« PreviousContinue »
House, he had negotiated on the subject. I already made, as would conduce to the Having failed in his negotiations to bring j welfare and best interests of that counabout the desired union, his Majesty | try, and the lasting peace and tranquillity adopted other measures, with a view to i of Europe. The noble Earl had thought remove the difficulties of the case, and j benefit his subjects; and the Royal .Speed
informed the House, that there were now hopes of effecting these objects at an early opportunity. As long as there existed a government in Portugal, keeping a large portion of the talent and property of the kingdom in a state of exile, his Majesty could not recognize a government so circumstanced, without endangering our safety and honour. An amnesty, therefore, which would permit the return of the exiled party, and guarantee their security, had been long recommended, and the government of Portugal at length intending to carry it into effect, his Majesty conceived the great difficulty to be removed, and had expressed his intention to recognize that government. The noble Earl said, " Shall we be bound to go to war to carry into execution that amnesty?" That did not follow by any means, and the noble Earl would see, from the expressions used in his Majesty's Speech, and from the observations he had submitted to their Lordships, that we should not be bound to go to war in order to carry into effect any part of the engagement. We should be bound to interfere, in every possible way short of actual war, to prevent a violation of the amnesty. Such an interference was very different in its nature from the designs referred to by the noble Earl, and was perfectly justifiable. Although the noble Earl did not approve of the recognition of the Portuguese government, and of the renewal of our diplomatic relations with that country, he was glad to find that the noble Earl approved of the measures adopted by this Government with respect to France, and he begged to assure the House, in answer to what the noble Lord said, questioning whether or not it was our intintion to proceed in the same spirit as we had begun, and carry into execution the arrangements with France with good faith, that these arrangements never would have been made if it was not intended to carry them faithfully into effect. When the Government of this, country saw the new government of France established, his Majesty had not the slightest hesitation in acknowledging the new order of things, and he sincerely hoped that such arrange
proper to find fault with the expressions used in the Speech with reference to the government of the king of the Netherlands; and the noble Earl observed, that his Majesty's Ministers had not mentioned one single subject of complaint made by the people of the Netherlands to their sovereign, though those complaints had appeared in a pamphlet which was published some years ago, and had become matters of history, and were well known to the king. But though this were the case, was his Majesty,—the ally, the close ally of the king of the Netherlands,—in speaking of the government of that sovereign, to mention what had occurred among his subjects as anything but a revolt against his authority? How could his Majesty do otherwise than treat the convulsions which had taken place in the territory of his close and near ally, but as a revolt against his legal and established government? The noble Lord had no doubt read, in the daily publications, the full history of the transactions. They commenced, it was well known, in nothing but a riot. The troops were eventually overpowered by those who had revolted, under the pretence of putting down that riot, and for which purpose they had ostensibly armed themselves, though they eventually turned their arms against the royal authority. The complaints of the revolters against the king of the Netherlands were, in the first instance, absolutely nothing. Of what did they complain? The first object they found fault with was the union of the two countries, and the existence in the administration of the government of a person named Van Maanen, who, however, was actually out of office at the time when the complaints against him were made. The other complaints were of supposed or real grievances, of a partial nature, and the result of local regulations. In fact, it was very well known,—and he appealed to every noble Lord who heard him, whether he was not correct in saying it,—that no complaint whatever was made against the king of the Netherlands personally, or against his administration of the government, or (with one exception) against those to whom he had confided the functions of
menu would be made, in addition to those official duties, until the revolters had attained a certain degree of success, and upon his Majesty's Speech from the Throne, began to aim at what, in the first instance, The Belgians did, in point of fact, revolt.
they had not contemplated. What, then, he again asked, was his Majesty the king of England, in speaking of his ally, to enter into these complaints, or would it have been proper in him to have even alluded to the subject? He could not hesitate to say, that such a course would in every respect have been unadvisable.
