doubt of its existence, he should vote for the motion of his hon. and learned friend. adjustment of claims in the beginning of the year, the declarations of the 13th and 25th of March were sufficient to show that for all great purposes the spirit of strict alliance still pervaded the great powers of Europe. The hon. gentlemen might therefore quiet their alarms, and console themselves with the assurance, that if, as they maintained, there existed disunion at one time, all obstacles to cordial reconciliation and reciprocal confidence had been subsequently removed. The spirit which was supposed to dictate the treaty now moved for, had produced no injurious effects; it had never influenced the conduct of the allies for a moment. That treaty, therefore, as it did not appear to have been acted upon at all, could have no effect on the ensuing discussion. It was merely an historical fact, and the noble lord said, gentlemen might as well come to his office, and demand every paper and document that it contained, as require the production of the treaty in question. There could be no parliamentary proceeding established upon it, and no parliamentary ground had been laid for asking it. Mr. Horner said, there could now be no doubt of the "historical fact," as the noble lord called it, that the noble lord had signed with the ministers of France and Austria, in the month of January 1815, a treaty, certainly defensive against Russia, if not in some points offensive against that power. It might be, and no doubt it was, a proper foresight on the part of the noble lord, to take on that occasion precautionary measures with France and Austria against Russia. But what reason could now operate to induce the noble lord to withhold the knowledge of that treaty from the House, except the effect which it might have on the argument in favour of the late arrangements, which would, no doubt, be grounded on their supposed stability? Doubtless, one of the main grounds on which the noble lord would call for the approbation of parliament, would be confidence in the cordiality of Russia. Now, in order to prove whether or not Russia was entitled to this confidence; whether or not she cherished intentions dangerous to the repose of Europe; it would be very material to prove, if the fact was so, that so lately as January, 1815, the noble lord had thought it necessary to adopt measures of precaution against her. Seeing no reason for keeping back this treaty, for he had no Mr. Tierney maintained, that the noble lord had no foundation for charging his hon. and learned friend, and those who supported him, with wishing to show that there had been a dissention among the allied powers. But if such a want of confidence in each other had actually existed, he was perfectly ready to admit that he was one of those who wished that the nature of it should be exhibited. The noble lord contended that no differences existed among the allied powers in January;"For see" he exclaimed, "how they united in the subsequent March!" No doubt they did all unite against their common enemy, Buonaparte. But, what he wanted to know was, how the allies felt in relation to each other, when their common enemy was supposed to be no more. In January 1815, Buonaparte was supposed to be safely disposed of. What were then their mutual feelings? They were now again in the same situation. Peace was restored, and Buonaparte was secured. What he wanted to know was, whether jealousies did or did not exist among them? If by the production of the treaty for which his hon. and learned friend had moved, it could be proved that a few months after the first overthrow of the common enemy, the allied powers were at variance, was it unnatural to infer that similar jealousies might exist at present, and would not that inference have an effect on the opinion of parliament as to the permanency of the tranquillity of Europe? The noble lord did not deny that a treaty was actually signed by France and Austria, without the participation of Russia, and he believed of Prussia. The noble lord did not deny, that to this treaty he was himself a contracting party. Under these circumstances, the House ought, without delay, to be put in possession of the document. But, said the noble lord, it is merely a matter of history. Yes, and like other matter of history, it was necessary that it should be known, because the knowledge of it bore on other times. If the noble lord could show that the causes which gave birth to the treaty of January 1815 no longer existed, it would be well. Otherwise it would be impossible for him to believe, that there was a cordial community of feeling among the allies. When he saw that the noble lord was unwilling to produce the document, he became morally certain that the production of it would disclose something calculated to shake the opinion of parliament as to the probable durability of a union of sentiment among the allied powers. The noble lord had censured his hon. and learned friend for suspecting treaties to exist, and then making motions with respect to them. If all his hon. and learned friend's suspicions were as well founded as the present had shown itself to be, his conjectures would prove to be tolerably accurate. At a time when parliament was about to enter into a discussion of the greatest importance-a discussion of all the political transactions of the last two years, the noble lord excluded them from a document which would throw the greatest light on the subject. There was not a dispassionate man in the country who must not believe that something was kept back which if it were brought forward would materially affect the public opinion. The House then divided : Mathew, Montague Nugent, lord -67 North, D. TELLERS. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, February 12, it would not be deemed improper to extend the same indulgence to the concerns of other noble lords who had not a seat in that House, and could not therefore state their case there, though it might be well deserving of being publicly noticed. It was notorious that a noble friend of his, lord Kinnaird, had been ordered to quit France by the French government; and if his noble friend had had the advantage of a seat in that House, he himself would no doubt have stated all the circumstances of his case, and no one could make a more clear and able statement than his noble friend. But as his noble friend could not appear there to speak for himself, he thought that none could more properly undertake to set the matter in its true light, and state the whole circumstances of the transaction, than some one of those noble lords who were members of administration. He would therefore ask the noble earl opposite, whether any commu nications on this subject had passed between our government or our ministers at Paris and the French government? Indeed, he rather believed that some communications on the subject had passed; and if they had, he wished to ask whether the noble earl had any objection to produce those communications, and to lay them on their lordships table? If the noble earl did not think it proper to do that, then he wished to know, whether he had any objection to give a general statement of the circumstances? If he could do this, his noble friend's object would be answered, without calling for the documents, or going into any particular investigation. The Earl of Liverpool said, he should be extremely glad to give the noble lord any satisfaction in his power on the topic to which he had adverted; but, sitting there, he could only look at the matter as a public question. And the view he had LORD KINNAIRD.] Lord Holland, be- of the matter was this-that the British fore the House proceeded to any other government could not, with any propriety, business, was anxious to call their lord- insist upon any explanation from the ships attention to a point which, though French government of a transaction which, he did not mean to make it the founda- if it had happened in their own case, the tion of any parliamentary proceeding, he British government would not have thought thought it not improper to state in his itself bound to explain to any foreign goplace. Their lordships had been in the vernment. It was quite clear, that every habit, from courtesy to each other, some-government had a right to send out of its times to allow statements to be made re- territory any person who was not a born or specting matters concerning themselves, naturalized subject of that country, withthough not strictly of that description out being accountable to any foreign which could form proper subjects for par-power, or bound to give any explanations, liamentary investigation; and he trusted except in as far as they might be ob(VOL. XXXII. ) (2 B) liged to account or explain to their own subjects. He felt this the more strongly on account of the policy with respect to aliens which had been adopted by this country for the last twenty years; for his lordship was aware that, by act of parliament, for these last twenty years, the Crown was empowered to send any alien out of the country at its own discretion. Our rule, therefore, must be, to suffer others to act as we ourselves would have insisted on acting, if the case had been our own. Now, if the British government had thought it right, in the exercise of its discretion, to send a subject of the king of France out of this country, he did not feel that he would be in the least degree bound to give any account or explanation of the matter, or of the reasons and motives of the conduct of the British government, to the French ambassador, or the French government. Indeed, if it were fitting that such a power should exist at all, it was necessary that the government should be exempt from the obligation to give any such explanation; for the whole object of it might be defeated, if the government were bound to state the grounds and causes of the measures of that description which they might think proper to adopt. He did not, therefore, see any ground for the interference of our government in this matter. And as he saw no ground for any such interference, on the same principle he could not see upon what ground parliament could interfere, or enter at all into any consideration of the subject. No proceeding, therefore, could be founded on these documents, if they were produced; and therefore he saw no ground pon which they ought to be produced. Under these circumstances, he thought himself fully warranted, and indeed called upon in duty, to refuse the production of these papers. There was no doubt as to the fact, that a man of high rank in this country, a nobleman, had been sent out of France by the French government; and it was true, that some communication on the subject had taken place between our ambassador at Paris and the French goment, prompted merely, on the part of our minister, by private feelings, and his individual opinion that the noble lord alluded to had done nothing to call for such a proceeding on the part of the French government. But it was impossible that these could be the ground of any parliamentary proceeding; and their lordships