Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Proceedings of Parliament.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Tuesday, Jan. 31.

LORD SUFFOLK adverted to the reports gone abroad to the prejudice of the Duke of York, praised the services which his Royal Highness had conferred on the army, and gave an example of a Lieut. Col. being set aside, who was unfit for service. Lord Liverpool, stated that a treaty with Spain had been signed about a fortnight ago, and that it would be submitted to their Lordships as soon as the ratifications were exchanged; that no event had happened since the treaty was negotiated, which, in his opinion, ought to make any difference in its stipulations, or in the exertions of this country to assist Spain against the common enemy.

Lord Erskine moved for accurate returns of the number of men and officers who had been embarked for Spain and Portugal, and also of the expenditure under the heads Money, Arms, Cloathing, &c. which had been sent to the Spanish patriots; likewise of the men, horses, artillery, &c. relanded not in a disabled state from Spain; which was agreed to.

Tuesday Feb. 8.

The Duke of Kent observed, that reports had gone abroad that he had countenanced the prosecution instituted against his royal brother the Duke of York. He had, under these circumstances, felt it to be his duty, in the most public way, to declare, that he thought the charges adduced most unfounded, nor could he suspect that the Commander in Chief could be guilty of

such misconduct. Whatever schism had ta

ken place between him and his brother, he should be ashamed of encouraging a proceeding which could only heap disgrace on the heads of the accusers. Private differences must on such occasions be forgotten in the imperious necessity of doing justice to the injured.

Lord Grenville moved for the accounts of the exports since the orders in Council, with the view of ascertaining what the revenue had benefited by that measure, as it was one of the arguments on which it had been defended. After a short conversation it was agreed to.

STATE OF THE NATION.

Lord Grosvenor rose to propose an inquiry into the state of the nation, influenced as he felt himself by the present awful April 1809.

crisis and the calamitous state of our external relations. His Lordship then partially glanced at the relations between Great Britain and foreign powers, asserted that

the conduct of Ministers towards Sweden was highly culpable; that they had driven America to a state of exasperated retaliation, that he feared must ultimately end in hostility; and, with respect to the campaigns in Portugal and Spain, they had shamefully wasted the valour and resources of the country. But above all, the convention of Cintra was a matter that ought to undergo a Parliamentary investigation; and for those reasons he should move, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee to inquire into the state of the nation.

Lord Liverpool opposed the motion, upon the ground that the necessary informa tion was not yet before the House on which their Lordships were capable of coming to a correct conclusion as to the nature of those external relations which had been alluded to by the Noble Mover. Without such information, he said, it would be prejudging the conduct of Ministers if an inquiry was instituted.

Lord Moira spoke in the most animated way againstthe reluctance Ministers had shewn to inquiry, and said their obvious misconduct, if persisted in, would bring the country to ruin.

Lord Mulgrave defended his colleagues in office.

Lord Grenville said, the country possessed valour and resources, but such was the intemperance of the present Ministers, that they were dissipating that valour and those resources in unwise and impolitic enterprizes, and if a check was not put to their career, the country must fall.

The Lord Chancellor and Lord Erskine

spoke at some length, and the motion for going into an inquiry on the state of the nation was negatived without a division. Friday, Feb. 10.

Lord Auckland moved for such further documents as had been transmitted by our Minister in America to the Government

here, respecting the embargo, &c. He alluded to an opinion that had gone abroad, that the Americans had shown a partiality for France, in their offers to go to war with this country, provided France recalled her decrees, and we refused to revoke our orders in Council; a notion which he did not believe was founded in fact. Lord Li

[ocr errors]

verpool had no objection that all the official papers should be laid before the House.

Friday, Feb. 17.

Lord Grenville made his long-expected motion for the repeal of the Orders in Council, as far as they affect the United States of America. He commented at considerable length on the impropriety of our conduct in not accepting the offer made by America to take off the embargo, if we repealed our Orders in Council; and endeavoured to show that America acted impar tially between Britain and France. He was supported by Lords Sidmouth, Auck Jand, and Erskine; and opposed by Lord Bathurst, Lord Melville, the Lord Chancellor, and the Earl of Liverpool. The question was then put, and the motion negatived. Contents 70; Non-contents, 115. Majority 45.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, Jan. 31.

THE LATE NEGOTIATION.

Mr Canning moved the order of the day for taking into consideration the papers relating to the late overtures from Russia and France; which order being read, the Right Hon. Secretary addressed the House. He said he did not apprehend any difference of opinion on the question now be fore the House; for he could not conceive that, in these overtures, there was the the least chance of negotiation with the prospect of peace. Such was the state of the public opinion, during the correspondence, that people only feared lest Government should be entrapped into a fruitless negotiation. The Ministers felt that, if they protracted the business, they would have been doing a practical evil to the country, and therefore they wished to bring it to a conclusion as soon as possible. The unexampled atrocity of Bonaparte's conduct towards Spain was a circumstance for which some atonement might be demanded; but he did not think it was one for which such atonement ought to have been asked, however atrocious his violence might have been. And altho' he thought posterity would never have to record a more abominable act, yet he did not think that should have retarded a negotiation. The duty of Ministers seemed to be to ascertain the feelings of the enemy, so as to know whether there was any chance of peace. To have required, in the first instance, that the armies should evacuate Spain, as a sine qua non of negotiation, would not have been proper on our part, as it would have given him a right to make a similar demand on us, and do that for Spain which Spain did not herself require.

And equally improper it would have been to demand the restoration of the Spanish Monarchy. All that could be required of us was, to do only what Spain required.Ministers then did no more than demand that the Government de facto,-that the persons exercising the powers of Government in that country, should be admitted as parties to the negotiation. He then referred to the history of Spain, to show that the Spanish Netherlands had been admitted parties to a negotiation, while the question of admitting their independence was deferred to a future opportunity. He had heard it contended by some, that the proposal of the uti possidetis did admit Spain into the negotiation. How, he asked, could such a principle be maintained, when we were not in possession of Spain? If we even had possession of all the garrisoned towns in Spain, he would not have admitted of such a principle. His Majesty's Government were justified in presuming that the Emperor of Russia was not dead to the rights of Sovereigns. They did expect that ; and they had a right to hope that the conferences at Erfurth would have led to some favourable result. They could not avoid recollecting that Russia had, in former periods, been favourable to the Spanish Monarchy. At the conferences of Erfurth, Spain could not have been neglected-the eyes of all Europe were fixed upon that country. But what must be the surprise of his Majesty's Government to find, that, in the overtures from Russia and France, Spain was studiously omitted. The sub ject was, however, brought forward by us; and the question was distinctly put, as to the intentions of France towards Spain The answer was this, that in no shape should the Spanish people be admitted to the negotiation. And see the reason which the enemy assigned for this declaration.— It was, that they were in a state of rebellion;-and to whom? not to their legiti mate Government, but to Joseph Bonaparte! The whole question was, whether we should have gone to negotiation, with an admission that the Spanish people, with whom we formed a treaty of alliance, were rebels, and ought to be punished as such? And see what a curious illustration Bonaparte made," that the Spaniards were rebels to his brother, as the Catholics of Ireland were rebels to the government of Great Britain." Now, if the Catholics were rebels, whom were they rebels to? To their lawful King? Were this Government then, with a stroke of the pen, to admit that a people who were struggling against a monstrous usurpation, should be punished as rebels? He knew not by what authority Government should have done

[ocr errors]

so, except by bowing to the authority of Bonaparte himself. It was our object only to take and support Spain as we found it, and not to try any experiment of new modelling it to our purposes. During the very existence of the negotiation, Bonaparte did declare his determination to depose the King of Spain, and seat his brother on the throne. But still there were people in this country who thought that we should stoop low, and degrade ourselves by submissions. But he trusted that if this country was to fall, one of the last things we should struggle for, in these adverse waves, would be the preservation of our faith and honour. At the first moment of our joining the cause of Spain, the first object pursued, and the first principle recommended was, that our conduct towards Spain should not only be free from selfish objects, but even free from suspicion. Having gone on in a line of honour to that country, it became us to adhere to it with more than ordinary perseverance. "Græcia capta ferum victorem cepit," was the consolation of ancient Greece, at being subjugated by foreigners; but no polish that a conqueror could ever introduce could make up for the loss of national independence. The resistance of the Spaniards was the noblest effort of national energy, and it was the duty of this country to support them; and it would have been a shameful breach of honour to have consented to any negotiation by which they should have been abandoned. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded with moving an address to his Majesty, approving of the conduct of his Majesty's Government in the late negotiation, and as suring his Majesty of the support of that House in the just prosecution of the war.

Mr Whitbread expressed his satisfaction at hearing some axioms of Government from the Right Honourable Gentleman, which if they had been pursued 16 years ago, the Bourbon family might have remained on the throne of France, and Bonaparte would never have risen from his original obscurity. The Right Hon. Secretary had stated, that whatever Government the people of a country supported, that was the legitimate Government of the country.But 17 years ago, when that axiom was held forth in that House, it was denied by the adherents of Mr Pitt, and the supporters of it reproached with the name of Jacobins. Now, with respect to the negotiation in question, he condemned the language used in one of the official papers of the Rt. Hon. Gentleman, in which he had called the conduct of Bonaparte atrocious; yet, did he recollect that most atrocious act which he himself sanctioned last year,the expedition to Copenhagen? Was not

the partition of Poland an atrocious act? yet the actors were Catherine the Great, and the Emperor of Austria, all our former allies! Look at our own conduct in India (hear! hear) He did not produce these parallels to justify the atrocities of Bonaparte, but to shew how far the Right Hon. Gentleman was justified in using such language in an official dispatch. Let us not do deeds of dishonour in one part of the world, and then ride off and rail at deeds of dishonour in other places. He could see no reason why a studied insult should be given to the Chief of the French Government in the answer of the Right Honourable Gentleman to Count Romanzow, when he said the reason why the King would not answer the letter of the Emperor of Russia was, because it was signed by another person (Bonaparte) whom his Majesty would not acknowledge. He agreed it would have been highly improper in his Majesty to write a letter to Bonaparte; but there was no occasion to accompany the refusal with a taunt and an insult.Professions were made of the readiness of Gentlemen to make peace. He contended, if the conduct had been equal to the professions of the Government, we should have been at peace long ago. He condemned the declaration of the Right Hon. Gentleman, when he said that he rejoiced at the evil which the commercial regulations adopted by Government had inflicted on the enemy. Such a declaration was not only unworthy of a christian country, but untrue; because these regulations and restrictions never in the slightest degree impeded his progress. He contended we might have been in peace in 1809, and in 1806. In the late negotiation he wished to know why the Prince of the Brazils, and the King of Sicily, were not proposed parties. At the time when Bonaparte found so many obstacles to the subjugation of Spain, he had thought that to be a more favourable opportunity to negotiate for peace. There was another opportunity when negotiation might have been entered into with some prospect of success, and that was at the time of Joseph Bonaparte's flight from Madrid, and when his affairs in Spain were in a desperate situation. If ever we were to have peace, it must be with this man, whom we now insulted, and whose power was the greatest ever existed on the face of the earth. To say that France had no monarchy, was not only impolitic, but wholly untrue. If Government meant to treat with an idea that there was not the least prospect of success, that must itself have defeated the object. This was the evil that Government had repeatedly run into. And as he was confident it was

highly

highly improper to have proposed that the Spanish Deputies should have been admitted to the negotiation at Erfurth ; for even after the conclusion of peace, there was nothing to prevent Bonaparte from marching his armies over the Pyrenees. He was afraid that the subjugation of Spain was at this moment effected.

The allusion of the French Emperor to the Catholics of Ireland, was only a proof that he knew where the weakness of the British Government existed; and therefore it followed, that it was the duty of Government to remove the cause of that weakness, Government could trust the Catholics to fight for England, and to fight for Spain; therefore, it was their bounden duty to remove the shameful restraints they laboured under. He thought the negociation might have been carried on, without any mention being made of Spain; but he was confident the Government never had done its utmost to attain the objects of peace. He felt that he was in a small minority in the opinions which he now delivered; but still the more imperious duty rested on him to maintain those opinions. He there fore again lamented, that the negociation Kad been abruptly broken off, because we should very shortly have no place on the Continent to contend on; and we must, some time or other, negotiate for peace; and like the books offered by the Sybil to a King of Rome, the longer it was delayed, the dearer would be the purchase. Now, when the cause of Spain was hopeless, as it appeared to be, the moment should not be delayed. Perhaps at this moment Portugal was in possession of the enemy, and his eagles were planted on the walls of Lisbon. Much as he had hoped for the cause of Spain, those hopes were entirely gone; and he would send no more armies to Spain, where there was no prospect of success. He concluded with moving an amendment, the purport of which was, that the House did not think any disgraceful preliminaries had been required by Russia and France; to express disapprobation of the conduct of Ministers in proposing to admit Spain to the negotiations, and at the language used by them towards France, which ought to have been conciliatory; and to request his Majesty to avail himself of any opportu nity by which he might commence negotiations with France, for the attainment of such a peace as might be compatible with the honour and interest of the nation.

Sir Francis Burdett said, that from the Commencement of the Spanish war he never entertained any of those sanguine expectations, which appeared on the eve of being most woefully disappointed; he could not therefore avoid stating his sentiments

on the subject. He never entertained any expectation that the exertions of the Spanish patriots, however great, would be crowned with success. In determining him to form this opinion, he ever bore in mind that the Spaniards were a nation that had been sunk for centuries in ignorance; that they had been subject to the most despotic government in Europe; and that their minds and habits had been ground down to the most abject slavery, by that most dreadful of all human institutions, the Inquisition, That such a nation, so circumstanced, should be the only one that shewed any sympton of patriotic feeling in the general oppression of Europe, he confessed. was most surprising; but his surprise and his sanguine hopes would not suffer him to be carried away by those delusive expecta tions, which had been so industriously raised, without having any possible means of accomplishing any one purpose held out to this country. He lamented that, for the last fifteen years, the very self same system of delusion had been practised, and had involved this country in endless wars. In considering the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers, in their views of reinstating the kingdom of Spain on the basis of indepen dence, he thought they betrayed a childish and unavailing ambition in aiming at objects totally out of their reach, whether the efficient power of the Spanish patriots was internally viewed, or the external means of assistance to be derived from the exertions and co-operations of this country. With these sentiments, he concluded by urging the necessity of sending up a remonstrance to his Majesty recommending a change in his Ministry.

The address was carried without a division.

The Speaker acquainted the House, that he had received from Sir David Baird an answer to the letter in which he communicated to him the vote of the thanks of that House on Wednesday last. The answer was read from the chair.- Mr Sheriff Smith presented a petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council, of London, praying further time for the purchase of houses for the improvement of the entrance into London by Temple-bar.

Some conversation took place relative to Mr Jeffrey, member for Poole, who had been appointed Consul General in Brazil. Mr Canning presented a copy of his patent at the bar; and, on a question of Lord Folkstone, informed the House, that his emoluments were derived, not from therevenues of this country, but from the Consul's fees, the minimum of which was L. 1500, the maximum L. 3000. That his salary was to be made good to the amount

of

[blocks in formation]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved for a Committee to inquire into the expediency of further suspending the distillation from grain in favour of that from sugar. He proposed that the suspension should be continued in Great Britain, while distillation from grain should be permitted in Ireland. That the importation of spirits from Ireland to Great Britain, and from Scotland to Ireland, should be prohibited. The House formed itself into a Committee accordingly, and determined that such a bill was expedient.

The thanks of the House were given by the Speaker to Brig.-General Fane, Lieutenant-General M'Kenzie Fraser, and Sir Samuel Hood.

[blocks in formation]

The thanks of the House were given to General Ferguson by the Speaker, Mr Whitbread rose to make his promised motion that the Chief Secretaryship of Ireland is an effective office of the highest respectability, which cannot be held by any person sbsent from the realm. Sir Arthur Wellesley informed the House, that when he accepted the office of Secretary for Ireland, it was clearly understood on all hands, that he was not in consequence to be precluded from accepting any subsequent military command. It was owing to the kindness of the Lord Lieutenant of 'reland

that the place had not been filled up when Sir Arthur went to Portugal. No inconvenience had happened to the public. He had accepted the salary, because he was obliged to keep an expensive establishment during his absence. He assured the House that the circumstance should not recur again in his person. Mr Whitbread declared himself satisfied with this assuranceThe previous question was then moved and agreed to.

The case of Mr Jeffery, member for Poole, who had accepted the place of Consul General for Portugal, was resumed, and, after some discussion, it was agreed upon that he had vacated his seat. A new writ was ordered accordingly to be issued for the election of a new member in his place.

The House, in a Committee of Ways and Means, came to a resolution to continue the duty on malt, the duty on sugar, the pension duty, and to raise 10,500,000%, and 1,500,0001. by Exchequer bills, as the loan for the year.

Tuesday Feb. 21.

CONVENTION OF CINTRA.

Lord Henry Petty rose to call the attention of the House to the transactions that had occurred during the Campaign in Portugal, and the convention of Cintra, which

was the unfortunate result of that cam

paign. After a long speech, his Lordship read a variety of extracts from the documents on the table, and concluded by moving the following resolutions:-1. That it is the opinion of this House, that the convention of Cintra disappointed the hopes and expectations of the nation.-2. That the causes and circumstances which led to such convention appear to have arisen from the misconduct of his Majesty's Ministers.

General Tarleton supported the motion. --He blamed Ministers for superseding Sir A. Wellesley, and appointing Sir H. Dalrymple in his place, merely because he had

been useful at Gibraltar.

attach to any person on account of the raSir A. Wellesley said, if culpability could tification of the convention of Cintra, it must be to the military officers, not to his Majesty's Ministers. In his opinion it is impossible for a British army to carry on a war in that country with success, unless in conjunction with the inhabitants.

After a long and arduous discussion, in which Mr Secretary Canning, Mr Wellesley Pole, and Mr Yorke, spoke with great warmth in support of the conduct of Mi. nisters; and Mr Bathurst, and Gen. Fergusson, argued in favour of Lord Henry Petty's motion; his Lordship replied at great length.

Upon a division, the numbers wereFor the previous question; 203-Against it, 153-Majority for Ministers, 50.

« ZurückWeiter »