Page images
PDF
EPUB

ness the Prince Regent to agree to it; and that we should not have been exposed to the inconvenience of endeavouring to collect the object of that acquiescence. I agree, my lords, with the noble earl, that this is not a fit opportunity to discuss the merits of the Treaty. No notice was given, and no expectation was entertained of such a discussion; and I should be more particularly reluctant to enter into it in the absence of a noble friend of mine (lord Grenville), whose absence is, I have no doubt, occasioned by his not antici pating that your lordships would this evening engage in the examination of any great public question. Nevertheless, there have been one or two observations made by the noble earl, which I cannot allow to pass without remark. The noble earl says, that the Treaty does not pledge us or our Allies to prosecute the war on the principle of the Declaration of the 13th of March. I wish, my lords, that this explanation rested on something more than on the passing words of the noble earl in this House. I regret that it was not attached to the Declaration with which his royal highness the Prince Regent has accompanied his directions for the ratification of the Treaty. The noble earl de clares, that now that Buonaparté is on the throne of France, and that the King of France is expelled, the general sentiment of the country appearing to be adverse to him, it was not intended to prosecute the war against the French Ruler, in any other spirit than that of ordinary hostility against an enemy. The Treaty, however, binds his Majesty's Government and the Allies to prosecute the war in the spirit of the Declaration of the 13th of March, and to direct in common and with one accord, should the case require it, all their efforts against him and against all those who should have already joined his faction, or shall hereafter join it. Now, my lords, what is the spirit of the Declaration of the 13th of March? That Declaration states, "that Napoleon Buonaparté had destroyed the only legal title on which his existence depended," that (in a phrase of an almost incomprehensible nature)" he had placed himself without the pale of civil and social relations, and that as an enemy and a disturber of the tranquillity of the world, he had rendered himself liable to public vengeance." Why, my lords, this can point only to the personal extermination of the man. It suspends all the rules of ordinary warfare

for that purpose. It not only raises the sword of public vengeance against his life, but it arms the assassin for the same object. Certainly this, which is the only natural, is the most atrocious construction of the passage in the Declaration of the Allies, and I am heartily glad to hear it disclaimed by the noble earl. But, surely, my lords, something more than a speech in this House is demanded, in order to explain the matter to the country, to our friends, and I will add, even to the enemy. It is, however, a consolation to hear the noble earl's solitary voice proclaim that the Declaration is not held to bear the construction to which it seems liable, and to find that the parties to this shameful instrument blush at their own conduct, and hasten to disavow it. There was one part of the noble earl's speech which, I confess, I heard with considerable alarm. The noble earl asserted that the principle which the explanatory Declaration of his royal highness the Prince Regent actually involved was one which he had maintained for many years, in common with my noble friend near me (marquis Wellesley), and a noble friend of mine who is not in his place (lord Grenville)-I mean the principle of putting an end to the existing Government of France. Three propositions were stated by the noble earl, as those which were comprehended in that Declaration; the first that the sine quâ non of peace was the destruction of the existing Government of France; the second, that it was desirable to restore what he called the legitimate monarchy of that country; the third, that the restoration of that monarchy would, however, by no means be considered as a sine quâ non. And first, my lords, with respect to the principle on which we are to go to war, that of the destruction of the existing Government of France, I maintain that the noble lord's assertion, that during the late war it was for many years avowed and acted upon, is unfounded. Avowed I know it was not, and if acted upon, then were Parliament and the public most scandalously deceived on the subject. I recollect, myself, before I had the honour to sit among your lordships, making a motion in the other House of Parliament to bring this question to an issue, by a declaration that the nature of the existing Government of France did not preclude a negociation for peace. Was my motion negatived? No, my lords. Mr. Pitt would not venture to meet it in that way. He would not

venture to assert the principle which the noble earl now says has been long avowed and acted upon, because he knew that with all his great powers, he should be unable to justify it in the face of the country. No such principle has, in fact, ever been before recognized. Your lordships are now told, for the first time, that

we are about to make war for the extermination of the Government of France, as a government; and that until that be effected, we are not to expect peace. Against that determination, my lords, I protest. I think it most unjust and most unwise. I think that in its consequences it threatens the interest, the safety, nay, the existence of this country. I would wish by every possible means to avert such an evil. The noble earl, it is true, declares his readiness to meet any discussion which may be instituted on this side of the House, of the merits of the Treaty; but I maintain that neither I nor any of my noble friends near me should be placed in the situation of being compelled to make a motion on the subject. We have a right to expect that his Majesty's ministers should bring the question before your lordships, that they should explain the principle on which they have proceeded, and originate the investigation of the principle of a measure to which they have been parties.

[ocr errors]

Marquis Wellesley said :-I beg, my lords, to be allowed to say a few words, in consequence of what has fallen from my noble friend, as to the inconvenience of discussing this subject at the present moment. It was never my intention to debate the general policy of the Treaty this evening. My sole object was to procure that which I have obtained-the explanation given by the noble earl on the two points touched upon by my noble friend. With respect to the first of these points which my noble friend thought with my self bore a most odious construction, I am satisfied to find, by the explanation of the noble earl, that it is not in the contemplation of his Majesty's Government, or of the Allied Powers, to proceed in the spirit of the Declaration of the 13th of March; although I am much surprised at the strange contradiction which that state ment conveys. As to the other point, it will come more fitly before your lordships whenever the general discussion shall take place. But I may be permitted to go so far as to diselaim ever having been a party to a prosecution of the late

war against France on the principle proclaimed by the noble earl. Whenever the day of investigation arrives, I shall be prepared to meet the noble earl on this ground; and to maintain that the principle to which he alludes was never avowed, and never acted upon during the whole of the war with revolutionary France.

Earl Darnley declared, that he should not have voted for the Address of the 7th of April, bad he been aware of the existence of a Treaty which pledged this country and our Allies to an offensive war against France. If his Majesty's ministers did not choose to bring the subject under their lordships consideration, he thought it would be the duty of some of his noble friends near him, to ascertain by motion, the opinion of their lordships on the principle upon which the noble earl had avowed that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to prosecute the war.

The order was then discharged.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Thursday, April 27.

COMMITTEE ON GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS.] Mr. Cooper having moved, "That the entry in the votes of the House of yesterday, of the appointment of a select committee to examine the copies of the Grand Jury Presentments of Ireland, which were presented to the House upon the 5th day of this instant April, and to report the same, with their observations thereupon, to the House," might be read; and the same being read, the hon. member next moved, That the number of the said committee be twenty-one.

Sir John Newport was well convinced that the present was a subject worthy of a serious and careful examination, but thought that it was brought forward in a mode not calculated to obtain the object in contemplation. The Government should not interfere with it, nor should the Committee consist exclusively of Irish members. He feared that prejudices might insensibly operate to counteract the advantages expected to result from the proposed measure. The sums raised were very considerable, and pressed heavily on a particular class of the community; it was a land-tax to a very considerable amount, and all disposed of by the several juries. On this account he thought that it should be anxiously considered, and that the

object would be best obtained if there were a considerable number of English members in the Committee, who could feel no immediate or private interests in the inquiry.

discussions of this great question of faith and justice, have hitherto of necessity been almost entirely confined to one side. When my hon. friend* moved for papers on this subject, the reasoning was only on this side of the House. The gentlemen on the opposite side professedly abstained from discussion of the merits of the case, be

Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald agreed perfectly with the right hon. baronet, in his sentiments respecting the measure; but would not have troubled the House with the ex-cause they alleged that discussion was pression of that feeling, were he not desirous at the same time to state, that the measure should not be considered as one merely ministerial. He thought a number of English members should be introduced, for the purpose of amalgamating the different parts of the representation.

The Speaker having read the list of the members proposed to form the committee, Sir J. Newport observed, that there were only four English members; whereas he thought no less than eight should be nominated, for the purpose of insuring an attendance. All those now mentioned were professional gentlemen, who could not be expected to attend punctually. He hoped, therefore, the list would be amended.

Mr. Cooper had no objection to gratify the desire of the worthy baronet.

. Mr. Wrottesley said, he had heard the question agitated on a former evening; and as far as he could judge, the present committee would not effect the purpose designed.

Colonel Barry thought county members should preponderate in the formation of the Committee.

. They were then proceeding to nominate some other members, but it was at length agreed, "That so much of the said order be discharged as relates to the names of the members appointed to be of the said Committee."

MOTION RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF GENOA.] In pursuance of the notice he had given,

Sir James Mackintosh rose and spoke in substance as follows:

Mr. Speaker;-I now rise, pursuant to my notice, to discharge the most arduous, and certainly the most painful public duty which I have ever felt myself called to perform. I have to bring before the House, probably for its final consideration, the case of Genoa, which, in various forms of proceeding and stages of progress, has already occupied a considerable degree of our attention. All these previous

then premature, and that disclosure of the documents necessary to form a right judgment would, at that period, have been injurious to the public interest. In what that danger consisted, or how such a disclosure would have been more inconvenient on the 22nd of February than on the 27th of April, they will doubtless this day explain. I have in vain examined the Papers for an explanation of it. It was a serious assertion, made on their ministerial responsibility, and absolutely requires to be satisfactorily established. After the return of the noble lord from Vienna, the discussion was again confined to one side, by the singular course which he thought fit to adopt. When my hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) gave notice of a motion for all papers respecting those arrangements at Vienna which had been substantially completed, the noble lord did not intimate any intention of acceding to the motion. He suffered it to proceed as if it were to be adversely debated; and, instead of granting the papers so as that they might be in possession of every member a sufficient time for careful perusal and attentive consideration, he brought out upon us in the middle of his speech a number of documents, which had been familiar to him for six months, but of which no private member of the House could have known the existence. It was impossible for us to discuss a great mass of papers of which we had heard extracts once read in the heat and hurry of debate. For the moment we were silenced by this ingenious stratagem; the House was taken by surprise. They were betrayed into premature applause of that of which it was absolutely impossible that they should be competent judges.

(I

It was a proceeding which tended

say nothing of intention) to obtain tumultuary approbation by partial statement, and by the undue effect of a first impression on a numerous assembly to prejudge the final determination of this grave question of policy and national

* Mr. Lambton. See vol. 29, p. 928.

but I shall in substance argue the case as if I were again speaking on the 22nd of February; without any other change than a tone probably more subdued than would have been natural during that short moment of secure and almost triumphant tranquillity.

honour. It might be thought to imply a very unreasonable distrust in the noble lord of his own talents, if it were not much more naturally imputable to his well-grounded doubts of the justice of his cause. Once more, then, by these devices of parliamentary tactics, the argument was confined to one side.

*

I have felt great impatience to bring the question to a final hearing as soon as every member possessed that full information, in which alone I well knew that my strength must consist. The production of the Papers has occasioned some delay; but it has been attended also with some advantage to me, which I ought to confess. It has given me the opportunity of hearing, in another place, a most perspicuous and forcible statement of the defence of the Ministers; † a statement which, without disparagement to the talents of the noble lord, I may venture to consider as containing the whole strength of their case. After listening to that able statement, after much reflection for two months, after the most anxious examination of the Papers before us; I feel myself compelled to adhere to my original opinion; to bring before the House the forcible transfer of the Genoese territory to the foreign master, whom the Genoese people most hate,-a transfer stipulated by British ministers, and executed by British troops, as an act by which the pledged faith of this nation has been forfeited, the rules of justice have been violated, the fundamental principles of European policy have been shaken, and the odious claims of conquest stretched to an extent unwarranted by a single precedent in the good times of Europe. On the examination of these charges, I entreat gentlemen to enter with that disposition which becomes a solemn and judicial determination of a question which affects the honour of their country, certainly without forgetting that justice which is due to the King's ministers, whose character it does most deeply import.

I shall not introduce into this discussion any of the practical questions which have arisen out of recent and terrible events. They may, like other events in history, supply argument or illustration;

* Copies of the Papers relating to Genoa will be found at p. 387 of the present volume.

By Earl Bathurst.

For this transaction, and for our share in all the great measures of the Congress of Vienna, the noble lord has told us that he is pre-eminently responsible.' I know not in what foreign school he may have learnt such principles or phrases; but however much his colleagues may have resigned their discretion to him, I trust that Parliament will not suffer him to relieve them from any part of their responsibility. I shall not now inquire on what principle of constitutional law the whole late conduct of continental negociations by the noble lord could be justified. A Secretary of State has travelled over Europe with the crown and sceptre of Great Britain, exercising the royal prerogatives without the possibility of access to the Crown to give advice and to receive commands, and concluding his country by irrevocable acts, without communication with the other responsible advisers of the King. I shall not now examine into the nature of what our ancestors would have termed an accroachment' of royal power, an offence described indeed with dangerous laxity in ancient times, but as an exercise of supreme power in any other mode than by the forms, and under the responsibility prescribed by law undoubtedly tending to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the British monarchy.