would see that, in such a state of matters, it would be extremely inconvenient to subject the government to those interrogatories, the answering of which would, in effect, lead to the same result as a parliamentary investigation. He wished it, however, to be clearly understood, that he did not mean, in the least degree, to insinuate that there existed any ground of charge against the noble lord in question. In refusing to enter into any explanation on the subject, he was actuated solely by his sense of public duty. Lord Holland said, he was satisfied with the statement of the noble earl, since he understood him distinctly to say, that there was no charge whatever affecting the honour of his noble friend. By that declaration, the object of his noble friend was in a great measure answered; and he agreed in the general doctrine stated by the noble earl, on the point of interference in such cases as between one government and another, saving always any particular stipulations on the subject between different governments, and saving also the peculiar situation in which this country stood at the present moment with respect to France-a situation in which any act of the French government might be considered as an act of the British. He agreed also, that we were the less entitled to be jealous of the conduct of foreign governments in this particular, after the innovation which had been made in our constitution with respect to strangers, by the act which formed the ground-work of our policy with respect to aliens for the last twenty years; an act which he had always regarded as one of the most unfortunate innovations on our constitution that had taken place since the memory of man. But he was sensible that this was not the time to argue that question. Feeling that his noble friend was as much entitled to the courtesy of the House as if he had had a seat there, he had thought it right to call their lordships' attention to the subject, for the purpose of obtaining, what he had now succeeded in procuring a distinct and public disclaimer of any imputation on the honour of his noble friend. TREATIES, CONVENTIONS, &c.] Lord King expressed a wish to have some information respecting the pecuniary transactions with foreign powers, without which the treaties before their lordships could not be fairly and fully discussed. Respecting the Austrian Loan, he wished to know whether the noble earl had any ob jection to lay before the House the amount now due to this country, for interest paid upon the loan. On another topic, the sums due by the French government for prisoners of war, he asked, whether there was any objection to lay before the House the amount of the balances? There were also sums due in honour by France, for the money advanced to the royal family of that country whilst residing here, and the sums paid to the French emigrants. Respecting the former, there was some time since a proceeding indicative of an intention of repaying those advances, but nothing further had lately been said about it. With respect to the emigrants, nothing whatever had transpired of any intention to repay the sums advanced to them. Upon another subject, the fourth part of the Russian loan in Holland, which we had undertaken to liquidate, he wished for information as to the amount of the charge upon this country. We had also, it appeared, with regard to Portugal, extinguished a balance of 600,000l. due by that power, and agreed to make an advance of 300,000l. more, upon which topic there was likewise a want of information. The Earl of Liverpool, with regard to the Austrian loan, said, that the noble lord could, as well as any one in the treasury, calculate the amount of interest upon the capital of 7,000,000l. advanced in 1796, the documents relating to it having been long since laid before parliament. With respect to prisoners of war, the motion of a noble marquis the other night for the balances due on this head by the French government had been agreed to. As to what had been stated by the noble lord respecting the sums advanced to the royal family of France, and to the eniigrants, during the period of their distress and emigration, he could not agree that there was any claim on that ground upon the French government. With the feelings of that government upon the subject, he had nothing to do; he merely contended that he had no claim. Lord King said, he could not calculate the amount of interest on the Austrian loan, because he was not aware what sums had been paid by Austria. The Earl of Liverpool replied, none at all. Lord King wished for a return, stating that fact. The Earl of Liverpool did not see the necessity of it. The Earl of Lauderdale contended, that it was the regular practice of Parliament to call for returns, although it was known beforehand that there must be a return of nil; because it was only in that way they could have the fact officially before them. He, however, thought that the noble earl was mistaken, and that some part of the interest had been paid by Austria. The Earl of Liverpool expressed his readiness to agree to an account, if that were the case; and he could not undertake to say it was not so. An account was then moved by lord King, and ordered, of any sums paid by Austria on account of the principal, interest, or sinking fund of the loan to that power. Lord Holland observing, with respect to the great mass of treaties laid upon the table, that the treaty of 1814 was, it seemed, to be considered as the new basis of the arrangement of Europe, and that the treaty of Utrecht and the subsequent treaties were functi officio, and absolutely gone, wished to know whether any stipu lation had been made to prevent the branch of the Bourbons on the throne of France or Spain from succeeding to the throne of the other branch, on the failure of direct heirs; as object which had formerly cost this country an immense expenditure of blood and treasure. The Earl of Liverpool said, that there was no treaty, at least no political one, which had not been laid before parlia ment. Lord Holland asked, was he then to understand that in the event of the death of the four princes now in succession to the throne of France, there was no stipulation whatever to prevent Ferdinand of Spain from claiming that throne as the next heir? The Earl of Liverpool repeated, that there was no treaty but what had been laid before parliament. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, February 12. RESOLUTIONS OF THE BANK ON LORD LIVERPOOL'S AND MR. VANSITTART'S LETTER.] Mr. Lushington presented to the House the following Copy of RESOLUTIONS of the Court of Directors, on the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Letter, of the 16th Jan. 1816; and, recommendation thereof to the General Court. At a Court of Directors at the Bank, on Thursday the 8th Feb. 1816: The following Letter from the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being read; viz. "Downing-Street, 16th Jan. 1816. "Gentlemen;-The consideration it has been our duty to give to the representations, which have reached us from various quarters, respecting the internal state of the country, has led us to conclude that it will be of the greatest importance to the public interest, to provide for the expenses of the present year with as little pressure as possible upon the money market; we think it particularly desirable to keep this object in view, in the arrangements which must take place between the public and the bank, upon the expiration of the engagements now subsisting between them, under several acts of parliament now approaching to their termination; and it appears to us probable, that the great reduction which has taken place in the amount of outstanding exchequer bills in the course of the year past, may enable the bank, without inconvenience, to afford an important accommodation to the public service, by consenting to a temporary advance on the following conditions:-1st: That the advance of 3,000,000., made without interest by virtue of the act 55th Geo. 3, c. 16, be further continued, without interest, for two years, from the 5th April 1816. 2ndly: That the advance of 1,500,000l. upon exchequer bills at 5 per cent. by virtue of the act 55th Geo. 3, c. 149, shall be repaid. 3dly; That the bank shall advance the sum of 6,000,000l. for the service of the year 1816, on exchequer bills at 4 per cent. for two years certain, from the passsing of the act which shall authorize such an advance, and shall continue the same for three years longer from such period, subject to repayment upon six months notice to be given at any time between the 10th October in any year, and the 5th April following, either by the lords of the treasury to the bank, or by the bank to their lordships. We have the honour to remain, &c. mend to the court, that the proposals contained therein be complied with.-The court agreed thereto. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY-FINANCIAL EXPOSITION.] The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, and the several accounts relating to outstanding exchequer bills, and showing the amount of monies in the exchequer, and remaining to be received on the 5th of February 1816, to complete the aids granted in the last session for the service of the year 1815, being referred to the said committee, The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose. He said, that before he entered into any general observations, he should, in a few words, explain the vote with which he intended to conclude. He was, in the first place, to provide for the payment of different exchequer bills outstanding, and which, in the ordinary course, should now be provided for. The first was a sum of 11 millions of exchequer bills, which remained of a sum of 12 millions and a half, voted in November 1814; also another of 4 millions and a half of exchequer bills which were now become due, and lastly, a sum of a million and a half which had usually been carried on from year to year. He should also propose to make provision for the exchequer bills outstanding on the aids of the year 1815, and amounting to 18,600,000l.; carrying to the amount of the ways and means of 1816, an equal sum from those of 1815, which still remained to be received. The object of this arrangement, which was similar to the practice of several years past, was to make all sums received into the exchequer applicable to the service of either year, as occasion might require. If he were to confine himself to the object of the vote which he had to propose, it would be unnecessary for him to say more: but a wish had been expressed by many gentlemen, that on the first occasion on which a vote of supply was proposed to the House, he should make some general observations as to the probable extent of the supply, and the ways and means to meet that supply. Although the practice was unusual, it was not unreasonable or inconvenient that the House, by some general statement, should be enabled to form an opinion, by which it might regulate its judgment on the specific votes which were successively presented to it. Such a statement as he should make was, in its |