Star.
London, England, 1815-04-21 00:00:00

COURT or SESSION IN SCOTLAND.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, it had been his in•
tention originally, on giving notice cf. this motion,
to call the attentien of the House to eer:ain Acts of

the Court of Session in Scotland, but he fund, 0.3
examining the papers nnw on the table, th.it the do,
cuments were inadequate for the purpose of forming
a correct opinion on the subject, and that it w,nild
be necessary to have before them several other Acs
of Sederant relative to the appointment of Tees and
Salaries of the Officers of that Court, as practised
in former periods. He would, for that purpose, move
“ That an bumble Address be presented to his Royal
Highness the Prince Regent, that he be graciously
pleased to give directions to the Lords of Session in
Scotland, to lay before the House all accounts and
proceedings relative to the fees and emoluments of
the Clerks of that Court, together with all acts of
Sacrum, from the establishment of the College of
Justice to the Ist of August, 1789."
After a few words from Mr. W. Dunn/sip th4l
motion was agreed to.
TREATY UT FONTAINBLEAU.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE said, he had been induce,'
to bring forward a motion on the subject of the
escape of Bonaparte from Elba, because he consider-
ed it as an event which had had such an effect nn the
destinies of this country, and Europe in general, that
Ministers ought to be put upon their defence, and
called un to state what precautions they had taken,
as far as depended on them, to prevent this circum-
stance occurring ; and to say what information, if
any, they had had of the intention of Bonaparte.to
attempt his return to France previous to his carrying
that attempt into effect? The Honourable Gentleman
observed, that he might now, he thought, call for the
Treaty of Fontainbleau and that it could not be
said the time for calling for it was gone by, since
had it been called for previous to Bonaparte's return§
Ministers would have retused to grant it, or to an-
swer any question upon. it ; as they would have OA-
tended that in doing so, they would have been guilty
of a breach of public duty. What he should nos*
do, however, would be to call on Ministers to pro.
duce such documents as should prove to the
whether they had taken such precautionary measures
for the security of Bonaparte's person as they °tight
to hare done. Dy some it had been said, that the
Treaty of Fontainbleau was an extraordinary exertion
of magnanimity on the part Of the Allies ; tie hilst
others said, it was cne of hardship towards Bona-
parte. The latter opinion was one in which he could
not agree; since be could not but believe, that at the
time of the capture of Paris, the Allies might have
forced Bonaparte to any terms, though such did not
appear to have been the case; since, from the state.
ment of the Noble Lord himself, it appeared, that at
the time of entering into this Treaty. Bonaparte was
still formidable. This circumstance, the Honourable
Gentleman contended, ought to have rendered the
Allies doubly Cautious. The Noble Lord had con-
fessed, that so formidable was Bonaparte., that the
Treaty of Fontainbleau was a Treaty of necessity on
the part cf the Allies ; yeti though he was so forimi.

Jose
dable, lie still preferred negotiation to opposition,
and censidereef it would be m, 're fur his advantage
to retire for a time than to continue to make resist.
ance ; and under thew circumstances it might natu-
rally_,
be expec,ett that he would take the first oppor-'
tunil ef returning, and resuming his authority. Yet
the Noble Lord had said, he went to Elba as an 'in-
dependent Sovereign, and that the Treaty of Fon-
tainbleeu gave no right of watching or molesting
him till he should set his toot on the shore of France.
