presented a petition from the merchants and traders of Bristol, praying the repeal of two acts of parliament—the 53d of the King, for the relief of insolvent debtors, and an act, passed in the succeeding session, to amend and explain the former act. He expressed himself satisfied that these measures had a tendency to increase the evils they were intended to correct; and hoped, that the subject would be taken up in such a way, that while the benevolent views of the legislature were carried into effect with respect to unfortunate debtors, effectual provision would be made for the protection of the honest creditor.—The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move, that copy of the convention of Paris, should be laid before the House, to which motion he understood, no objection would be made. But there were other papers connected with this convention, the production of which he required; namely, copies of the letter of marshal Ney, prince of Moskwa, to the ministers of the four allied powers; the letter of madame Ney to the duke of Wellington, and also the letters of Messrs. Berryer and Dupin to the British embassador at Paris.

said, that he had no objection to the production of a copy of the convention, and he believed, that the official communication which the earl of Liverpool had obtained the Prince Regent's permission to make to parliament, would contain all the information the hon. member desired to have laid before the House. With what view the hon. member required the papers to which he referred, he was pretty well aware, and without entering into the question at present, he could not hesitate to express his confidence, that he would succeed in convincing even the hon. member himself, that in a certain transaction no breach of faith was in the slightest degree imputable, either to the British or to the French government.

expressed a hope, that all the papers to which he had adverted, would be laid before the House.

observed, that he thought the official communication would contain all the papers the hon. member required; if, however, it did not, the hon. member might point out what he farther wanted, and that should be supplied.

