Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

with the preliminaries, or of any change of circumstances, and to submit a regular motion on the subject." Mr. Windham said that he would, on Monday, shortly state the reasons which would induce him to move 66 that the Definitive Treaty be taken into consideration on a future day;" and Lord Grenville gave a similar notice in the House of Lords. In the Commons, on May 3rd, Mr. Windham, after a long speech, in which he discussed the provisions of the Treaty, and more particularly the alterations contained in it, moved that the House would take it into consideration on the 18th instant. Mr. Addington said that "delay might be productive of very great inconvenience, and that of keeping the minds of the people in suspense was not a slight one," and proposed that the Treaty be considered on the 11th instead of the 18th instant; which was agreed to. In the Lords the discussion was fixed for the 13th May. There were divisions in both Houses, in the result of which the Treaty was approved of by large majorities.

The Treaty of Amiens was the last of which preliminaries, in the strict sense of the term, laid before Parliament. The first Treaty of Paris, (Definitive), was signed on the 30th May, 1814, and laid before both Houses of Parliament on the 6th June, when days were fixed for its being taken into consideration. In point of fact, however, this treaty was nothing else than a preliminary treaty, laying down the general principles upon which definitive arrangements were afterwards to be made. Article 32 provided that "within a period of two

months all the powers who had been engaged on both sides in the present war should send plenipotentiaries to Vienna, in order to regulate, in a general congress, the arrangements necessary for completing the dispositions of the present treaty.” The opinion of Parliament which was often expressed between the signing of this treaty and that of the Definitive Treaty of Paris, which took place eighteen months afterwards, was not without effect upon the result. For instance, in the debates on the Treaty in both Houses of Parliament, very strong animadversions were expressed upon the unsatisfactory manner in which the question of the abolition of the slave trade had been treated, being disposed of in a separate Article between Great Britain and France, in which both powers agreed to use their best exertions to obtain the universal recognition of the principle, the latter undertaking to abolish the trade amongst her own subjects within a period of five years. In the House of Lords, Lord Grenville, after some forcible and indignant remarks on the subject, "hoped there might yet be some mode in which Parliament and their Lordships might act in pursuance of their unanimous resolutions with a view to the attainment of their object." In the Commons, Mr. Wilberforce moved an amendment to the Address, on the Treaty declaring that the House "relied on the known justice and humanity of the Prince Regent to give the fullest effect which the circumstances of the negociations may allow to the wishes so repeatedly declared by it for the abolition of the slave trade;" which amendment

was carried, and embodied in the Address. These appeals were not made in vain, for, on the 8th February, 1815, at the congress of Vienna, a declaration was adopted by all the contracting parties in accordance, and in furtherance of the separate Article of the Treaty of Paris, and declaring themselves to be "in favour of the universal abolition of the slave trade with the most prompt and effectual execution of this measure possible." Mr. Wilberforce, in the House of Commons on the 20th March, 1815, expressed himself satisfied with these proceedings; and the Definitive Treaty of Paris, in a separate Article, again confirmed the engagement, and announced that the contracting parties had already," each in their respective dominions, prohibited, without restriction, their colonies and subjects from taking any part whatever in this traffic."

Nor did Parliament confine its interference and advice on the pending negociations to a question of abstract humanity, which, at that time, agitated all well-conditioned minds. On the 13th February, 1815, Mr. Whitbread made a long speech condemning the reported proceedings of the congress, in violation of the territorial rights and independence of states, more particularly the rumoured surrender of Saxony to Prussia, and of Genoa to Sardinia, which, he maintained, were acts inconsistent with the spirit of the Treaty of Paris, and the very principles upon which the war had been undertaken, namely, the repression of the practice of territorial annexation which had been pursued by

Napoleon. He observed that "since the surrender of Saxony Ministers had not contradicted the fact of Lord Castlereagh having been a party to that transaction," and that "he had reason to believe that it was in consequence of the public feeling manifested in this country that ministers had sent over instructions to Lord Castlereagh to present to Congress a note protesting against the act to which he himself had been a party." The members of the Government, in spite of repeated challenges and taunts, remained obdurately silent under these charges. How far they may have been well founded would take too long to discuss here. Certain it is that, according to De Koch, on February 3rd, only a few days before Mr. Whitbread made the speech referred to, the representatives of England, France, and Austria at Vienna, signed a secret Treaty to resist, by force of arms, if necessary, the wholesale annexations threatened by Prussia, in Saxony, and by Russia, in Poland; a policy which was partly successful,-Saxony being allowed to retain about two-thirds of her territories, and Russia abandoning certain districts of Poland.

Again, on the 20th March, Mr. Whitbread moved an address to the Prince Regent "that he would be graciously pleased to direct a communication to be made to this House of the progress made at the Congress now sitting at Vienna, towards the final adjustment and permanent pacification of Europe, of such transfers and annexations of territories as may have already taken place, together with other information touching matters still under considera

tion, as may be given without prejudice to the public service." Lord Castlereagh did not oppose this motion, but, after a long speech in explanation and defence of his policy, actually seconded it, and, of course, it was agreed to.

Meantime however, the escape of Napoleon from Elba, occured, to interrupt the peace arrangements of the Congress; and on the 25th March the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia at Vienna signed a treaty of alliance for the expulsion of the invader. This treaty was not officially presented to Parliament until the 22nd May; but on the 21st April Mr. Wilberforce in the House of Commons called attention to what purported to be a copy of the Treaty which had been printed in the 'Times' newspaper, and which Lord Castlereagh admitted to contain the substance of the Treaty, though with some material inaccuracies. "The Treaty, however," his lordship added "is not yet ratified by all the allied powers, and is therefore not in a state to be submitted to the House." On the 24th April Mr. Wilberforce returned to the subject, and moved an address for "the substance of any treaty or engagement, etc., signed on the 25th March at Vienna; "-and, Lord Castlereagh consenting, the motion was agreed to.

The "substance" of the Treaty was afterwards, in accordance with this vote, handed in, with, appended to it, a memorandum dated Foreign Office, 25th April, to the effect that "the Treaty of which the substance is given above has been ordered to be ratified, under an explanatory declaration to

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »