had been delivered at the opening of the last session; its whole tenor was that of war, which added greatly to the gloom he felt upon the present condition of the country. The British force maintained in the Low Countries required, he thought, some explanation from ministers. It was, he contended, unconstitutional, and required to be regarded by parliament with peculiar jealousy. It had never been allowed that a British force should be maintained at British expense in a foreign country, without some communication upon the subject being made to parlia

ment.

Mr. C. Grant jun. observed, that he had always heard it was unconstitutional to attempt to introduce a foreign force into this country, without a previous communication to parliament; but this was the first time that he had ever heard it was unconstitutional to maintain a British force abroad without reference to parliament. He was sorry the Address which had been moved, did not unite all the feelings of that House, and lamented that there was any probability of an exception to the practice of latter years, that of carrying up an Address with unanimity to the throne. He delivered it as his opinion, that the war on the part of America was unprovoked by any conduct of ours; at the same time he was as anxious as any gentleman in that House, to see the war brought to an honourable conclusion by ministers. He confessed he saw no grounds for the gloom which some hon. members felt. He would not, however, enter into counter predictions, though he arowed himself to be one of those who did not despair of his country, but believed it to be possesed of sufficient strength and sufficient power, to wage this war to a successful issue.

Mr. Tierney inquired, if there was any treaty or convention existing, by which England was bound to maintain any description of force on the continent, in conjunction with Russia and Prussia?

Mr. Bathurst replied, that the present was not the time for putting such a question. If any such treaty or convention did exist, it was competent to the right hon. gentleman, or any other hon. member, to move in the regular way for its production.

Mr. Whitbread. That "if" of the right hon. gentleman requires some observation. I beg to know

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg

leave to remind the hon. member, that we have already had the pleasure of hearing him on the present question.

Mr. Whitbread. If it be a pleasure, the right hon. gentleman shall hear me again upon the next question.

The question upon the Address was then put, and carried in the affirmative.

Mr. Whitbread. I now rise to ask, whether the right hon. gentleman and bis colleagues mean to disavow the noble lord, who, in the course of last session, stated that a treaty had been signed; and whether he means to deviate from the usual path of laying treaties, concluded with foreign powers, before parliament for its sanction?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not at all desirous of disavowing that such a treaty was then proceeding.

Mr. Whitbread, across the table,' signed.' The Chancellor of the Exchequer. And when proper, the treaty will undoubtedly be laid before the House.

Mr. Tierney. The reason assigned by the noble lord, for not laying it before parliament at that time, was, that though it had been signed, for so it was positively stated, yet it had not been formally ratified, and therefore could not be submitted to the House. He lamented that it was so, and promised that if parliament should sit long enough, till the ratification arrived, it should be immediately laid before it; but if not, that it should be presented on the earliest occasion in the en

suing session. In reply to an hon. gentleman opposite, I admit that there is no reason why the King may not send troops to fight wherever he pleases; but will it be said, that British troops are to be placed under a foreigner, in a foreign country, and paid with British money, without some intimation being given to parlia ment?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer. The troops are serving under an officer high in the British service, though, indeed, a foreigner by birth,

Mr. Whitbread. This is a violation of the word of ministers; it is an unconstitutional proceeding, and an insult to parliament. The treaty was announced to parliament as signed; it has been acted upon; and British troops are still kept in foreign parts. It must not stop here. The right hon. gentleman has placed himself and his colleagues in an awkward predicament; and I will boldly affirm, that it is the first time any minister ever so con

ducted himself towards parliament. If he has fallen into a mistake and committed the noble lord, who, if he were present, would not deny what he had asserted, and would be above suffering the treaty to be thus silently refused, let him reconsider the subject. I trust, that whatever aspersions may be cast upon this House as now constituted, it will not patiently sit down under the indignity which it is now attempted to offer to it.

Mr. Bathurst. All I contend for is, that the House has nothing to complain of this evening, but that the subject of the troops in the low countries was not introduced into the Speech. Whether government will or will not, at any future period, produce the treaty or convention alluded to, I do not pretend to affirm. All I can say is, that they have no intention at present to communicate it to parliament.