The motion was then agreed to.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for the production of a copy of the treaty entered into between Austria, Russia, and Prussia, and concluded at Paris, on the 26th of September 1815. He was not, he said, aware, that there was any objection to his motion, or that the noble lord was inclined to oppose it, and he was not, therefore, disposed to say any thing on this occasion likely to anticipate, the general and large discussion fixed for Monday se'nnight. For he was quite aware of the propriety and advan- tage of taking at once a full view of the whole case, which was in that debate to be brought under the consideration of the House. But in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord yesterday, he thought it necessary to say a word or two upon the subject to which his motion referred, in defence of the line of conduct which he felt it his duty to pursue. At the same time, he was extremely unwilling to offer any observation at all tending to compel or induce the noble lord to make any disclosure detrimental to the public service. But really the treaty to which he referred, and the published copy of which the noble lord admitted to be correct, was of such an extraordinary character, that he could not reconcile it to his notions of policy or consistency to pass it over in silence. It was, in the first instance, material to inquire, whether this treaty between three great powers, which were our allies, and to which this country was no party, could be regarded in conformity with good faith towards us—whether the obligations to which the contracting parties pledged themselves, and the effect to which those obligations were likely to lead, interfered, or threatened in any degree to interfere, with the treaty entered into between those parties and this country. It certainly was rather singular, that after having concluded a treaty with this country, which pledged all the contracting parties to an identity of interest and object, those three powers should enter into a treaty for a separate object, to which this country was no party. But the noble lord said, that this exception was merely owing to a matter of form, the treaty under consideration having been signed by the sovereigns themselves. Was it not, however, extraordinary, that such a departure from the usual course should have taken place—that after having negotiated, concluded, and signed all the former treaties, through the medium of diplomatic agents, the treaty under consideration should have had the signature of the sovereigns themselves? He called upon the noble lord to explain the cause of this deviation. If the treaty was framed in that spirit of frankness and candour and amity, which we were told characterised, and which we had a right to expect from states which owed us such important obligations, he could not imagine the cause for any deviation from the customary practice of negotiation, or that immediately upon the back of a solemn treaty with us, the sovereigns alluded to should have entered into an engagement, to which we were no party. In this engagement there certainly were some stipulations which called for animadversion. He could not, he must say (and he meant not to speak offensively) sufficiently account for the sort of simplicity which the noble lord betrayed, in stating that he saw nothing extraordinary in the nature of the treaty referred to, and that truly it proceeded alone from the spirit of benevolence and religion. These three great powers professed to pledge theme selves to the maintenance of Christian principles. But where was the necessity for such a pledge? No suspicion was expressed of their adherence to Christianity, which could require any such declaration or bond as their treaty contained. For the principles which this treaty professed to maintain he felt as much regard and reverence as any man. He recognised in those principles all that was essential to good government and human happiness. But what were the principles to which those sovereigns really proclaimed their attachment? or what the cause which could be said to call for that proclamation? There was nothing in their peculiar situation or character, there was nothing in the circumstances of the times, that at all required that those sovereigns should put themselves ostentatiously forward as the defenders of that Christianity which no danger menaced, or of those principles, which all good men must be ready to sustain. These sovereigns were not suspected of any inclination to depart from christianity. There was no charge or impeachment preferred against their character or views, which called upon them either with a view to their own vindication, or to what was passing in the world, to enter into a treaty, containing stipulations such as had seldom been heard of from the earliest times, such at least as had not been published since the time of the Crusades, such certainly as had no parallel in modern Europe. For the principles avowed in this treaty he repeated his deference; they were material to the happiness of all states and kingdoms, yet he saw no necessity for any public pledge upon the subject, either from the sovereigns alluded to or from any other christian prince. But notwithstanding the principles which this treaty declared a disposition to hold sacred, there was something so singular in its language as to call for observation, and to warrant no little jealousy. After professing at the outset a resolution in the administration of their respective states, and in their relations with every other government, to take as their sole guide the precepts of their holy religion, namely, the precepts of justice, christian charity, and peace, the contracting parties pledge themselves in the very first article of the treaty, "on all occasions, and in all places, to lend each other aid and assistance," and that they will lead their subjects and armies in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are animated, to protect religion, peace, and justice. Was there nothing to excite suspicion in such language? When sovereigns spoke of leading armies to protect religion, peace, and justice, was there no ground for alarm? He feared that there was much reason to apprehend the consequences of this treaty, notwithstanding the sacred principles which it professed to revere. He feared that something more was meant than what immediately met the eye. He could not think that this treaty referred to objects wholly spiritual. Why were they to engage to lead their armies to support the Christian religion, when no power had menaced it? Such a treaty appeared to him very extraordinary, when it was remembered, that but a few weeks before the parties to it had concluded, not only a treaty of peace among themselves, but one which was to secure the repose of all Europe. He always thought there was something suspicious in what a French writer had called "les abouchemens des rois." When crowned heads met, the result of their united councils was not always favourable to the interests of humanity. It was not the first time that Austria, Russia, and Prussia, had laid their heads together. On a former occasion, after professing vast regard for truth, religion, and justice, they had taken a course which had brought much misery on their own subjects, for whose welfare they affected the greatest concern, but they had made a war against an unoffending country, which had found little reason to felicitate themselves on finding their conquerors pre-eminently distinguished by those feelings which Christianity should inspire. The war against Poland, and the subsequent partition of that devoted country, had been prefaced by language very similar to that which this treaty contained, and the proclamation of the empress Catherine which wound up that fatal tragedy (for fatal that unprincipled partition had proved, and fatal it would prove to the peace of Europe till justice was rendered), had almost the same words. In her proclamation, dated Warsaw, the language of the treaty, or something very like it, might be found. In the treaty, the sovereigns call upon their subjects to worship no other sovereign than him to whom alone power really belongs, because in him alone are found all the treasures of love, science, and infinite wisdom; that is to say, God our Divine Saviour, the word of the most high, the word of life. The proclamation of the empress of Russia, to which he had alluded, after she had assisted in parcelling out Poland, after shedding seas of blood from the veins of her own subjects, and after sanctioning a massacre of 30,000 Poles, and driving out of Warsaw 30,000 more to be hunted down by a brutal soldiery, contained expressions which represented the empress to feel for these same Poles all the solicitude of a tender mother, who was only desirous of witnessing the happiness of her children. From her previous conduct, it should seem that she did not fail to chasten those whom she loved. She ordered a public thanksgiving to God, for the blessings poured down on the Poles (among which, no doubt, she included the massacre of 30,000 of their number); and ended by calling upon them to swear to serve her imperial majesty faithfully and loyally, to rally round her throne, to shed the last drop of their blood, the little remaining blood which her tender love had left, in defence of her person, "as they would answer for it to God and his terrible judgment;" and as a confirmation of the profession made by this oath, they were enjoined "to kiss the holy word and cross of their Saviour." Now, he would only entreat the House to consider the parity there was between the language of the present treaty, and that which was profaned on that memorable occasion, and to reflect how unnecessary, how uncalled for, such a treaty was at the present moment, and they would then be able to judge of the unparalleled simplicity of the noble lord, who could not see that what meant so much formerly, might mean something now, and who believed that this treaty was one in which no other power of Europe could have the least interest. Certainly there were not a few suspicions created in his mind by the treaty. From the frequent use which was here made of the name of religion, so often abused, he was led to apprehend that some sort of crusade was in contemplation. It could not be against the Poles, for they, unhappily, were in such a situation that nothing could be done that would make the fate of their country more deplorable than it was already, but it might be against some other power who could not by possibility become a party to this treaty—some nation ranging itself under other banners than those of the cross. With such feelings and such sentiments, he should not think he discharged his duty to that great discussion which was approaching, if he did not require from the noble lord some explanation of the treaty in question, and if he did not address the Crown for a copy of that document to be laid upon their table. He should therefore conclude by moving,

"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, the copy of a treaty between the sovereigns of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, signed at Paris, 26th September, 1815."^*

^* The following is a Copy of the Treaty moved for by Mr. Brougham:

Convention concluded at Paris on the 26th of September 1815, between the Emperor of Russia, the Emperor of Austria, and the King of Prussia.

"In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity,

"Their majesties, the emperor of Austria, the king of Prussia, and the emperor of Russia, having—in consequence of the great events which have marked the course of the three last years in Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased Divine Providence to shower down upon those states which place their confidence and their hope on it alone—acquired the intimate conviction of the necessity of founding the conduct to be observed by the powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon the sublime truths which the holy religion of our Saviour teaches;

"They solemnly declare, that the present act has no other object than to publish in the face of the whole world their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their respective states, and in their political relations with every other government, to take for their sole guide the pre-

said, that as he had admitted, on a former evening, the authenticity of the document moved for, in such a way as would fully answer all the purposes of discussion, he trusted the House would not consider him as narrowing the grounds of that discussion, if, in the exercise of what he conceived to be his duty, he should resist the production of it on the present occasion. In adopting teat course, he was actuated by no apprehensions, lest its production should lead to any relaxation of that close and intimate alliance which so happily subsisted between this country and its allies, for our union rested upon too solid grounds to be affected by any such transaction. On former occasions, there certainly had been many doubts entertained and expressed upon the possibility of forming that steady co-operation of all the powers of Europe, which it was necessary to accomplish, in order successfully to oppose the common enemy against whom we then had to contend for our rights and liberties; but those prophecies had all proved utterly fallacious, and he had little doubt that the prophecies which had been so liberally indulged

cepts of that holy religion, namely, the precepts of justice, Christian charity, and peace, which, far from being applicable only to private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the councils of princes, and guide all their steps, as being the only means of consolidating human institutions, and remedying their imperfections.

"In consequence their majesties have agreed on the following articles:—

"Art. 1. Conformably to the words of the holy Scriptures, which command all men to consider each other as brethren, the three contracting monarchs will remain united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and considering each other as fellow-countrymen, they will, on all occasions, and in all places, lend each other aid and assistance, and regarding themselves towards their subjects and armies as fathers of familes, they will lead them in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are animated, to protect religion, peace, and justice.

"2. In consequence, the sole principle in force, whether between the said governments, or between their subjects, shall be, that of doing each other reciprocal service, and of testifying by unalterable good-will, the mutual affection with which they ought

in that evening, respecting the present treaty, would be equally unaccomplished. It was not likely, indeed, that the sovereigns who had conducted that great and arduous struggle through all its difficulties and dangers, without any partial and narrow views towards their own personal interests, how strong soever those interests in some cases might be, would now, at its conclusion, diverge from the straight line of their duty to Europe, and, after having risen superior to every imputation that had been cast upon them, combine for such a purpose as had been intimated by the hon. member. If nothing could be found in the whole course of those transactions

to be animated, to consider themselves all as members of one and the same christian nation; the three allied princes looking on themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern three branches of the one family, namely Austria, Prussia, and Russia: thus confessing, that the Christian nation, of which they and their people form a part has in reality no other sovereign than Him to whom alone power really belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures of love, science, and infinite wisdom; that is to say, God, our Divine Saviour, the word of the Most High, the Word of Life. Their majesties consequently recommend to their people, with the most tender solicitude, as the sole means of enjoying that peace which arises from a good conscience, and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every day more and more in the principles and exercise of the duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.

"3. All the powers who shall choose solemnly to avow the sacred principles which have dictated the present act, and shall acknowledge how important it is for the happiness of nations, too long agitated, that those truths should henceforth exercise over the destinies of mankind all the influence which belongs to them, will be received with equal ardour and affection into this holy alliance. Done in triplicate, and signed at Paris the year of Grace, 1815 14–26th September.

(L. S.) FRANCIS.

(L. S.) FREDERIC WILLIAM.

(L. S.) ALEXANDER.

Conformable to the original,

(Signed) ALEXANDER.

Done at St. Petersburgh, the day of the birth of our Saviour, the 25th of December, 1815."

which questioned their good faith and sincerity, he did not think it quite fair in the hon. member, to go back to the ancient history of Poland to find proofs that the present sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, would belie that exalted character which they had acquired, and which would redound to their honour to the latest posterity; or that they would tear down, by their own petty differences, that great system of European policy, which had been the fruit of their labours. With respect to other parts of the hon. member's speech, he must, in the first instance, avow his dissent from the sentiment which he had expressed, that he was jealous of those abouchemens des rois, as he termed them. He had no hesitation in saying, that if the allied sovereigns had not been in a situation to concert together, in his conscience

The following is the Manifesto published by the emperor of Russia on Christmas day, 1815.

"By the grace of God, we Alexander 1, emperor and autocrat of all the Russias, &c. hereby make known, as we have seen from experience, and from the unhappy consequences that have resulted for the whole world, that the course of the political relations in Europe, between the powers, has not been founded on those true principles upon which the wisdom of God, in his revelations, has founded the peace and prosperity of nations; we have consequently, in conjunction with their majesties the emperor of Austria, Francis 1, and the king of Prussia, Frederic William, proceeded to form an alliance between us (to which the other Christian powers are invited to accede), in which we reciprocally engage both between ourselves, and in respect of our subjects, to adopt as the sole means to attain this end, the principle drawn from the words and doctrine of our-Saviour Jesus Christ, who preaches to live not in enmity and hatred, but in peace and love. We hope and implore the blessing of the Most High. May this sacred union be confirmed between all the powers,. for their general good; and (deterred by the union of all the rest) may no one dare to fall off from it! We accordingly subjoin a copy of this union, ordering it to be made generally known and read in all the churches.—St. Petersburgh, on the day of the birth of our Saviour, 25th December, 1815.

The original is signed by his imperial majesty's own hand, ALEXANDER."

he believed that the result of the war would have been very different from what it now was. He attributed the great distinguishing feature of the confederacy to that very particular circumstance which the hon. member viewed with so much jealousy. If the councils of the sovereigns had not been brought together—if they had not been in a condition to act at the moment of any crisis occurring—if they had been forced to look at their particular interests through that cloud of prejudice and uncertainty which must always intervene when events are seen at a distance, without the opportunity of exercising an immediate and local, judgment, he was sure the councils of Europe would have been disturbed to such an extent by doubts and misapprehensions, that those great exertions, whose successful issue was now before the world, would never have been made. He regarded, therefore, that precise circumstance as the hinge and cardinal feature to which might be ascribed the prosperous result of their combined efforts.—With respect to the treaty in question, he was surprised to hear the hon. member reason upon it as a document, concluded between the three powers after the engagements entered into by them with this country, and therefore calculated to disturb those engagements. In fact, that treaty was not signed subsequently to those engagements, but two months antecedently, and it was no small indication of their integrity and good faith, that even at a period when they were under considerable difficulties and embarrassments, though not of a nature likely to shake their general union, they should have exhibited that unequivocal proof, that they were not confederated together for their own particular interests, but for the general interests and welfare of the world. The hon. gentleman seemed to think that it was inconsistent with the nature of the engagements into which all the allied powers had mutually entered, for, one or more of those powers to sign a treaty separately among themselves; but in that opinion he was certainly wrong for even supposing that the treaty in question had been signed to our exclusion, they were perfectly entitled to do so, according to the stipulations of the treaty of Chaumont, in which the liberty was expressly reserved to all the different powers, of signing any treaties with each other which did not contradict the general objects of the alliance. He was perfectly satisfied, however, that none of those powers ever signed any separate treaty which contradicted either the letter or the spirit of the engagements then entered into.—Now, as to the mode in which the treaty had been signed. He did not mean to contend, if three sovereigns who had entered into close and intimate engagements with this nation of a general nature, were to conclude a treaty arising in some measure out of that common union without any communication with this country upon the subject, that though it could not be fairly construed as a breach of any contract, yet certainly it might be regarded as a proof of want of confidence and as indicating a decay of that cordial union which ought to subsist between all the parties of one general league. But he could inform the hon. gentleman, that the treaty for a copy of which he had moved the present address, was communicated to him by the emperor of Russia: his imperial majesty had shown him a draft of the instrument, he believed before it was communicated to the other sovereigns, and after the signing of it, they addressed a joint letter to his royal highness the Prince Regent, stating the grounds upon which the treaty had been concluded and anxiously desiring his royal highness's accession to it. In reply to this communication, his royal highness expressed his sincere satisfaction at the nature of the treaty, and his assurance that the British government would not be the one in Europe least disposed to act up to the principles contained in it. With respect to the treaty being signed by the sovereigns themselves, without the intervention of any minister, upon which the hon. gentleman had dwelt considerably he could assure him, that though the forms in this country did not admit such a procedure, and hence we had not become a party to it, yet it was by no means an uncommon transaction on the Continent. The hon. member seemed to suppose that the treaty in question had some reference to other projects, and that it was to be considered only as the forerunner of some undefined crusade against some nation or other who could not become a party to its stipulations. He could assure him, that his own persuasion of the understanding which subsisted between all the powers who signed that treaty was very different, and that no such intention existed in the breast of any of those sovereigns. It would, not, in his opinion, be too much to infer such a conclusion from the character and conduct of the sovereigns themselves. Whether the instrument was necessary or not, was another question, but he must say, that if that spirit which it breathed was one which sincerely animated the emperor of Russia, and for himself he could not entertain a doubt upon the subject, there was nothing upon which he should more sincerely congratulate Europe and the world. If the emperor of Russia chose to found his glory upon such a basis posterity would do justice to the noble determination. Having already done so much for mankind by his arms, to what better purpose could he apply his great influence, in the councils of the sovereigns of Europe than to secure for it a long and beneficial peace? It was the only glory which was now left him to acquire, after the great personal glory which he had already acquired. With respect to the document itself, he opposed its production upon a parliamentary ground as it was contrary to the practice of parliament to call for the production of treaties to which this country was no party; the reasons why we did not accede to it, he had also explained. He must say, however, that he never recollected any member of that House to have made a more unnecessary motion, or one more dangerous, if the confederacy could be shaken by such an attempt to lower and degrade the sovereigns of Europe, by unfounded imputations, and groundless suspicions.

did not wish to enter into a discussion of the policy of our foreign measures on the present occasion, as an opportunity would occur for making his observations, when the treaties and conventions already presented were taken into consideration. That discussion would disclose to the country the disgraceful transactions that had distinguished the late history of the great powers of Europe; their tyrannical conduct; their contempt for justice, faith, and moderation. We had evidence before us of the arrogant tone which the noble lord opposite assumed, of his haughty dictation in the general politics of the Continent. We had a letter of his to prince Hardenburg, in which he seemed to consider independent states at his disposal, and decided their fates according to his caprice. One state was to be punished, another was to be weakened, a third was to be divided, and part of its territories bestowed upon its more fortunate neighbour. The noble lord had that night eulogised the spirit of the alliance, and descanted upon the moderation of their views, and their constant desire to promote the peace and happiness of Europe. The noble lord had defended the language of the treaty that was moved for, and said that it expressed the real nature of the views and wishes of the sovereigns who signed it. The hon. member said he was jealous of any professions made by these imperial and royal personages, as he always suspected that such professions of religion and justice were employed as a disguise for real injustice, oppression, and bad faith. Their language was mere cant, and they uttered hypocritical declarations to delude the people, in order that they might overturn their liberties. The meetings of these great sovereigns of late appeared to him to indicate nothing else but a conspiracy against the freedom and the rights of their subjects—an infamous conspiracy of the few against the happiness of the many. It should be recollected, as corroborative of this opinion, that of the sovereigns who signed this treaty with such holy professions, two were at the head of the great military states of Europe, where public opinion was never heard—where the people were completely enslaved, and could not venture, under the weight of armed force, to vent their wishes or complaints. He was sensible that, in the dominions of the third sovereign, public opinion was now of some consequence, and was daily acquiring strength. It would soon, he hoped, be powerful enough to control and direct the measures of the Prussian government, and to establish in the Prussian states a system of constitutional freedom. Of such a favourable change in the overgrown empire of Russia no such hope could be entertained, while the increasing extent of her dominions, and the immense resourses of aggression supplied by her military population, rendered her a just subject of alarm and jealousy. In a proclamation published at Petersburgh, which begins with a pompous parade of religion, which proceeds with swelling phrases, "on the unconquerable spirit of the Russian empire," and describes the late glorious successes of the Russian arms, the people were told that the dominions of the emperor were already large enough, and that his policy required no increase. It was necessary, however, to add Poland by way of rounding this mighty empire; and the addition of that extensive kingdom was defended upon the grounds of political justice and expediency. The aspect of this northern power, that had one foot on the Frozen sea, while the other was extended nearly to the Rhine, was now the most threatening and formidable to the liberties of mankind. Nothing could be dreaded from France, except as a result of the negociations of the noble lord, who resisted the present motion for the production of papers necessary to expose his diplomatic conduct. The hon. member concluded by saying that he could see no grounds for opposing the present motion. The treaty in question was strictly connected with the foreign policy of administration, which was to be discussed on an early day. It had been sent to this country with a letter to the Prince Regent, and although not signed by him, it had become the subject of communication between his ministers and the powers with whom it originated. The only motive that the noble lord could have for refusing it was, that he was ashamed of it and of our allies.

in reply observed, that the only plausible objection which the noble lord had urged against the production of the treaty was, that it did not assume a parliamentary shape. Did the noble lord mean to assert that no treaty was ever laid before the House to which Great Britain had not been a party? If he mistook not, the very first of the seventy treaties which the noble lord had recently presented, was one to which Great Britain had not been a party; and of this he was assured, that within the last ten years copies had been submitted to parliament of above a dozen treaties to which Great Britain had not been a party.

The House then divided:

next moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, That he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, copy of a treaty between Austria, France and Great Britain, signed at Vienna, January 1815."

stated his objections to the production of this treaty. Nothing, he said, could be more detrimental to the public service than to produce every treaty entered into by foreign powers. They might make whatever treaties they pleased; they might enter into whatever engagements their policy dictated, or their interests demanded, without subjecting their conduct to the scrutiny of the members of that House. If this country sanctioned those treaties, and became a party to their fulfilment, every information concerning them might be properly demanded. But there might even be treaties to which this country became a party, which might be conditional in their form — which might be contingent in their effect — and which, being intended to be carried into execution only in certain conjunctures, were not necessarily to be laid before parliament till the combination of circumstances happened when their provisions were to be fulfilled. If a treaty was entered into, and signed by the British government in the contemplation of certain events, and if parliament were never called upon to support the executive in making good its engagements, from that event never having occurred, the noble lord saw no imperative reasons for laying it before the House. It might be considered in the nature of an unfinished transaction, a mere historical fact, that could have no influence on our actual affairs. The treaty now alluded to, he contended was in no degree necessary to the discussion on a future day, and he trusted the House would not sanction its production upon such light grounds as those suggested by the hon. gentleman.