In all the preliminary discussions of this subject, the noble lord has naturally laboured to excite prejudice against his opponents. He has made a liberal use of the common-places of every adminis tration, against every opposition; and he has assailed us chiefly through my hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread), with language more acrimonious and contumelious than is very consistent with his recommendations of decorum and moderation. He speaks of our foul calumnies,' though calumniators do not call out as we did for inquiry and for trial. He tells us, "that our discussions inflame nations more than they correct governments;"-a pleasant antithesis, which I have no doubt contains the opinion entertained of all popular dis cussion by the sovereigns and ministers of absolute monarchies, under whom he has

lately studied constitutional principles. Indeed, Sir, I do not wonder that on his return to this House, be should have been provoked into some forgetfulness of his usual moderation; after long familiarity with the smooth and soft manners of diplomatists, it is natural that he should recoil from the turbulent freedom of a popular assembly. But let him remember, that to the uncourtly and fearless turbulence of this House, Great Britain owes a greatness and power so much above her natural resources, and that rank among nations, which gave him ascendancy and authority in the deliberations of assembled Europe. Sic fortis Etruria crevit. By that plainness and roughness of speech which wounded the nerves of courtiers, this House has forced kings and ministers to respect public liberty at home, and to observe public faith abroad. He com plains, that this should be the first place where the faith of this country is impugned; I rejoice that it is. It is because the first approaches towards breach of faith are sure of being attacked here, that there is so little ground for specious attack on our faith in other places. It is the nature and essence of the House of Commons to be jealous and suspicious, even to excess, of the manner in which the conduct of the Executive Government may affect that dearest of national interests the character of the nation for justice and faith. What is destroyed by the slightest speck, can never be sincerely regarded, unless it be watched with jealous vigilance. In questions of policy, where inconvenience is the worst consequence of error, and where much deference may be reasonably paid to superior information, there is much room for confidence beforehand, and for indulgence afterwards; but confidence respecting a point of honour is a disregard of honour. Never, certainly, was there an occasion when these principles became of more urgent application than during the deliberations of the Congress of Vienna. Disposing, as they did, of rights and interests more momentous than were ever before placed at the disposal of a human assembly, is it fit that no channel should be left open by which they might learn the opinion of the public respecting their counsels, and the feelings which their measures excited from Norway to Andalusia? Were these princes and ministers really desirous, in a situation of tremendous responsibility, to bereave themselves of the guidance, and release their

[ocr errors]

judgment from the control which would arise from some knowledge of the general sentiments of mankind? Were they so infatuated by absolute power, as to wish that they might never hear the public judgment till their system was unalterably established, and the knowledge could no longer be useful? It seems so. There was only one assembly in Europe from whose free discussions they might learn the opinions of independent men; only one in which the grievances of men and nations might be published with some effect. The House of Commons was the only body which represented, in some sort, the public opinion of Europe; and the discussions which might have conveyed that opinion to the Sovereigns at Vienna, seem, from the language of the noble lord, to be odious and alarming to them;-even in that case we have one consolation. Those who hate advice most, always need it most. If our language was odious, it must, in the very same proportion, have been necessary; and notwith standing all the abuse thrown upon it, may have been partly effectual: denial, at least, proves nothing:-we are very sure that if we had prevented any evil, we should only have been the more abused.

I do not regret the obloquy with which we have been loaded during the present session; it is a proof that we are following, though with unequal steps, the great men who have filled the same benches before us. It was their lot to devote themselves to a life of toilsome, thankless, and often unpopular opposition, with no stronger allurement to ambition than a chance of a few months of office in half a century, and with no other inducement to virtue than the faint hope of limiting and mitigating evil; always certain that the merit would never be acknowledged, and generally obliged to seek for the best proof of their services in the scurrility with which they were reviled. To represent them as partisans of a foreign nation, for whom they demanded justice, was always one of the most effectual modes of exciting a vulgar prejudice against them. When Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox exhorted Great Britain to be wise in relation to America, and just towards Ireland, they were called Americans and Irishmen. But they considered it as the greatest of all human calamities to be unjust. They thought it worse to inflict than to suffer wrong; and they rightly thought themselves then most really Englishmen, when

« PreviousContinue »