the Portuguese government expressed, in terms the most explicit, that they should think themselves too fortunate, if we could be instrumental in procuring for them the terms specified, and the boundaries as stipulated by the treaty of Madrid. His right hon. friend had said, that the French insisted on the treaty of Badajos, for the mere purpose of making a merit of abandoning that treaty. The fact was, that this country anticipating the pressure likely to be felt by that country before the knowledge ofthe signing the preliminary treaty, and the concessions likely to be made in consequence of that pressure, made an express stipulation that the limits of the French possessions in Guiana should be as agreed upon by the treaty of Madrid, but that the European boundary should be fixed by the treaty of Badajos. rant a motion from government, in that House, upon the subject of a definitive treaty; he had pursued the usual course, and he trusted the House would approve it. Having said this, he would now assure the House he felt great satisfaction at the motion now made, in substance; because it afforded ministers an opportunity of entering into a complete justification of every part of their conduct during the late negotiation at Amiens, and the advice they gave to his majesty to conclude the definitive treaty. His right hon. friend had said, that Porto Ferrajo was surrendered to the French, and he had stated this to be in contradiction of the express stipulations of the treaty of Luneville. This was an act that was not done by his majesty's ministers; the surrender of the grand duchy of Tuscany was a concession made by a sovereign power, fully com-His right hon. friend had laid great petent to make such a concession. His right hon. friend had laid some stress on the French territory in Guiana. He had referred to a conversation which took place in that House upon the subject of the treaties of Madrid and of Badajos; it was then stated, that the French territory in this part of the globe was to be limited by the treaty of Badajos, and not by that of Madrid; and it was made a subject of discontent by some gentlemen on that account, and a good deal of stress was laid upon the difference between the two, that of Madrid being more favourable to Portugal than that of Badajos; and, in fact, propositions of these islanders in the Treaty of Amiens. Thus democratic principles have found protection from the power that went to war to oppose them! "But the organization of this new republic and its future figure cannot have any considerable interest, except for France and England. There is in the Treaty a single line respecting the States of Barbary, which produces a more extensive, a more general interest for all Europe. It intimates the design of putting an end to the system of hostilities which subsists between civilized governments and those governments of Africa which the supineness of the former could alone have raised to the rank of powers. Religion formerly endeavoured to repair in this respect the negligence of policy. At length policy cultivates the duty of protection. Its happy intentions are not perhaps very easily realized, but they cannot fall into oblivion. The signal is given. It adds to the importance of the Treaty of Amiens. It honours the negociators whose work that Treaty is, and the vernment whose confidence they have justified." go stress, and very justly, on the establishment on the part of France in Louisiana. He had also said, that the French power would now put into danger the whole of the continent of South America. He was ready to agree, that the interest of Europe were materially connected with the interest of America, both North and South; but his right hon. friend could not say, that if the French had not the extent of territory there which they now possess, they could not, if St. Domingo were tranquil, and affairs at rest with them in that quarter, by a large military force, become formidable to either North or South America, provided the subjects of these states were disposed to offer to them maintain their independence, and provided no resistance, and had no inclination to Great Britain and the rest of the European states were to be indifferent spectators of the scene. Certainly this acquisition of Louisiana was very important to France, and would be looked on with regret by those who wished their dominion limited; but that was no conclusive argument to the point stated by his right hon. friend, that this possession will give them the power over the whole of that part of the globe. Another point which had been stated by his right hon. friend was, that new matter had arisen since the time of signing the preliminaries. Upon this head, his right hon. friend had recurred to the state of the Italian republic, and the armament which had been sent to St. Domingo. With regard to the first he could only say, it could not but be regarded with anxiety by those who thought the power of France too great, or who faction to know that the Maltese themfelt for the independence of the rest of selves were grateful to Great Britain for Europe, but this brought the matter back the terms procured them. With regard again to the consideration of the prelimi- to the word sovereignty, if it was an impronaries of peace, the principle of which par- per one to be inserted in the definitive, liament had recognized. Did his right treaty, his majesty's ministers had no exhon. friend mean to say, that the renewal cuse; for he believed the word was adoptof the war would have been proper, on ed, not by the French, but by the British account of the objects to which he ad- government: with regard to the application verted as having taken place between the of it, which was to the Cape, it did not apsigning of the preliminaries and the con- ply to the commerce, but to the shipping; clusion of the definitive treaty? He be- and it was extended to the other contractlieved not; and if his right hon. friend ing parties, namely, Spain and Holland. thought otherwise, he was confident the The policy of this measure might appear good sense of the House and the feeling a matter of doubt perhaps to some; but of the public would go in a contrary di- he would aver that those who had the best rection. His right hon. friend had said, means of forming a correct opinion upon that some of the occurrences between the the subject, thought that no disadvantage preliminaries and the definitive treaty was likely to result to Great Britain from were such as would at any other time the change that was adopted in this rethan the present have roused all Europe. spect. His right hon. friend had said, Be that as it might, the fact was, that that the treaty did not renew any of those the different states of Europe did not commercial arrangements which it had appear to be alarmed, but had sanctioned been customary to renew. Great pains the very proceedings of which his right had been taken to set off the supposed hon. friend complained so much. His disadvantages to us of these omissions. right hon. friend had laid great stress on He could at present only say, that if the the sailing of the armament for St. Do- principle upon which the treaty was agreed mingo. Now, upon considering this mat- to was erroneous, it was, without any plea ter, in all its bearings, was this armament or excuse, erroneous on the part of his and its sailing really matter of regret to majesty's ministers; for this admission us? Looking at the state of the West was advisedly so settled. His majesty's miIndia Islands, he was confident that, nisters were thoroughly convinced, that, whether they were viewed in a national under the present state of Europe, they way, or upon the narrower field of indivi- took a part which was best adapted to dual interest, the usurpation of the Black the real interests of Europe in general, government was the most formidable of and his majesty's dominions in particular, all apprehensions for the safety of those by abstaining from the renewal of any possessions; that, had ministers pre-treaties of commerce. It had been invented the sailing of that armament which went to St. Domingo, it would hereafter be matter of sincere regret by the public, and of deep reproach to his majesty's ministers.-The third point alluded to, was that of the departure from the prelimina-proposition was brought forward by either ries; but he should be glad if his right party. His right hon. friend had spoken hon. friend would show him where the with peculiar anxiety on the subject of departure was to be found. He had ob- the treaties of 1783 and 1787. Without jected to the expense of paying for the entering into a justification of ministers, troops of the emperor of Russia. But, he felt a perfect confidence that they had was it not proper that those troops which conducted themselves properly in this were in the pay and service of the British particular. His right hon. friend had government, should not, in this case, be said, that by the treaty of 1783, the rights considered in the same situation as any of France, in certain commercial points, of our own would be if prisoners of war were surrendered, and those of Great in another country?-With respect to Britain established; and this was carried Malta, he very much doubted whether farther to our advantage, after some inefthe arrangement was not one which fectual disputes on the part of France, by was in contemplation by the late admi- the convention of 1787. All he should nistration. He had, however, the satis say at present on that topic was, that no dustriously circulated, that a proposition was made by his majesty's government upon this subject, but that it was rejected by France, and that we submitted our wish to their determination. No such rights whatever, on the part of Great Britain, were surrendered by this treaty. The question of right, as determined either by the treaty of 1783, or the convention of 1787, did not mix itself in the discussion of the present treaty. The rights, therefore, whatever they were, stood untouched. The treaty of 1783, and the convention of 1787, were commercial arrangements; and as to the question of right, whatever it was, it remained untouched. Great Britain had established rights that were anomalous in their nature from those of any other in respect to her India possessions; but, as far as related to Great Britain and France, none of these rights would be affected by any omissions in the present treaty. On the subject of the Bay of Honduras, his right hon. friend had not been so ample as he expected he would have been. We had, for a long series of years, by an established practice, entitled ourselves to very valuable privileges, which we had exercised uninterruptedly during war, as well as enjoyed during peace; and this was not disputed by that power which was most interested in making a case against us. His right hon. friend had closed his comments by a reference to the case of the prince of Orange; it had been said, that that prince was not described in the treaty by his title of prince of Orange. Now, he was not to inform his right hon. friend, that such title had never been recognized by any government of France since the head of that illustrious house had been placed on the throne of Great Britain. His right hon. friend had said, that no effectual stipulation was made with that prince for the loss of his property: this was an objection that might have been made to the preliminaries, and, unquestionably, it was a very important subject. Certainly, the terms were not so favourable for that illustrious family as he could have wished; but the treaty contained terms for adequate compensation; for it is said, that for losses suffered as well in private property as by the change of constitution adopted in that country, an adequate compensation should be procured for the house of Nassau. The only objection he had to the motion, applied to the day on which it was proposed to bring it forward. He did not know the use of delay in this case. Did his right hon. friend