said, it was extremely painful to him to press himself so often on the attention of the House, but after hearing the principle with which the noble lord—the accredited minister of the Crown—concluded his statement, he felt that he should neglect his duty to the House and the country, if he did not enter his decided protest against its adoption. Good God! when it was admitted that this country had actually joined in the treaty; when it was no longer a question, as in the last case, referring to others, but when it immediately affected ourselves; when the noble lord had avowedly put his own hand to a treaty between Great Britain, France, and Austria, to the exclusion of Russia, and when parliament were about to be immediately called upon to discuss the relations of Europe, were they to be prevented from having access to a document which might show that all the stability of alliance among the European states, on which the noble lord piqued himself (although he might much more justly pique himself on the enormous expense to this country at which the attempt to obtain it had been purchased), must speedily crumble into dust! But three little months before that treaty was signed, which, whether or not it was now produced he cared not—[Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches.] Yes, he repeated, that he cared not now whether or not the noble lord consented to the production of the treaty; he had admitted its existence, and enough had been said about it to make the House curious to see what it was that could be contained in a treaty signed by France, signed by Great Britain, signed by Austria, signed by all the great states but Russia, that "most faithful ally," that power with whom we were "on such admirable terms," who "had no wish distinct from ours, no desire in which we did not participate!" The noble lord might perhaps have the means of contradicting him, but he had been informed that in consequence of the conclusion of this treaty, which was by no means of a spiritual nature, but very secular in its character, the emperor of Russia had demanded from the French government the dismissal of that minister by whom it was executed on the part of France, and that Talleyrand was dismissed accordingly. [An expression of dissent from the ministerial benches.] Perhaps this statement was unfounded. The noble lord would have the means of denying it. He could not sit still and hear it asserted that the House ought to be prevented from obtaining an accurate knowledge of the contents of a treaty between three great powers, to the exclusion of Russia, on the eve of a discussion, embracing all the political relations of Europe.

The question being loudly called for, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the gallery was almost cleared, when

rose, and expressed his astonishment, that the noble lord should treat the House in so contemptuous a manner. The document was one of great importance, and yet the noble lord permitted the House to proceed to a division, without stating any reason for opposing its production.

observed, that the noble lord had spoken much of the fidelity and good faith exemplified by Russia and Prussia, towards the other combined powers; but now it appeared, that a treaty had been signed, to which those two principal members of the combination were strangers. The noble lord, after stating the anxious policy of this country to keep together the great alliance, must admit, that if such a treaty were in existence, he was most particularly instrumental in breaking it up. If he had signed a partial treaty between England, Austria, and France, the praise he took to himself for keeping the alliance together, must fall to the ground. Now, when the noble lord had given notice of the discussion of seventy treaties, in the course of a few days, and refused to concede this document, on which his diplomatic fame principally rested; nay, when he would not even acknowledge its existence; the House and the country might well entertain a suspicion of the candour and fairness with which he meant to meet the approaching discussion.

now saw that the object of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House was, to excite an idea in parliament and in the country, that disunion prevailed among our allies, and that no reliance could be placed in the continuance of the state of things that had been established by the peace. This object they pursued with a zeal worthy of a better cause; but he hoped they would not succeed. The observations which he would now make, he hoped, would relieve the nation from any alarm on this subject, if unhappily any should be raised. This treaty, which was made in January 1815, and which was said to manifest such disunion and jealousy among the allies, was followed, not three months afterwards, by declarations and engagements, which evinced the most cordial concert and co-operation. Suppose there had existed some difficulties in the way of a complete 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.

said, there Could now be no doubt of the a 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 doubt of its existence, he should vote for the motion of his hon. and learned friend.

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, Buonaparté. 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, Buonaparté 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 Buonaparté 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: