that the principle of economical reform would be attended to in all the measures which government during the session would submit to the House, in as great a degree as was consistent with the other great principle mentioned in the Speech, namely, that of public security. Mr. Law requested to be informed by the noble lord if there was any intention of moving the thanks of the House to general Ochterlony, and the officers and soldiers under his command, for their achievements in India. and the observations of the noble lord upon that speech, he could not regard as fabrications, and, if genuine, they were peculiarly calculated to fill his mind with jealousy and alarm. Those papers he thought it fair to describe, in order that the object of his notice might be distinctly understood. The first paper related to the Treaty which had appeared before the public, and which purported to have been concluded at Paris on the 26th of September, 1815, between Austria, Russia, and Prussia, to which also other Lord Castlereagh replied, that the sub-powers were invited to accede. There ject was not connected with the department to which he had the honour to belong, but that he would inquire, and inform the hon. member at another time. THE TREATIES.] Mr. Brougham inquired whether the noble lord opposite still persisted in his resolution not to accede to any farther delay than Thursday next, to afford gentlemen an opportunity of examining the mass of papers presented to the House, relative to the late Treaties; For in that case he was likely to be under the necessity of making motions for the production of other papers without any previous notice, which he felt to be a privilege belonging to any member of that House. Lord Castlereagh said, that he had not expressed any resolution upon the subject, but he had observed, as he felt, that it was extremely important to the arrangement of our establishments, to our money concerns, and to our foreign politics, to have the great transaction alluded to discussed and decided upon by parliament as soon as convenient. He had, however, no motive to adhere to a particular day, and therefore he should agree to postpone the proposed discussion until Monday week, if it were any accommodation to the hon. and learned gentleman. Mr. Brougham observed, that as the noble lord had thought proper to make this concession, gentlemen would have more time, which was necessary to enable them to decide what farther papers might be required to elucidate those upon the table; and in consequence of the proposed postponement, he should put off until that day week the motion of which he had given notice with regard to the proceedings in Spain. He should also give notice of a motion for to-morrow, for the production of certain papers, which, considering the terms of the Prince Regent's speech, were, however, no papers on the table to show whether this country or France were any parties to that treaty, which was ratified, it appeared, at Petersburgh on the 25th of December, accompanied by an ostentatious statement, that that day was the anniversary of our Saviour's birth. This extraordinary treaty was quite vague. It professed no definite secular or temporal object. The contracting parties put themselves forth as the great christian states, as if they were the monopolists of christianity. But their pretension justified serious suspicion that they were leagued against some state not christian, and that they had something in view, which it was not deemed prudent to avow. Holy pretences and professions were so often the palliatives of unjust designs, that a contract of this nature was calculated to excite alarm and jealousy [Hear, hear!]. Another treaty, to which his motion would refer, was one which it was said was concluded in January 1815, between Austria and France, and some other power not mentioned, the object of which was to form a guarantee against Russia. He wished to know whether such a treaty had not been concluded, M. Talleyrand being the negociator on the part of France, and what ministers understood to be its object. Lord Castlereagh assured the House, that this country had no reason to view the former treaty with any jealousy. It had been communicated to the ministers of Great Britain before it was concluded; but although it was framed in the spirit of good faith, yet its form prevented this country from acceding to it. No hostility was threatened to any state, its object was confined solely to the contracting parties, and breathed the pure spirit of the Christian religion. It was certainly couched in language unusual in diplomatic documents, but it should be regarded solely as a pledge of peace..> Mr. Brougham observed that the noble lord had given no information with respect to the treaty said to have been concluded at Vienna in January 1815, for the purpose of forming a guarantee against Russia, or of the probable effect of that treaty. Lord Castlereagh observed, that it was usual to communicate to parliament every desirable information, with regard to the proceedings of the government, and especially the treaties into which it had entered. But he appealed to the House, whether to demand information from his majesty's ministers, with respect to treaties concluded between foreign states, and to which this country was no party, with regard to the opinion or calculation of ministers as to the probable effect of such treaties, was not to press the spirit of inquiry beyond its legitimate limits. Mr. Tierney expressed his incapacity to account for the soreness betrayed by the noble lord. His hon. and learned friend had merely asked, whether the noble lord knew that a certain treaty had been concluded at Vienna. It was open to the noble lord to say simply aye or no. But instead of this simple reply, the noble lord entered into observations, refusing to answer either aye or no, and thus leaving it to be understood that he knew of the existence of the treaty alluded to, although he did not think proper to avow it. He hoped, however, that the noble lord would be disposed to give some explanation upon the subject by to-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, February 9. INSOLVENT DEBTORS.] Mr. Hart Davis 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. CONVENTION OF PARIS.] Mr. Bennet rose, pursuant to notice, to move, that a 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. Lord Castlereagh 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. Mr. Bennet expressed a hope, that all the papers to which he had adverted, would be laid before the House. Lord Castlereagh 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. MR. BROUGHAM'S MOTION FOR THE CHRISTIAN TREATY BETWEEN RUSSIA, AUSTRIA, AND PRUSSIA.] Mr. Brougham 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 negociated, 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 negociation, 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 themselves 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 Eu-. rope. 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 (VOL. XXXII.) 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 aret 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 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 (2 A) of 1 Lord Castlereagh 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 tчat 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 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 approach-country and its allies, for our union rested ing, 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; 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 reli "They solemnly declare, that the pre-gion, peace, and justice. sent 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 "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 |