Mr. Whitbread. We cannot help feeling a little compassion for their infirmities [Order, order!]

Here the conversation dropped.

Mr. Whitbread wished to know, whether the right hon. gentleman had any plans of finance, which he intended to submit, and how early it was probable he might be prepared to bring them forward?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that the forms of the House would scarcely admit of an earlier day than Monday for the sitting of a committee of supply.

Mr. Tierney inquired what the right bon. gentleman meant to propose with regard to the Property Tax, during the present session? It would be of importance also to many members and the country at large, if he could name the probable period when he should be able to submit any measure upon that subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that as far as he could judge at present, he should not propose any plan before Christmas.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, November 9.

AMERICAN WAR.] Mr. Whitbread understood the right honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yesterday referred to certain dispatches which were not published, respecting the atrocities committed by the Americans. He wished to know if those atrocities were not committed two years ago, and if sir George Prevost, having taken a certain measure of retaliation, had not declared his future conduct should be regulated by

the course pursued by the Americans. Had any intermediate correspondence take n place after this, prior to the burning of Washington? The contradiction which he had pointed out on the preceding night between the orders said to have been received by sir Alexander Cochrane from sir George Prevost, and the proclamation issued by sir George himself, ought to be explained. While on his legs, he wished to ask another question respecting the two persons whom he had mentioned as having been given up to the Spanish government from Gibraltar. He wished to know if any steps had been taken to gain information on this subject? The names of the parties were Coreà and Puigblanc. The officer concerned was named Smith.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the atrocities committed by the Americans, which had been particularly referred to, to have occurred on the 6th October, 1813, and not in 1812. The papers of which he had spoken, were not official documents, but they were entitled to full credit. Sir George Prevost, for some of the outrages committed in Canada, had retaliated on the American frontier, and declared his future conduct should depend on that of the enemy. The subse. quent barbarities of the Americans had since rendered severe measures necessary. With respect to the question as to the alleged treatment of two persons at Gibraltar, he had only to say, an inquiry would immediately be made.

Mr. Whitbread asked if there was any clue by which ministers could explain the contradictory proceedings of sir George Prevost himself, and sir Alex. Cochrane, who stated that he was acting under the express orders of sir George Prevost? No answer was returned.

BRITISH TROOPS ON THE CONTINENT.] Mr. Fremantle expressed his surprise, that no communication had yet been made to the House on the subject of the convention, by which this country agreed to support a certain number of British troops on the continent. By this time, he had hoped that the noble lord, the secretary for foreign affairs, would have been able to transmit to his government some informa tion on the subject of that agreement. But he understood, notwithstanding the declaration of the noble lord, during the last session of parliament, that this convention was not yet ratified. What be therefore complained of was, that, prior to

Wellington, he had conciliated the esteem of the whole army. But this case, he contended, was unprecedented in the history of this country, and demanded the most serious attention of parliament. He was aware it might be replied that prince Ferdinand commanded British troops in Germany; but there was a British commander under him, and he commanded them in no other way than as he was the commander in chief of the whole allied forces. The prince of Orange would not be answerable to our laws, supposing a case wherein he might misconduct himself. If any proof were wanting of this, he would refer to the recent proceedings of the duke de Guiche, who was an officer holding a commission in the British army. When, however, by the restoration of the Bourbons, he recovered his property and honours, and was required to attend his duty in this country upon a court-martial, what was his conduct? He replied, that he had quitted the service, and it was not convenient for him to attend. Suppose the prince of Orange, then, were to act in such a manner as should justly call upon that House to stigmatize his conduct, and he were required to come over to this country, and answer such charges as might be preferred against him, how could they enforce his attendance? It would be impossible to do it; and yet, under such circumstances, the lives of British soldiers were placed under his control. Again he disclaimed all intention of insinuating that any such misconduct could occur; but it seemed to him a most important topic for parliament to consider, and therefore he should move, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, requesting that he will be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this House a copy or copies of any arrangements entered into by his Royal Highness with any foreign powers, for the support of British or foreign troops on the continent of Europe."

the ratification, the House should have been called upon to make good expenses which were to be incurred under an unfinished instrument. If, as he understood, the convention was not ratified, there was no ground on which they had a right to maintain a force abroad. They were last night told, that it was necessary, for the safety of the continent, to keep a great force on foot; they were informed by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) that, unless such a force were provided, the treaty of Paris would be nothing better than waste paper. This was a subject of the utmost importance; yet, without the shadow of information, they, who were acting for their constituents, were called upon to vote the requisite supply, merely on the ground, without any reason being adduced to support it, that it was necessary to keep up a force on the continent. When he last night stated his conviction, that it was unconstitutional to keep up an army abroad without the concurrence of that House, he was told that he was mistaken. He would, however, maintain, that to send troops out of the country, without making any communication to parliament, was unconstitutional and illegal: and he called on the right hon. the Speaker to state whether any precedent existed, in which the British troops were employed abroad, without a communication from the crown being made to the House on the subject, by one of his Majesty's ministers? He would contend that there was no such precedent. Formerly an Englishman would look with jealousy, and justly so, if such a measure were attempted. Who could possibly calculate the expense? The minister estimated it at 40,000l.; but it might be much greater-it might rise to 60 or to 100,000l.; it was a matter of uncer. tainty; the Speech from the throne went no farther than to say, that we must provide the necessary supply.-There was another point, too, which it was material to consider. Those British troops, those Englishmen, were under the command of a foreign officer, an independent sovereign prince, who could not be amenable to the laws of this country for any misconduct of which he might be guilty. It was far from his intention to insinuate the slightest disrespect towards his serene highness the hereditary prince of Orange; he had the highest opinion of that exalted personage, both as to his military and private character; and, in his campaigns under lord (VOL. XXIX.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he was now able to acquaint the House that this convention, though signed, as stated by his noble friend towards the conclusion of last session, had never been ratified on the part of the allies. That would create no surprise, when it was considered that all the ministers of the great allied powers had been employed during the summer in journies and negociations. For that, and other reasons with (G)

which they were not acquainted, the ratification had not taken place; and therefore being an incomplete instrument, it had not yet been presented to parliament. Such being the state of it, he should feel it his duty to move the previous question upon the present motion. The convention itself arose out of the treaty of Chaumont, which had for its object to unite the forces of the allies, in order to subdue the overwhelming power of Buonaparté. When that object ceased, from the restoration of the Bourbons, much still remained to be done in determining the future condition of the territories which were wrested from the dominion of France; and it was agreed that each of the contracting parties should, notwithstanding, keep on foot a proportion of that quota of force which had been stipulated in the treaty of Chaumont. The troops in question were sent as part of our contribution towards carrying on the war, and they would have been equally sent there had no treaty existed. The treaty of Chaumont had been sanctioned by the House; and the employment of the troops in the Low Countries was only a part of the engagements entered into by that treaty. Independently, however, of any treaty, he apprehended there was no place to which they could have been sent, more interesting or more important than Holland and the Netherlands. The defence and protection of those countries had always been considered by every statesman as of the greatest moment, and he believed that if he had had to apply, as probably he might have, to parliament, for the support of a body of troops in the Netherlands, independent of any treaty, he should meet their approbation. When the convention was ratified, it would of course be communicated to the House; or if it should happen that the allied powers, in consequence of any arrangements that might be made at the Congress, should think it unnecessary now to ratify that convention, then also some explanation would naturally be given to parliament. With regard to the illustrious individual who commanded them, he perfectly agreed with what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, as to the little probability of any misconduct on his part; but supposing such a case possible, he was certainly amenable to the laws of this country, as a British officer, and liable to lose his rank and emoluments.

Mr. Whitbread said, that the last argument of the right hon. gentleman, with

which he seemed to console himself, reminded him of the consolation which was held out to that House some years ago, when the Austrian loan was negociated. It was then said, that if the emperor of Germany should fail in his engagements (and he did fail, for we were still bearing the burthen of that loan) he might be sued in his own courts for recovery. He had never heard, however, that either the Solicitor or Attorney General had gone over to learn the German language; and he believed the emperor had consequently never been sued. Just so they were now told, that if the prince of Orange should misconduct himself, he might be deprived of his honours and profit as a British officer, and be brought to this country to answer such misconduct. But how was he to be brought? He apprehended they must send an armed force thither, and after all, perhaps they would not catch him. It was really absurd and childish to talk of bringing a sovereign and independent prince to an account in this country, for any misconduct which he might commit. He, for one, most thoroughly disclaimed any thought of such misconduct; but they were to look to possible circumstances. In adverting to the other parts of the right hon. gen tleman's speech, it appeared that they whose infirmity he had pitied on the preceding evening, were now as much to be pitied for their ignorance. The ministers of the crown in that House, came down to ask money upon the faith of a treaty on which they had been acting, though they did not know whether it had or had not been ratified. The sort of excuse he bad set up, ought not to be received by the House. Lord Castlereagh had been long enough in Vienna to have had the convention ratified. The Congress met on the 22d of September, and couriers were constantly passing to and fro. If there was a period when the ratification might have been easily effected, it was the present, when the ministers of all the monarchs of Europe were concentrated in a point. A right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) had last night told them, that if an army were not kept up in Belgium, they might as well have a piece of waste paper as the treaty of Paris. By the same principle, what were all other treaties, but pieces of waste paper? The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued, that government were acting under the treaty of Chaumont, which was intended to check

the power of Buonaparté, if peace were | concluded with him. But, when he was deposed, or abdicated the throne, the treaty of Chaumont, he would contend, became a nullity. If the right hon. gentleman argued, that it was as necessary to keep up an armed force now, as when the treaty of Chaumont was signed, then it was evident that nothing had been gained by the exertions of the allies, since all the parties were obliged to continue with arms in their hands to prevent the aggrandizement of France. When, he should be glad to know, would this state of things subside? When would the British troops be withdrawn? When would Holland be able to stand alone? Was the restored house of Bourbon to be considered as an enemy equally formidable with the fallen dynasty of Buonaparté? It appeared that considerable forces had been recently sent to Belgium; perhaps for wise and useful purposes, but these purposes ought to be explained. Let not the parliament of England dispense with its old established forms, but insist that the decorum due to it should be observed. He could not conclude without observing, that the armies of the different allied powers were extending themselves throughout different territories, from which it might hereafter be impossible to dislodge them. They seemed to be imitating the conduct of Buonaparté, who, at the peace of Amiens, between the signing of the preliminaries and the definitive treaty, annexed to France the several Italian states.

So Austria and Prussia were now possessing themselves of different portions of territory, which they might not hereafter be disposed to surrender.

by British troops ought to be unattended by any jealousy. He denied having last night characterized a treaty as waste' paper. What he had said was, that a treaty was only paper, unless effect were given to it by acting upon it. For instance, we had surrendered some islands to France. Were not the French to send a force to take possession of them? The French had agreed to withdraw from Belgium, but unless the fortified places of that country were occupied, of what avail would be the agreement? Or would the hon. gentleman wish the protection of that country to be left to Russia, or Austria, or Prussia, rather than to the nation so materially interested in its fate as Great Britain? Although he thought that this was the most proper employment of the forces which this country was pledged to keep up, yet he felt no jealousy of any of the nations. He did not consider that in this arrangement there was any more jealousy shewn towards France, than towards Austria, Russia, or Prussia. It was evident that Belgium, being ceded by France to the allies, must be garrisoned by the troops of some of the coalesced powers, and he thought that no troops could more properly be employed for that purpose than our own. It had been asked, how long was this to last? He could not exactly tell, as the effects of the treaty would not be completed until the congress at Vienna had finally settled the fate of all those countries which had been recovered from the dominion of France. As to the convention itself, it could not be laid before the House until it was ratified: he had no objection, however, to the substance of it being communicated to them. As to the objection of having the British army commanded by the hereditary prince of Orange, he could not distinguish the difference between the present case and that of prince Ferdinand commanding the British army in Germany.

troled power, not as regarded the military operations only, but as it regarded the punishment of the British troops; a situation in which British soldiers were never before placed. He trusted this evil would