and that is what his Majesty said in his Speech. He would add nothing further upon this topic, but proceed to another part of the noble Lord's speech, in which he alluded to the treaties by which this country was bound in her relations to the Netherlands. The first was the Treaty of Peace signed by the Allied Powers in the
And he would ask, what did the king of year 1814, and by which the provinces, the Netherlands do upon his receiving commonly called Belgium, were conceded these complaints? Had he not pursued and agreed to be joined to the united the strict course pointed out to him by the provinces of Holland, with a view to form constitution of the country? and had he a sovereignty under the government of not subsequently acted in rigid conformity the king of the Netherlands. In conseto his relations with other Powers? Im- < quence of this Treaty of 1814, arrangemediately the complaints were made ments were made for the government of known to him, the King had' assembled the Netherlands, under the king of the States General: he had assembled Holland, by each of the four Powers which that body in which was constitutionally had made the Treaty with France. It was vested the right and power to remedy the well known to the noble Lord that this grievances complained of by a portion of j arrangement was recorded in the treaty his subjects. He proposed as a question of the Eight Articles, and that this Treaty for their consideration, what were termed referred to the fundamental laws of the the greatest grievances,—namely, the > government of the United Provinces,
union between the two parts of the country: he laid before them the wish of one portion of his subjects to dissolve that union, as far as the administration of the government was concerned; "and finally, he proposed to them the question of revoking certain laws that were obnoxious to his subjects. Would his Majesty the king of England have done common justice to his ally, the king of the Netherlands,—did justice from one friendly Sovereign to another require that he should not assume that his conduct.
which were to be made applicable to the whole kingdom. There could be no doubt whatever that the four contracting Powers were bound by that Treaty in the present case. It made over to the King of the Netherlands the whole of Belgium, who received it according to the arrangements of that Treaty, by which all parties were to be strictly bound. Could it be contended that any thing which had since occurred, or that any thing in the present position of affairs, could alter the obligations or destroy the powers of that Treaty? Sub
prevkmsly to the revolt, had been that of sequently to the arrangements of which he a wise and good sovereign, and that he had been speaking, the Treaty had been wished to adopt the most ettectual measures made a matter of record, and a basis of to remedy the grievances complained of! ! negotiation in the acts of the Congress at What his Majesty the king of England had Vienna, and in fact, the acts of the treaty said, was merely that he lamented thatthose ( of the Eight Articles was an appendix to measures had not produced satisfactory (the Treaty of Vienna, to which the King results. The noble Lord, after comment- 4 of France became a contracting party, inc upon the Speech from the Throne. The Treaty had. therefore, received every and upon what he conceived were the i possible sanction and ratification, and views of his MajestVs Government, had , France had become a party to all the asked, was it possible that the Govern- j arrangements under it which ntent of England could be a just and impartial mediator, when it had, in fact, pronounced a sentence against one of the parties* He would say, that even the parties themselves could not and would not deny the fact which he had just stated, aor would they dispute tbeco rect- desiring their consent to the dissolution, of the interpretation which he put1 There could be no T
arrangements under it which referred to the kingdom of the Netherlands. Notwithstanding this, it had been said, that the king of the Netherlands could dissolve this union between the two parts of his k:np.lom of himself, and without consul:"-;: thase who made the Treatv, o: adverted with considerable pain, because much of the present state of Ireland must
five Powers which had signed the Treaty of Vienna, would claim their indisputable right to give their opinion upon the future explanation of the articles. England could not attempt to pacify the parties alone. France could not singly make the attempt; nor could any other Power use an effort to pacify or reconcile existing differences alone; the object must be attempted by all the parties in concert, and that concert, whatever the arrangements were, must include France. That there were difficulties in the way of effecting a pacification he did not deny, but he hoped to get the better of them. He could assure the House that there was no intention whatever on the part of his Majesty's Ministers—that there was not the slightest intention on the part of any Power whatever—to interfere by means of arms with the arrangements respecting the Netherlands. The desire of his Majesty, and of every other,party concerned, was to settle, if possible, every point by means of negotiation, and by negotiation alone. He hoped that the negotiations between the different Powers would make arrangements, as stated in the Speech, which would be compatible with the welfare of both parties in the kingdom of the Netherlands, and conducive to the general safety of Europe. Before, however, he finished with this subject, he must beg to make one observation upon a very extraordinary assertion made by the noble Earl. The noble Earl had said, that the Treaty of Peace of 1814 had not tended to secure, which was its object, the general tranquillity of Europe, but to lay the foundation of future wars. Unfortunately for the noble Lord's assertion, as far as experience had as yet proved the effects of the Treaty, directly the reverse had been the case. Since the Treaty of 1814, there had been the longest general peace, he believed, ever known in Europe—a peace of sixteen years, uninterrupted only by the return of Buonaparte from Elba in 1815. This would show, that by common conciliation and management, the country would get over the present difficulties as it had got over others; and the course necessary to pursue was, to make the general interests of the different Powers of Europe compatible with the good government and welfare of their people. He should now come to a part of the noble Earl's speech to which lie confessed he
it broached a discussion which he had hoped might have been avoided till a future period. The noble Lord upon the cross-bench (Farnham) had been pleased to refer to a discussion of a former period, and to connect it with the present state of Ireland, of which he seemed disposed to make an immediate question. The noble Earl had given colour in some degree to the noble Lord's statements with respect to the influence of this country upon the state of affairs in Ireland. With respect to the repeal of the Union, he would only observe, that that repeal was objected to in the strongest manner by the noble Duke opposite: it was objected to by all the noble Duke's friends in Ireland; it was objected to by all the landed proprietors of Ireland, by a very great majority of Roman Catholics, and by nearly all the Protestants of Ireland; and it was opposed by the unanimous voice of that House, and equally by the unanimous voice of the other, with, perhaps, only one exception. That was the case at present, but what would have been the case if the great measure of emancipation, to which the noble Lord had alluded, had not been carried? The House well knew that a vast majority of the people of every class in Ireland had desired to see the Catholics restored to all their civil rights. The House well knew that a great majority of its Members, as well as a great majority of the other House, had been equally desirous of effecting that object: it well knew that the great majority of the young and growing intellect of the country had ardently wished for the measure, and would any noble Lord now contend, that the Government did not stand on firmer and better ground, with respect to the Union, than if the Catholic Question had not been carried? He, therefore, really did not see the advantage of repeating against him the reproach of his having given way upon that question from motives of fear. He denied that he had been influenced, even in the slightest degree, by any such motive. He had given way, if it could be termed given way, solely because the interests of the country required it. He had urged the question upon views of policy, and expediency, and of justice; upon these grounds he now justified the measure, and upon these grounds he ever would defend his conduct. The noble Lord must forgive him for saying that which he felt would be at that time both irregular and inconvenient, he would merely state, that the whole of his plan would be found to be one of conciliation, so as tc combine all interests and all opinions in favour of a restoration of the Constitution to its state of original purity. He was desirous of obtaining the consent of all classes and of all interests, and of all opinions, and of all who were disposed to go even the shortest way with him in the course which be proposed, and to repulse none who might be willing to admit, that there wtit good reasons to believe the representative system was in want of some refora for it was rel mi, not change,
that he had in contemplation. He had only to add, without detaining the House any longer, that he intended to employ the interval, between that time and the day of his bringing forward his Motion, in communicating diligently with all those who held opinions of different degrees on the sabject. in order that he might, as far as in him ray. secure the co-operation and support of all who were interested in the great questions which it embraced. One word, however, be thought it now necessary to add. with respect to the principle :•: -f .:asaw ar.d : tal was, to repeat his declaration, that his object was not revolution bat restoration—to restore the representation to that state in which it ought to he, not to change it from what it had bes —tc rep* r. not to pull down. Sessional Orders adopted.
Assaxss Ix AxswtR To Thk King's Smew/ The Speaker informed the H?«se that he had procured a copy of the Cap's Speech, to prevent mistakes; and
v. ^, - tki ihc tnriilhrtioa ttfthe
On the Speech bean? read,—[far tclick str an*, p. 1315.]
Lord CVnninini row to move an Address to the Crow* ia answer to the Royal Shad- In rising to address such an Ass-i-Vv. cndei the rjrcunaatancna in which he was placed, he could oolv relv fbru*hrigencwonthe kind feeling of the fk«e, and on the courtesy 3 those Members in partiraUr. who, having premaVd ham an a—war nt carinas, knew the assBjer.: r»o«.VMtal u» no novel a s-rci.v--. A: law Mm nana, Im »« aware that a casse like that confided to hit hands ewgfct net to swwer front the »»aaVe/aacy of hts talents for the perfceuv
ance of the task. The accession of tit I Sovereign at a period so pregnant nf great events abroad and at home, presaged matter for interesting reflection, nt the personal character of that Sovereir. together with the tenor of his Speech, K might add, were of a nature to call k congratulation. The settlement of a Regency, as suggested by the Royal Speed was a delicate subject of discussion, \& the terms of the recommendation sufficiently indicated the extent to which is Majesty's confidence was reposed in the fidelity and judgment: it was for them t show that his confidence was not misplaced. Of such a Monarch, he trusted it was j too much to say, that he was liberal ii his principles, kind in temper, and condescending in disposition, that be rejoices. not in the unsubstantial pageantry oft Throne, but in the happiness of his people; and that he ever considered how he should best maintain the essential spirit o; the Constitution, which inculcated liberty to all, injury to none. It was impossible to view without regret the affairs of France, a country in alliance with ourselves, which, after having accomplished a revolution, accompanied by fewer evils than are usually attendant ou such a crisis, still continued unsatisfied and discontented,' the deep injury of the commercial interests of this country in so far as they were connected with those of our neighbour and ally. The Belgian States, it was to be lamented, exhibited even greater horrors than those of which France had been the theatre, bavins: rebelled and levied ■» against their King, who was ready to i make any concessions in their favour 'which they could reasonably demand. 1 Nevertheless, although no amicable tef| initiation to these dissensions had hitherto I been pnxiuced. he was not without hope* that they might yet be adjusted by the mediation of Great Britain, in conjunction with the other allied Powers of Europe. The adage, that the bitterest foes are lho» ■ • a household, was, however, but too deserving of universal acceptation. But amid these wars and rumours of wars,which dailv reached our ears, it was som^
« to reflect that we. at least, ntti"* :
cord which raged en every >> • Through the atom *unekB|.
endangered & citsttng institution* of *^K^nVr
doing justice to these important subjects, to enter much at large into the consideration of the topics which they suggested. Although it was not for him to offer an opinion on the cause of the Revolution in France, or to say whether it proceeded from the Sovereign or the people, or whether it was produced by the acts of the King or his Advisers, yet he was convinced there was not a Member of that House, whatever might be his political creed, who did not regret that event: he repeated, he should feel surprised if there was any Member who did not join with the majority in regretting the events which arose from that Revolution, and the circumstances which attended it—circumstances which were calculated to awaken those feelings respecting civil dissensions which it was fondly hoped, had been allayed for ever, and which were calculated to produce others so dangerous to the tranquillity of Europe. While he deplored these events, it was, however, a subject of congratulation that the illustrious person now called to the throne of France, and who was said to be distinguished by almost every grace which adorns humanity, had declared his determination to preserve most faithfully the relations of amity with this country. After alluding to the fact that the other Powers of Europe had recognised the new government of France as promptly as this country, the hon. Member observed, that the same reasons which produced regret for the changes which had taken place in France, must ion of I operate to produce still greater regret for the disturbances in the Netherlands. It might, indeed, have been supposed that the people of a country which had suffered so much from the horrors of a war, and which had been so often made the arena on which the great Powers of Europe decided their quarrels, would have been taught by the sad experience of former calamities, to restrain their feelings within the bounds of moderation, and to have adopted every reasonable method of redressing their grievances, before they had recourse to the power of arms. As, however, they had unfortunately pursued a different course, it was some consolation, in the midst of the anxieties felt for the peace of Europe, when a country so intimately connected with the causes of all former contests was in a state of anarchy, 'iowever appalling the prospect of be, or however much the pre