This, le ,wev er, he (Mr. Abercrombie) could not con-
skier as having been the opinion of the Allies. He
must think that that Treaty was considered by them
as it was by him, as giving them a power of watch-
ing him, an I trventing his escape. It, however,
Daiapatte was to COliOntle, as the Noble Lord had
represented him, an Independent Sovereign, he ought
to have been treated as such ; and he would now ask
the Noble Loid, had t!,.! provisions of the Treaty of
lit.tinl,le:l.l been preserved with him ? Had the
provisimis ot' ..aty, as respected money, been
preserved ? He would ask, if Bonaparte was an in-
depe.is!ent Sovereti, what authority cculd he ad-
d:reel for keeoir.p, iron' him, apparently in a state of
calniviiv, his kite aoal child? This was highly un-
justifiable ; bee there :tm,ther and a greater
eeeletion of the .l.'reatv in question ; the Duchies of
Parma, Placentia, and Guastella, had been secured
to the Empress and her son, yet no one could doubt
bu -an intention had existed at Congress to give these
poaessions a different dispeeition. Another mischief
arising out of the violation of this Treaty was, the
disgust it was likely to eive the Officers of the army
who had obtained this Treaty for their former Com-
mander, and the strict observance of which was the
mily thing which could reconcile themselves to them-
selves, and to the people. Another act to which he
must allude, as a violation of the Treaty, was, the
apparent intention which was entertained at Congress
of retneving B naparte himself from Elba. That
such A eroeositien had been entertained at Congress,
nu doubt collet exist, if the Publication, called the
Defence of Marshal Mernuont, and the statement
published in vindication ot Sir N. Campbell, were
atelantic. Under all the circumstances of the case,
lie ii.euelit sufficient itifiemation must have come to
the knot% ledge of our Government to call on them
to ad en precete.i..nary measures ; and he trusted the
Il"iibe would new call on Ministers to slew that they
had taken such measures. It hid been said, that it
was impossible to secure Bonaparte in the Isle of
ueless the port could have been hermetically.;
sealoei. This assertion leas too ridiculous to deserve
an Anse ei. Was it to be contended, that with the
Nevy of England, it was not possible to pre-
lionapar,e's escape with a body of troops, and
several sm of ves3..ls, or to intercept him before he'
ehoied lieve re.y.hed the coast of France ? It was
esst- si that the instritcti,ats, be they
whet teey may, Joillel he I.ld b_lore the House.—
With rei.eat their recciviii4 4th:relation as to the
probable .I,..sy,ns ot DiJi.aparti.., he bid cy •iti that Nli.
tastes.tire .n posst.ssion ot some which ought to
Lase placed theni on their guard. He did not place
any tiliance ou thc tra:ll of Mr. Pia} fair. 'rite
able c.)nclude.l With moving •••••
" Thee an e amble Address be preicv.ted tai the ?sexe
cei:ies, e:::racts of any insttuctions to
the Nay :1 C. rilma ti..!ers, respecting Boiiapai to aim
the I.i.tul i f Llha ; also an'r itiffnmation they
may nave received resin:cling' his iatet:ttar. escap.
t;.oni
rd Ci,STLEREAGH observed, that the Ho-
rioutabie Gentiem in had drawn his argulaeote trout
the ‘l,ctinient which M. Caulincourt had transmitted
to this country. With respect to the Treaty or F0:1-
tambh...tii, it seemed to be the desite of those Gentle.
men who at raigned Ministers, to charge them either
vies being too early or too late in their information.
'Without a cistinet breach ot faith on the part of the
Allies, it was impossible not to catty tee Treaty into
effect. Great Britain had judged' it expedient to
lend its sanction to the arrangements which the Al-
lies had entered inte. The Noble Lord had already
stated that the considerations ill respect to the Treaty
were such as to justify the Allies in making it, espe-
cially as the Provisional Government of Frimee.were
well disposed towards it, and the danger of carry-
ing en a protracted war was highly to be deprecated.
He condemned the practice of attacking foreign
Goveniments, with a view to impugn the conduct of
the B; aisle The mode of logic now adopted was,
of taking the letter uf• a French General, for the
purpese of establishing conclusions which are not
teunded in truth. In respect to the annulling of the
Treaty, it was annulled after the escape of Bona-
parte, so fir as it regarded the Empress Maria
Louisa and himself ; but there had not been any
breach uI faith on the part of the Allies. Great
Btietiii was only a party to the engagement respect-
ing the territorial possessions. There was no idea ou
the part of this country, that it was necessary to re-
move Bonaparte to St. Helena or St. Lucie. Such
an idea was quite new to the Noble Lord. The
only natural precaution to prevent his escape was by
sl,utting him up in Elba ; and that was a proceeding
which never ceuld have entered into the n • d of any
one —lt the Honourable Gentleman meant to say,
that a strict police was necessary. he was prepared to
contend the contrary. The Government of France
bad -not that view of the subject, for the French na-
tion once delivered from the tyranny of that person,
• coul,l not be supposed likely to support his return.
Ii teat was the -view v. Welt the Honourable Gentle.
man to .k of the question, and that it was necessary
to have a 'level cordon round the island, he, for one,
should disclaim such view, and defend the Treaty
upon the broad basis of a Treaty with a person pos.-
sessing certain tights, and guaranteed in the wee.
reigety of an island. Upon what principle then
could we land in Elba, and insist upon searching the
island, or any vessel which might quit it, upon the
Supposition that he was on board ? With respect to
the Papers he should object to their production en
the ground, that no presumptive censure attached to
.Ministers ; and that this was an after-discovery which
those Gentlemen who opposed the Treaty now
plumed themselves on.