mean to prevent any of the provisions of the treaty from being carried into effect? If he had any specific object besides that of a general censure upon the treaty, let him state it. Did he mean to prevent restitution being made according to the provisions of the treaty? If he did, let him state it. But it was an object, in the prosecution of which, he believed, his right hon. friend would not be countenanced in that House. He wished explanation, he said; let him ask it, and if it was reasonable he would obtain it. He wished for papers; let him state which they were, and with the leave of that House he should have them; but he could not think that so long a delay as was now proposed was necessary previous to the discussion of the subject: he could not help feeling that delay might be productive of very considerable inconve nience; and that of keeping the minds of the public in suspense was not a slight one. Wishing, however, that a full discussion should take place, he should propose, that, instead of the 18th, the 11th of May be inserted in the motion. Mr. Thomas Grenville expressed the utmost astonishment, that the right hon. gentleman should consider fourteen days too long a period for obtaining information. It was impossible to have given any attention to the succinct statement of his right hon. friend, without being convinced that so great and so important were the objects demanding consideration, that the period originally proposed was barely sufficient for that purpose. Was it possible to reflect for a moment on that one feature of the treaty, the total omission of the renewal of all former treaties, and yet maintain that an interval of fourteen days was more than sufficient to prepare the House for the discussion of a point of such extensive importance to our commercial relations? The House had been asked to suspend their judgment till information was procured; but how was information to be procured in the time which he had specified? Lord Hawkesbury said, that on a subject which was so important in its nature, though it was undoubtedly proper that sufficient time should be given for the consideration of it previous to its discussion, he could not but think the debate ought not to be unnecessarily suspended. What reason, then, could be given for the delay which was now proposed? His right hon. friend had divided the subject into four heads, but, in his opinion, it might more properly be divided into two; first, whether the alterations which had taken place, whether known or not, since the signing of the preliminaries, ought to have induced ministers to have refused to sign the definitive treaty, on the same terms as the preliminaries. The second head was, the defects, whether of omission or commission, in the definitive treaty. As to the first of these heads, whether these events which were noto rious, such as the first consul of France having accepted the presidency of the Italian republic, the surrender of the isle of Elba to France, and the cession of Louisiana by Spain, ought or ought not to have induced ministers to conclude the definitive treaty with France, was a question for future discussion. But it should be recollected, that they were not now known to us for the first time, they had been publicly known for many months; and therefore he was sure that there was no person who had not fully considered this question, and formed his opinion upon it. With regard to the defects of the defini tive treaty, he begged to observe, that the custom of France being different from ours upon these subjects, the definitive treaty had been for some time known by the public; and therefore his right hon. friend must have made up his mind with regard to the information which he wanted. Under these circumstances, he could not conceive any reason why the discussion should be delayed. With regard to the information which his right hon. friend said would be necessary pre'vious to the discussion of this subject, it was impossible for ministers to know whether it would be consistent with their duty to grant it, until the nature of the information was known. Mr. Windham said, that one piece of information which he should require would be, to know the effect which the nonrenewal of the treaties of commerce would have upon our Eastern trade. This would certainly require some time. The same observation applied as to the business of Honduras. Then with regard to treaties, some of them were certainly before the House, others were before the public, but not in an authentic way; and there were some which he had never seen. But he was not then prepared to state specifically the different papers which it might be necessary to produce previous to the discussion upon this subject. Mr. Pitt said, that if the House fixed the shorter day which had beeen proposed for the discussion of this question, it would be necessary to have much inform ation; and therefore, if his right hon. friend was not now prepared to state distinctly the papers which he wanted, he hoped he would by to-morrow be enabled to put his motion in a precise shape, because it could only be a question of form; for no person could have heard the speech of his right hon. friend without being convinced that it was not made without ample information upon the subject. He was convinced that his right hon. friend would not wish, after the doubts he had stated, that any unnecessary interval of suspense should take place before the opinion of parliament was taken upon the question. It was not his intention to anticipate the discussion; but there was one point to which he could not avoid alluding for a moment. He could not but rejoice that, upon this point, his right hon. friend had not represented our rights as doubtful, though he had spoken of the claims of those who were lately our enemies. He alluded to what his right hon. friend had said about India, one of the great limbs of the power of this country, and one of the great sources of that wealth and commerce which had raised her to her present exalted state, and had assisted in carrying us through that eventful contest which had just ended. When the question came under discussion, it would be found that there was not only no ground for solid, but no pretence even for contentious argument, or plausible cavil; and, therefore, after what he had heard stated, he could not but count the moments till the subject should be investigated, which he hoped required nothing but an impartial discussion to remove all uneasiness from the public mind, because it would prove that there existed a determination in peace to maintain those rights which we had secured and strengthened by war. right hon. friend had talked of the necessity of producing several treaties; but some of them could not, in point of form, be laid on the table of the House; and with regard to others, it could not be supposed proper to lay before the House the treaties of Westphalia, Ryswick, Utrecht, &c. If gentlemen had not considered all those treaties already, certainly neither a week nor a fortnight would be sufficient to prepare them for the discussion of this question. But in order to ascertain the state of Europe immediately previous to, during, and since the war, the only information that could be given must be in the discussion of the question. With re His gard to the apprehensions, that in conse- | renewal of all or most of the treaties bequence of the non-renewal of treaties, par- fore subsisting between this country and ticularly that of 1787, the French would those nations with which we had lately establish the pretensions which they had been at war. The time that would elapse advanced previous to 1787 it would be between the conclusion and the final ratinecessary, in the first place, to ascertain fication might have sufficed for some what these pretensions were, and upon arrangement on that subject; but whether what ground they rested. If it should his majesty's ministers availed themselves turn out that those pretensions, be they of that delay or not, he had yet to learn. what they might, had no foundation, then, He understood that, though there never undoubtedly, an inquiry into the subject was a subject which more highly interwould be useless. The first question was, ested the welfare of the country, it was whether we were of opinion, that in point not the intention of ministers to submit of fact our late enemies had no such pre- the treaty to the House by any specific tensions, and whether we knew enough of motion; and he acknowledged there our own rights to say that those which might be some excuse for such a prowe had maintained in war should not be ceeding, if the treaty was in fact no more conceded in peace? He knew enough of than a detailed execution of the articles those pretensions to state, that they arose of the preliminaries, upon which they had out of two foundations, but principally come to an approving vote already. In out of the treaty of 1783, which was now order, therefore, to lay a ground for his done away. As far as they arose out of motion, it would be proper for him to grants from the Great Mogul (of whom show the variations between them, the we were in fact the substitutes), these alterations in some parts, the contradicgrants must be done away by war as well tions in others, and the omissions upon as treaties. The grants of former Moguls the whole. The first consideration which certainly could not be more binding upon presented itself was that which he hoped us than our own treaties. Voluntary grants would be ever deemed of most essential could not be more binding than positive importance in the councils of this countreaties. It would be to be considered try, he meant the regard had to national also, whether what his right hon. friend honour and to national faith. This was a had said about Honduras might not also consideration, in his mind, of much more be done away by general reasoning? He moment than any other which could arise would not, however, enter into the dis-on such a subject. Loss of territory cussion of these points at present. might be regained, commerce might be revived, and industry encouraged and invigorated; but honour and faith, once forfeited, could never be repaired but imperfectly, and only by a long series of conduct manifesting an adherence to a different system. Upon this principle he could not but condemn the manner in which the integrity of Portugal had been sported with. We should never forget that, through the whole course of the war, that country had adhered to us with a firmness that shamed the fidelity of much more powerful nations; and he would undertake to assert, without the fear of contradiction, that whatever Portugal had lost in consequence of the war, was solely sacrificed to its attachment to the interest of this country. It was not by any general engagement and guarantee, but by a special and distinct treaty, that British faith was pledged to bring Portugal whole and unimpaired out of the war, instead of which, this peace left that integrity to depend on what was left to Portugal in Europe by the treaty of Badajoz, and the The Amendment was then carried. Debate on Lord Grenville's Motion for appointing a Day to consider the Definitive Treaty of Peace.] May 4th. The order of the day being read, Lord Grenville observed, that having already given his opinion on the preliminary articles of peace, he thought it his duty to abstain from making any observations on some very material transactions which had occurred in the interval of the negotiations for a definitive treaty. This was a rule, which, from personal motives, he had prescribed to himself; but he should have been far from censuring any noble lord who might have adopted a different mode of conduct. When, however, the definitive treaty was concluded, and the contents of it made known to the public, he thought it the precise moment when he was peculiarly called upon to direct the attention of ministers to the subject of an omission, which appeared to him of great consequence, of not stipulating for the |