown—(Hear, hear)—and a pretty broken reed
they had leant upon.—(Cheers and laughter.) He must again
say he regretted that the Government had not trusted to their
own good sense. He would call on the House, however, to be
cautious how they gave their consent to the course which had
been pursued, by in any manner supporting the principle laid
down, and he hoped the Noble Lord would see the propriety of
admitting the error that had been committed, and at once tell
them he was ready to recall what had been done. He had
listened with attention to the speech of the Learned Gentleman
(the Solicitor. General), and he must say that not one word he
uttered had the least reference to the Act of Parliament, which
was the only thing with which the House had anything
to do.—(Hear, hear.) One, and not the least of the matters to
be deprecated in the proceedings of the Government was, that,
with all the doubts they entertained of the propriety of
their course, they commenced paying on the sth of June that
twenty thousand pounds which was followed by another pay-
ment of eighty thousand pounds, although Parliament was sit-
ting at the time, and might and should have been consulted.—
(Hear, hear.) If it was intended that the House of Commons
should have any controul over the public expenditure, or the
disposal of the national resources, he contended that the Go-
vernment should have, under such circumstances, applied for
the sanction of Parliament before they commenced such a pay-
ment.—(Hear, hear) If the country was to renew this pay_
ment, which must be continued for forty or fifty years, there
was not a man in Europe who would not say that England was
consenting to pay this money as tribute to the great Powers of
the north, in order that they might not interfere with her ar-
rangements ; and he would say, if this opinion was allowed
to go forth, it would be most prejudicial, as well as disgrace-
ful. On that point, as well as others, he regretted what had
b,en done. His duty to his constituents required him to pur-
sue but one course. The principle involved in the question,
and all the circumstances attending it, compelled him to vote
against the Government, and he implored every Hon. Mem-
ber in that House, who had a due regard to the exercise of a
proper controul over the public expenditure, to consider well
before he sanctioned the course which had in this instance been
pursued.—(Hear, hear.)
_ . . .

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that the Act of
Parliament was merely intended to give effect to the treaty,
and that it was to that treaty, as Lord Grenville well observed,
they were to look, in construing the fair spirit and intentions
of the parties. The honour and good faith of the country was,
he conscientiously believed, bound up with the maintenance of
that treaty, and with the payment of the money, under the cir-
cumstances in which they were placed. Some severe reflec-
tions had been cast on the course pursued by the Law Officers
but it should be recollected that the Law Officers, when their
opinions were asked, had no option but to give them on the
documents laid before them ; and he thought it would be
found that the conferences and negociations which were con.
nected with the treaty plainly showed there was a something
intended by the parties beyond what was expressed in the
treaty itself. When the subject was mentioned a few weeks
since, he understood the Hon. Gentleman opposite to agree in
the views taken by the Government of the binding nature of
the treaty; but to have complained merely that Parlia-
ment had not been consulted. In his opinion there was
no question to be submitted to the consideration of Parlia-
ment.—(Hear.) If the Government had come down to
the House of Commons, and asked its consent to enter into
the engagement or the payment of the money, that would
have been an admission that the treaty was at an end, and
that a new one was become necessary. It might happen, too,
that Parliament would not give its consent to the execution of
the treaty, which had been concluded by the King, with the
advice of his Ministers; and thus one portion of the Legisla-
ture would he found entrenching on the privileges of the other.
It was the province of the King to make treaties, and to see
them carried into execution ; and when it was clear that the
treaty remained to be fulfilled, he apprehended that the Go-
vernment were not bound to consult Parliament.—(Cheers from
the Opposition.) Had the Government come down on the eve
of a general election, and asked that House whether it was to
fulfil a treaty which would cost the country five millions of
money, it was not at all improbable that the Members would
have refused their sanction, under the fear that at such a time
a contrary decision would lose them their seats. He was satis-
fied that the country was bound in honour to fulfil the treaty,
although he much regretted the necessity of expending so
*winch money on such an object. The power of executing the
treaty was vested in the Royal Prerogative. The Ministers
were responsible for the manner in which it was exercised, and
he believed England would rue the day it ever departed from
that principle of honour and good faith which had hitherto cha-
racterized all Its proceedings.

Sir JAMES SCA RLETT said that the doctrine of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman was a little singular, for he seemed to
contend that the King was to make treaties, and the King was
afterwards to construe them when they were made, and Parlia-
ment had nothing to do but to follow quietly where it was led,
and make no inquiries on the subject. If his Hon. Friend bad
any other documents than those which were not before the
House, he could understand the meaning of his arguments ; but
he (Sir J. Scarlett) apprehended that Parliament was bound by
what was before it, and nothing else ; and when he looked at
the words of the treaty, he really found great difficulty in con_
calving what argument could be produced for him to cope with.
—(Hear, hear.) Unless there were other documents, not pro-
duced, he really could not understand on what his Honourable
prul Learned Friend had founded his opinions. Where the
vic.ofing of a document was ambiguous, they might be permitted
to los at the circumstances of the case, and to take one docu-
smut in connection with others, for the purpose of coming to a
right conclusion ; but in this question he wondered at the inge.
nuity of those who could give the words of the treaty any con-
struction but one—namely, that when the two kingdoms were
Owered, or the Sovereignty parted by fraud or force, then the
payment was to cease.—(Hear.)
Sir F. VINCENT was understood to oppose the motion.

Mr. O'CONNELL adverted to the caution which ought to
be observed by the Law Officers of the Crown in giving their
opinions, and he illustrated it by reference to the facts of the
present case. As a lawyer he must say, and he said it with re-
gret, that he had not heard a single particle, even of a legal
ground, to justify the course Ministers had pursued.—(Cheers.)
Looking at the terms of the contract, he found an express limi-
tation, and what was it ? It was to last—not until a certain
sum was paid—not for a particular number of years, but until a
certain event occurred ; that was to say, until the Netherlands
should be severed from the Sovereignty of Holland.—(Hear,
hear.) If that event had occurred, Great Britain was rid of the
necessity to pay five millions of money. Then came the ques-
tion of moral honesty ; and he should say, that the suffering
people of England were robbed of five millions of their hard earn-
ings if Ministers consented to pay a farthing more to Russia.
The question was, what engagement had the Act of Parliament
sanctioned ? The Act was founded upon a resolution of the
House of Commons, which was recited, and according to that,
he that took a farthing out of the Exchequer for the purpose of
handing it over to Russia, was guilty of a spoliation of the
people.—(Cheers.) He might regret the effect of the vote be
must give, but, as a lawyer, he had no choice. If Ministers
had additional documents or treaties in their hands to justify
their proceedings, why did they not produce them, and if ne-
cessary, ask for another Act of Parliament to enable them to
do that which now they had no power to do ?

Mr. SINCLAIR spoke from under the Gallery, and from the
cheers he received from the Opposition benches we presume
that he supported the motion.

Mr. a ROBINSON had never heard of a case requiring so
little hesitation : and he said that he should be utterly ashamed
if he allowed any of the arguments (if such they might be called)
of the law officers of the Crown to induce him to vote against
the motion.
Dr. LUSHINGTON—Whatever might be thought of the
treaty, the only question was, whether, under the circum-
stances that had since occurred, the British Government
was bound to perform the obligation which, it was admitted
on all hands, it had undertaken. It was necessary to come
to the consideration of the question with a mind free from
prejudice, and reluctant, to convert to our own advantage events
not contemplated at the date of the signature of the treaty,
Great Britain was bound not to Holland, but to Russia, and