ELLIOTT conceived it became a wise and
magnanimous nation to provide for security, by
strengthening the goyernment ; • which Parliament
154 d done. Ministers had led the country into the
danger which was now apprehended. The speech
of the Noble Lord had not solved the doubts which
he ( Mr. Elliott) had eatasailard I; or had is me.

nuated the misconduct which his Honourable Friend
had imputed to them. The Right Hon. Gentleman
took a view of the proceedings of the Allied Powers,
previous to the Treaty of Fontainbleau, and insisted
that the Allies ought to have contemplated the con-
sequences which follkeeed, and provided accordirtly.
Was the Treaty made with the consent of Lord
Cathcart ? Did he protest against it ? (Lord Cas-
tlereagh said, 66 He was not there.") %Vas there any
diplomatic agent present ? If not, then a stronger
case of neglect on the part of the British Govern.
ment could not be made out.—(Hear, hear.)—As to
the policy of the Treaty—were not the Allies power-
ful and strong at the time it was made ? and might
not such a Treaty have been concluded as should
have secured Europe agaiiist the danger which has
ensued ? He denied unit Bonaparte was in that
strength which Ministers had on a former night con-
e
tenued: Had any precautions been taken to prevent
his escape ? None In what situation was Colonel
Campbell? Was he a Plenipotentiary ? (It was an-
swered across the table, 44 that he was in a eolfigissitial
We'e then he was in a confidential situa-
tion, lied yet Bonaparte escaped in an open way
was three days at sea, and yet there were no means
taken to secure him.—(Hear.)
Mr. F. DOUGLAS defended the conduct of Mi.
eiaers, so far as their vigilance was called in ques-
tion. He considered the Treaty of Fontainbleau as
the best and most honourable which, under circum-
stances, could have been obtained. He differed with
those who thought that there had not been any con-
cert between the Allies in respect to this Treaty. On
the contrary, lie contended that there had been a
very strong one ; for they had combined to take the
Government of France out of the hands of Napoleon
Bonaparte, to place Europe, thereby, in a state of
security. He justified the various stipulations of the
Treaty respecting the Duchies of Parma and Pla-
centia, and the rights of Piince Eugene. Upon thac
part of it which provided for the payment of the
Annuities, he contended that means were devised
for making good those payments. He denied that
there were any views on the part of Government to
remove Bonaparte to the island of St. Helena, or
any other place; the rumour was gathered from one
of the public papers.
Mr. ROBINSON stated, that Lord Cathcart could
not be present with the grand army acting against
Paris. On the 19th of Match, the Noble Lord, with
Lord Aberdeen and Sir Charles Stewart, were at
Chatillon. On that day news was received that Bo-
naparte had gained an advantage, and therefore it
was impossible that the Civil Authorities could re-
main there. The Diplomatic Bodies Were in dan-
ger of being taken, as the French army ss is nieving
down upon them, and therefore, under the advice of
Prince Schwartzenberg, they made off towards Di-
jon. On the 2.lth they met Lord Cathcart in a si-
milar situation. It was a measure of compulsion, and
not of choice, on the part of his Noble Friend, tea:
he could not send his in ;tractions to the grand at my.
tie contended, iu respect to the Treaty, Chit it was
ilaz racy of tiie Allies to consul( the wishes of the
French nation. It ti:e Allies had refused to tran.
quillize all France, without shedding nii:re blood,
r all circumstances. it would have bred to have
1;:,;:ed a great advantage for the speculitifm of sotne-
thing which rrii?,ht 11;tVe turned OLt very imprudent.
Mr. I'ON.iCN BY thought that Bonaparte at the
L7!tie Of the Treaty o: Fontaintaau was in no fortni-
.2.,llle a; :nude, and the conclusion of the Treaty was
ihere:tne, in his (Mr. P.'s opinion) nut justifiable.
Ir. had Leen said that the French troop:, had been re-
fresl.ed by despair. This refreshment was new to hint.
A gteit Poet had described despair as a nurse, who
" ltustly from couch to couch devair attcuds tlt • ocl !
