Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. serjeant ought to have deemed it incum- Mr. Baring concurred in the general bent upon him to show that the Bill as it principles of the present Bill. If the now existed, had been found inefficient learned serjeant had left it to its course of for the purposes for which it was intended. operation for a year or two more, its good The Bill, however, provided that the judg- or bad effects would be more evident. ment which discharged a debtor should Before any alteration in the Bill had been be revoked, if within a year it could be proposed, he should have been glad to proved that he had been improperly dis-hear that a committee had been appointed charged; yet the learned serjeant had to examine the subject thoroughly. not said that a single case of such revocation had occurred. In point of fact he was making a law to punish a man for all the casualties and misfortunes of life, but if he was well off, to prevent him from punishment. It was in order to remedy this very evil that the temporary Insolvent Acts had gained the attention of Parliament. The debtor was not the only person in fault. It was well known that a very large proportion of persons were brought into this situation by those who were endeavouring to establish themselves in business, through giving every facility to credit, and who, if they were not successful, could avail themselves of the laws of bankruptcy. But those persons who conducted their business with caution, had never experienced any of the consequences expatiated on by the learned serjeant. On the whole he thought that he had made out no case whatever for interfering with the Act. Mr. Hurst expressed his admiration of the present Insolvent Act, which he thought sufficiently effective without any amendment. It had fallen to his lot to sit as chairman under the Act, and from his own experience, he could state that every means were taken to prevent the discharge of fraudulent debtors. In the whole county of Sussex the discharge of but five persons had been opposed. Mr. Serjeant Best said, that the last observation of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, afforded the best argument for his motion, inasmuch as by the statement he had made, that but five persons had been opposed in the whole County of Sussex, the evil arising from persons removing from distant county gaols to the metropolis was rendered manifest. The learned serjeant replied to the objections that had been made against his proposed Bill, and complained of being misunderstood by those who contended that the object of the Bill was to punish insolvency. It tended merely to discriminate between this insolvency which was unavoidable, and that insolvency which was the result of misconduct. ADDRESS ON THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH AMERICA.] Mr. Hart Davis rose for the purpose of moving an address of thanks to the Prince Regent, for the treaty of peace with the United States of America. He trusted the House would do him the justice to believe, that it was with great diffidence he rose on the present occasion, when so many other gentlemen were so much better qualified for the task; but he should content himself with briefly stating the considerations which satisfied his mind that the treaty deserved the thanks and congratulation of the House. There were few men in this country, he believed, who did not agree that the war, as declared by America, was unprovoked on our part; and it was to him equally manifest that it was now brought to a close not inconsistent with our honour or our interests. That man must have singular views of the policy of Great Britain, who thought that it ought to have been continued by us for the purpose of territorial aggrandisement, from vindictive feelings, or from a wish to extend the triumphs of our arms in another hemisphere. Besides, it could not fail to be considered, that however unprovoked, it was a war carried on with a people of the same origin, the same language, and the same manners with ourselves,-a war, therefore, which must be naturally entered upon with reluctance, and terminated with satisfaction, Neither could it be overlooked, that the interests of America were closely connected with our own. She was essentially a great agricultural country, and could advantageously supply us with her raw produce, while she took our manufactures in return. The more she was driven from pursuing her natural policy, by war or a system of blockade, however necessary these might have been, in the same proportion was she forced to become a great maritime and manufacturing country. Peace with America, then, was the natural policy of this country; and indeed the sole object of the war on our part was simply to resist aggression, and support our maritime rights. America had avowed as her objects in going to war, the conquest of Canada, the enforcement of the principle, that free ships make free goods, and the right of naturalizing our seamen,principles which could not be surrendered, and on the maintenance of which depended our existence as a great nation. Accordingly they had not been surrendered; Canada had been gloriously defended even by a small body of troops, and peace had been made in the spirit of peace. A wide field was again opened for the commerce and manufactures of this country, a circumstance peculiarly gratifying to him as the representative of a large com. mercial city, and which became still more important from the new aspect of affairs in Europe. The war, if lamentable in other respects, had at least taught both nations to appreciate their own strength, and the mischief they could do each other. America had shown that she was most formidable on her own territory; while, on the other hand, she must have felt, from the destruction of her trade, and the harassing of her coasts, the extent of the calamity which war with this country was capable of inflicting. He hoped that this would operate as a lesson to both countries, and that the peace would be followed up by a treaty of commerce mutually advantageous. We had retained in our hands the Newfoundland fisheries, and the trade with India, and a participation in them might be conceded for an adequate return of commercial advantages. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to return to his Royal Highness the most humble Thanks of this House, for having been graciously pleased to lay before us a copy of the Treaty of Peace and Amity concluded and ratified between his Majesty and the United States of America: To assure his Royal Highness that, having fully considered the same, we reflect, with the utmost gratitude and satisfaction, on the fresh proof that has been afforded, by the conclusion of this important arrangement, of his Royal Highness's anxious regard for the welfare of his Majesty's people; an arrangement which, we trust, will establish a perfect reconciliation and permanent friendship between the two countries, united by so many ties of common origin and reciprocal interests." Mr. Ponsonby rose and said: assure you, Sir, that no man, in this House re joices more sincerely than I do, at the termination of the contest with America: but, in my opinion, it would be a disgrace to this House, to present the Address moved by the hon. member, as it now stands, to his royal highness the Prince Regent; because I think it is the duty of this House to inform his Royal Highness, of what I conceive to have been the gross misconduct, and entire mismanagement, of ministers, in the progress of the negociations, and in the execution of the Treaty, with the United States of America. The first thing that must strike every man who has read this Treaty is, that there is no one subject whatever, that existed in dispute between the two countries, before its signature, that does not, in fact, still exist; and that all the pretensions that were advanced by his Majesty's ministers, in the course of the negociations which ended in this Treaty, were, one by one, abandoned by them. I hope the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn), as I judge by his manner that he denies this statement, will prove that it is erroneous. I shall be very happy to find that he can do so on good authority. As the noble lord (Castlereagh) refused, on the motion of an hon. friend of mine (Mr. Whitbread) to lay before the House, the papers connected with the negociation, I can have no recourse to documents, except those which the American Government has, by its own authority, and on the responsibility of its own character, published to the world.* I here speak of those papers which were laid before Congress by the American President, and which were received by Congress on his responsibility. Another thing to be remarked, in considering this Treaty, is, the time of its conclusion. It was not signed till the 24th of December last; and I think it will puzzle any gentleman who looks to it, to find out what it contains that could have occasioned a delay till that period. The Treaty of Fontainbleau was signed on the 11th of April-this day twelvemonth; the Act of Accession by the noble lord, was signed on the same day, and the notification of the execution of that Treaty was stated, in a dispatch from the noble lord to earl Bathurst, on the 13th * For Copies of the Papers relative to the Negociations at Ghent, published by the American Government, see Vol. 29, p. 368. of the same month, two days after the conclusion of the Treaty of Fontainbleau. The Convention with France was signed on the 27th of April, and the final Treaty was signed at Paris, on the 30th of May. Now, surely, it is necessary for the House to know, what obstacles opposed themselves to the conclusion of a Definitive Treaty with America, immediately after the entering into a Treaty with France. The Treaty of Paris had established not only peace with France, but with all Europe; and it would appear, that no time was so favourable for this country to enter into negociations with America as that very period. At no time could a proposition of a pacific nature have had so good an effect, as it respected the American government, the American people, and the general system of politics in Europe. This Government was then in a situation to have continued the contest with America, if it pleased, on the most extensive scale. And the more elevated it stood in the estimation of the world-the more powerful and imposing was the attitude of the country-the more was it incumbent on his Majesty's ministers to set on foot a Treaty of Peace, and thus to have demonstrated the generosity and magnanimity of that people, who, while they had ample means of prosecuting war, influenced solely by a spirit of mode ration, had preferred peace. The peace of Paris was concluded on the 30th of May, and the first conference between the British and American commissioners at Ghent, took place on the 8th of August. A mediation had been before proposed-and (speaking on the same sort of authority which, I have already observed, I am compelled to do, since the noble lord will not allow me any farther information) that mediation was declined -a mere negociation between the ministers of the two countries was considered preferable. At this first conference, on the 8th of August, if I am rightly informed by the papers laid before the American Congress, the terms on which alone Great Britain would make peace with America, were substantially proposed. The most remarkable of these terms were-a pacifi. cation with, (as they were called) the Indian Allies of Great Britain, and a settlement of their boundaries-military possession of the lakes of Canada, and of certain islands said to belong to us, but occupied by the Americans since the Treaty of 1783; to this was added, a de sire of settling a new boundary for the American and British territories, between the Mississippi and the American lakes. But those points which appeared to be principally pressed by ministers were, the pacification of the Indians-the defining of the boundaries of their territories-the military occupation of the lakes of Canada and the cession of those islands which the Americans had occupied since 1783. The papers from (which I argue state, that the American commissioners were informed by those of Great Britain, that the concession of these points was the sine quâ non, without which peace would not be concluded. The other terms, although to a certain degree insisted on, were not of so much importance; but no hope was held out that peace could be restored between the two countries, unless the propositions respecting the pacification with the Indians the definition of their boundaries-and the military possession of the lakes-were agreed to. These terms the American commissioners peremptorily refused. With regard to some of them, they had no instructions from their Government. They stated, that they were not authorized to cede any island, part of the territory of the United States of America-and that they would not take upon themselves to do it. They did not feel themselves justified in joining in any instrument that might be supposed to look to an alienation of any part of the American territory. Under these circumstances, the negociations at Ghent continued for two days longer, and were then suspended, while the American commissioners sent to their Government for instructions on the subject of the terms that had been offered. When the representations of the American commissioners, accompanied by the documents which had been interchanged in the course of the negociations, came to the hands of the Government of the United States, they unanimously refused the terms stated to have been offered by this country. The American President laid the papers before Congress; and, according to the forms of the constitution of that country, they were published to the American people. On the information thus given to the worldand on this alone-am I now enabled to state to the House the course which appears to have been taken. The President took the advice of Congress on the subject; and it does appear, not only that the American legislature, but that the whole American people, were unanimous in refusing what was proposed by his Majesty's ministers; for it does not appear, that, even in those states which were least inclined to war-even in those states which were most unwilling to support the measures of the American Government that the smallest disposition was manifested to agree to a Treaty founded on the terms proposed by his Majesty's ministers. And, Sir, it is somewhat remarkable, looking to the actual state of America at that time-marking those parts where an indisposition to war, as might be seen from their proceedings, appeared most strongly to prevail-it is, I say, remarkable, that his Majesty's ministers demanded one of the principal cessions of territory, in the state of Massachusetts that very state, which was attached, less than any other, to the government of Mr. Madison that very state which, above any other, had expressed opinions decidedly unfavourable to the war.-[Hear, hear!] Yes, Sir, the greatest cession of territory was asked from that state, which, I should have thought, above every other, it was the duty of this country and of ministers, to conciliate. They ought to have well considered, whether it was discreet or wise to make demands of such a nature, as must inevitably alienate its affections from this country as must destroy the strong disposition which existed for cultivating the friendship of England-which, in fact, must place the people in that situation, in which they must either give up the honour of their country, or abandon those predilections in favour of Great Britain, which they had long cherished. Sir, in debates on subjects of this sort formerly, and I have witnessed many of them in this House, I do not recollect a single instance, in which the Address to the Crown was moved by a gentleman not in any official or responsible situation. [Lord Castlereagh, across the table Yes, the Address on the Peace of Paris.'] The noble lord says, the Address on the Peace of Paris was thus moved. I hope he will not blame me, if I do not give much weight to his precedent. I am surprised that the Address should be moved by a gentleman not in any responsible or official situation-who, of course, cannot be accurately acquainted with the details of the subject-and cannot be able to give the House any of that authentic information which we have a right to expect, before, we are called upon to come to a vote, and to express our opinion, on matters of the utmost moment. The noble lord has not stated why he has not himself moved the Address. But I think, after he had denied all papers connected with the Treaty, it would have been more respectful to the House, and more satisfactory to the country, if he had stood forward himself to propose the Address, and had, in the course of his statement, given us some of that information, for which there is so much necessity. Sir, after various movements in the negociation, on the 8th of October in the last year, his Majesty's commissioners drew up an article, which they proposed for the acceptance of the American plenipotentiaries. This article referred merely to the simple pacification with the Indians, in consequence of the cessation of hostilities about to take place between Great Britain and America. Not a syllable about a definition of territory-not a syllable about a boundary line was mentioned. Whoever reads the correspondence, will see that the American commissioners always resisted this demand of a boundary line for the Indians, on these grounds: that, in fact, the Indians had no territory, as sovereigns of the countrythat the United States were the sovereigns of the soil-and that they gave the Indians leave to reside there, for specific purposes. They had the liberty of hunting-they had the liberty of fishing-they had, in fact, little more than the liberty of existing on those territories. A property in the soil, farther than this, was utterly denied; and the commissioners refused, therefore, to agree to any article which went to form a new boundary fine between the Indians and the subjects of the United States. They were ready, however, they stated, and so was their government, when peace was concluded with the United States, to extend that peace to the Indian allies of Great Britain; but they should be placed exactly in the same situation as that in which they stood when the war broke out; no new privilege should be extended to them in consequence of the hostilities between Great Britain and America. The commissioners also stated, when the Treaty was almost concluded with this country, that the American Government had entered into negociations for peace with the Indians themselves, and that they probably were, at that time, brought to a favourable conclusion. The article drawn up on the Sth of August, was, after these statements had been made, agreed to on the 13th. The American commissioners expressed their acceptance of it, provided their government did not disapprove of it. They made no objection to it-the parts which they had before opposed, having been given up by his Majesty's ministers. By this article, the Indians were to be placed in a state of pacification, precisely as they were before the war-nothing else was stipulated for, and therefore the American commissioners agreed to it. They did not, however, completely conclude on this point, until the approbation of their government was notified to them. The American government did not hesitate to give their approval; and that article, thus drawn up by our commissioners, and approved by the other side, is the very article relating to the Indians, which now stands in the Treaty itself. There seems to me to be no difference in substance. I know not what the hon. member opposite (Mr. Goulburn) may say, as to the authenticity of the papers from which I draw my information. I only know that they were published in America; and there really seems to me to be no difference between the article drawn up on the 8th of August and agreed to on the 13th, and that which we now find in the Treaty. sioners? Does the hon. gentleman opposite mean to deny that such a demand was made? If he should rise this evening, will he say that his proposition was not made-and that it was not immediately refused by the American commissioners? We know that the Treaty is altogether silent on this subject-we know that both parties are left in possession of the rights. they before enjoyed-but, will the hon. gentleman deny, that, for the purpose of securing a safe passage from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to Quebec, the demand I have alluded to was made? Will he declare it is not fact that such a demand was made to the American commissioners-resisted by them-and refused by their government; and that, in consequence of this opposition, the parties stand precisely as they were before? If what I advance be fact, Sir, and the hon. gentleman may disprove it if he can, then I say, that ministers have entirely deviated from the course which they first proposed. The definite boundary for the Indians, the alteration to be made with respect to the relations between them and the American government, the military occupation of the lakes by England, the prevention of a military occupation by America, and the portion of territory to be given up in the state of Massachusetts; all these points I say, are abandoned. If they are not, I hope the hon. gentleman will point out to me my error on this subject, and that he will show something in this Treaty to prove that we have gained every advantage contemplated. If, Sir, he cannot do this, I trust he will make it appear that the British commissioners did not ask for the concessions stated in the papers to which I have alluded. Above all, I hope he will show to the House, that one of the demands I have mentioned was not made as a sine quâ non, without a compliance with which, it was declared, that no peace would be made with America, although it was afterwards abandoned. The second demand was the military occupation of the Lakes. On this subject the British commissioners stated, that the occupation of the lakes in common, each power being allowed to navigate them with such vessels as they thought fit, and to erect such forts as they pleased, would give rise to disputes and disagreements, which might probably occasion frequent war. And then, to remedy this evil, it was proposed that Great Britain should be allowed to build whatever forts she liked, and might navigate, in any species of vessels she pleased; but that America should have no liberty to raise forts, even on her own side of the Lakes, where her With respect to the possession of the right was certain, plain, and undisputed- Bay of Passamaquoddy and Moose Island, and that she should also be debarred from his Majesty's ministers replied to the renavigating ships of war on them. These presentations made by the American neconditions were promptly and perempto-gociators on this point, that it was not rily refused by the American commis- even a subject of discussion. "The prosioners and the Treaty is quite silent on perty of that island," said they, "is a this subject. It leaves the state of things, matter we cannot discuss. It is our own. with reference to this point, exactly as it It as much the property of the British was before the war. Now, Sir, I ask, is it Crown as Northamptonsbire itself." This true that the English commissioners made expression is to be found in the correthese demands of the American commis-spondence. Such a reply was evidently |