—But he had never heard the sick bad hien so re-
fteshed.—The principal question, however, row was,
not whether the Treaty WAS good or bad ; but whe-
ther, after k was made, precautions had been taken
for securing Bonaparte in Elba ? To ascertain that
fact, his Hon. Friend moved for certain Papers,
which be supposed would elucidate the tact. He was
far from defending Bonaparte ; but he must declare,
that the stipulations of the Treaty were not kept, and
therefore the guaranteeing Powers manifested bad
faith. The Noble Lord had said there were no in.
structions given by the Naval part of the Adminis?
tratiun—E" No written ones," said Lord C.]—Well
then !—were there any verbal ones ? If so, surely
the Noble Lord would have no abjection to lay, them
before the House. It he did not, the House must
believe that Government had not given any instruc-
tions at all. With respect to the information of his
intention to escape, did the Noble Lord mean to say
that the Government had not received any, either
verbal or written, worth attending to ? The Right
Hon. Gentleman thought that the information which
he had learnt had reached Government was worth
inquiring into. A Foreign Minister bad written to
Government, stating, that measures were taking for
the return of Bonaparte to France, and that Joseph
Bonaparte was preparing quarters for some officers.'
Was that true ? he hid heard it was so, from a re-
spectable quarter—[Lord C. denied that any such
information had reached Goverument.]—Then the
intelligence which he had heard was not true. It
might be so. The Right Hon. Gentleman main-
tained that the char.:cter and policy of this country
had been impugned by the conduct of the Noble
Lord at the Congress. A motion would be made by
a Right Hon. Friend of his, which would give the
Noble Lord an opportunity of defending and explain.
ing that conduct:
Mr. B. BATHURST conceived that the assertion
of the Right Hon. Geetleman, in respect to the con-
duct of his Noble Friend, was not borne out. When
the whole of the subject crime under discussion, it
would be seen that his Noble Friend had not com-
mitted the honour of the country. The Treaty of
Fontainbleau was the result of military operations ;
and this country not being an original party, Go-
vernment were not bound to the consequences. Many
of the points which had been pressed into discus-
sion were irrelevant to the main questipn. The Right
Hon. Gentleman insisted, that nene of the infractions
relied on were stated by Benapei to in his Proclama-
tions as grounds for invading the Fiench territories.
He maintained that we had no right to blockade Bo-
naparte in Elba; because, by the Treaty of goptain.
bleat, we and our Allies recognized him as an inde-
pendent Sovereign of that island: The embarkation
of Bonaparte was easily conducted; as he bad so few
•. •
troops that even General Berme* did not know, uti.
01 the eve of his departure, the; it was

He wished to know what instreedene wed be Oven
to cur Commanders to search vessels going to or
Leming from Elba, which we had recognized as an
independent sovereignty. If the Commanders of our
cruizers had met Bonaparte at sea, they would have
seized him, provided it bad not been a voyage for an
• innocent purpose. For these reasons, he contended,
we had no right to exercise any sort of naval police
' over Bonaparte; and therefore he hoped the House
would not entertain this motion.
Sir JAMES MACK/N.POSH said theease before
the House was, whether there was sufficient ground
laid for an Address to the Throne, to know where
the negligence of this omission, as he would call it,
had originated—a neglect and an omission which had
exposed the tranquillity of Europe by the advance-
ment of Napoleon Bonaparte again to the Throne of
France. Perhaps this might lead to the renewal of
a war as long and as expensive as the last. All this
had proceeded from the sailing of three small vessels
from the Isle of Elba on the Ist of March last. •
" Ibi °nulls ellihus labor."
The dilemma wa •, that the Treaty of Fontainbleau
' was an act of imperial madness, or one of absolute
and necessary policy. The Noble Lord (Castle.
reagh) had rather chose to atoilare it to what he
would call political necessity. Then it was evident
that the utmost care should be taken to prevent the
.
return of a man so much required by the soldiers of
France, which they must have expected.
" iEstuat Wells aiwusta Halite
When our victorious army was in the heart of France
by a succession of the must tepid victories, and when
our councils ought to.have been the main spring of
the Allied Powers, the Noble Lord had said that this
great country was not even consulted by those who
concluded the Treaty of Fontainbleau. lie appealed
to his Hon. Friend, Mr. Douglas, if the loudest excla-
mations were not expressed in the capital nt France
in December last, that the stipulated sum was not
paid to Napoleon Bonaparte ; and that a large, and
not a despicable party was in his favour. It was
puerile to say, that because lie was a Sovereign Pinter
we had no right to watch Bonaparte in Llba -- we
had a right to take care of the tulfistmeet of the
Treaty, as long as any danger of its inhection re-
mained. We wete justified in watching Eloa, f..r
the purpose of preserving the peace of Europe. Bin,
by the neglect of this, an event had occurred %% loch
had shaken Europe to its centre. The difficulty tit
retaining Bonaparte in Elba had been thrown on the
Commanders of our ships in the Mediterranean ; fur
the Right Hon. Gentleman had stated, there was an
understanding and an impression, that they should
stop him, if he was found landing on the Continent.
When Government knew that Bonaparte meditated
his return from Elha, they should have called on him
to disavow such an intention in the face of Europe.
Mt. F. DOUGLAS explained.
Mr. C. GRANT said, that if this Treaty was int-
erfect, the Hon. Gentlemen opposite should have
expreeeed their opinions on its sooner. It was impos-
siole for his Noble Friend (Cestlereagh) from the con-
tingencies in the war, to know that the great events
which thin took place would lead to this I're-icy ; to
the dot oils of which lie objected to, as far as he could
when it was made known to him And how
any one in that House have defended him, it he li.id
opposed his opinion to that of all our Allies?
parte, though then defeated and baffled, was scut re-
duced to that abject state of despair as to consent
to an I.IIIC3IIditIMI.II surrender. The danger was
not in llooap.iite, but in the tinext-ected perridy
of the Marshals of France. Who could have antici-
pated that men, who had achieved so much renown,
would hate eraibited such utter depravity, and ne-
glect of such sacred obligations ? He contended that
no degree of vigilance short of personal violence or
constraint, could have prevented an individual like
Bonaparte to escap.: from Elba. When we had made
by the Treaty his flag to be respected by the Alse-
ones, were we to be the first to violate that Treaty
He contended that the Treaty was one of modera-
tion and forbearance; and having admitted Bona-
parte by it into the political circle of Europe, it Was
our duty to preserve it inviolate in all its parts. Bo-
naparte had made no appeal to the Allies of the in-
fringement of the Treaty with him, which he ought
to have done, according to the Law of Nations—end
having not done so he had placed hirns:lf out of the
Law of Nations, and justified us in going to veal
with him.
Mr. WHITBREAD begged to remind the Hon.
Gentleman who spoke last, wet he and his cuthagu s
were the watchmen paid, on this and every occa-
sion, to guard against any danger to this country and
to Europe. The House had never deserted the No-
ble Lord (Castlereagh) till be bad deserted them.--
He (Mr. .) had found in the Noble
Lord, end
others, at Congress, imitators of the littlenesses of
Bonaparte. He had never called Bonaparte great,
because those littlenesses would prevent him from
being called great in history. Yet he was a man tit
such talents, that he had struck the Noble Lord and
his coadjutors with dismay so great, that tle:y were
obliged to array all Europe against him. 'those who
set on foot the expedition to steal ;he Danish fleet,
and justified it on secret information, contrary to the
Law of Nations, could not be supposed to be bound
by the Law of Nations in our Treaty with Bonaparte.
But our Ministers would not listen to any informa-
tion as to the meditated escape of that person from
Elba. He contended, that the Treaty with Bona-
parte had been violated from beginning to end.
Mr. W. POLE said, the whole question before the
House was, whether the Treaty of Fontainbleau
gave us the power of watching and confining Bona-
parte er not ? The Noble Lord had candidly said,
that in his opinion, and in the opinion to the lokilt:
persons who were parties to the Treaty in ceiesti (((( .
Bonaparte was an independent Sovereign, and there-
fore that we had no right to 'watch him, or to sur-
round the island of Elba, as the kionoprable Gentle-
man seemed to think we ought to have done. li toe
Noble Lord was right, there was an end of the mo-
tion of the Honourable Gentlemaeo-for if we had no
power to detain him, no instructions for that purpose
could have been issued.
Mr.tu. W. explained.EEßTkromisltshortly replied, and 911-
11:lervGeed,nttlheamt
atom(
(Mbr.
pspeeniecilt
it
tt of the
pittl:ghilitthHatowno:nraot
merely contemplated a contest, but were absolutely
committed already.
Mr. W. POLE is explanation. denied that the Hp-
namable Gescliassaa was well founded in the infereuce

whech he had drawn from his spseoh.—The Gallery
was then cleared for a division, when the nunibat
were—For the motion 65—Against it 149.