convicts becoming the patriarchs of a mighty empire. We all know the origin of the United States; we all know that they were originally peopled by the refuse of European society. And how is it with them? The population there has gone on swelling and swelling, like an irresistible torrent; the people have multiplied, till at length, in whole tribes, they have poured themselves across the mountains of Alleghany, the streams of Ohio, and the plains of the Arkansas. Year after year the woods and the forests, the fortresses of nature, have been receding before the advancing tide of human beings: and, year after year, mankind has shown, by its multiplication, that, under favourable circumstances, its tendency is to fulfil the immutable law of nature. Why, then, does not the same rule apply to those colonies? Why is all America teeming with life, and why are the West Indies becoming desolate? Sir, that our colonies should decrease in so rapid a manner is to me one of the most appalling facts in the history of the world. In the worst governed state of Europe-in the worst managed condition of society-the people still increase. Look, for instance, at the miserable population of Ireland—at the oppressed serfs of Russia-look even at the slave-population of America, or that of our own colonies where sugar is not cultivated. In the Bermudas and the Bahamas, where no sugar is manufactured, the population goes on increasing; but when we come to the sugar islands, the ordinary law of nature is inverted, and, in proportion to the exuberance of the soil, is the curse of suffering and of death. In these islands, which are subject to one eternal reign of terror, human life flickers and goes out like a candle in a mephitic atmosphere. What the Spaniards did on the continent. for gold, we are doing in the islands for sugar. Let me remind the House of what Mr. Fox said on this subject. No one will deny that, perhaps, of all our statesmen, Mr. Fox was the most ardent for political liberty, and yet his observation on this question was, that all political liberty was but as a mere nothing com

pared with personal liberty. I shall give my best support to the Motion of my hon. friend. I shall do so, because I feel that this continued waste of life, without example and without parallel, is

a foul blot to this country, and because I hope that the adoption of this Resolution may remove it.

ふ

ON THE RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN.*

JULY 12, 1832.

He could have wished that the conduct to be pursued by the gallant Officer who had last addressed the House, were to be the direct reverse to that he had announced himself it would be, and that, on the vote of censure upon the Government, he should vote against them; and in that respecting the violation of national faith, he should be with them. It was of little importance by whom the affairs of the country were administered, but it was of

* Hansard, 3d Series, vol. xiv. p. 293–300.

NOTE. Lord Althorp, in moving for a Committee of the House, thus stated this question:-The House was aware, that in 1815 a treaty had been entered into between the king of the Netherlands, England, and Russia, and that, previously, a treaty had been concluded between Great Britain and the king of the Netherlands, to take upon themselves the payment of a certain portion of a loan due from the emperor of Russia. It was not now necessary to enter into that question-to inquire whether this arrangement was right or wrong; it was sufficient to consider if the treaty was binding in equity and honour upon this country. The agreement concluded was, that the Netherlands and Great Britain should undertake to pay the interest of a loan due from the emperor of Russia, at five per cent., together with a Sinking Fund of one per cent., until the whole loan was extinguished. In case of the separation between Belgium and Holland, it was provided that the obligation of the king of the Netherlands and Great Britain ceased. This was the letter of the treaty. The separation had taken place. The question was, if it were such as was contemplated by the treaty, and if this country was absolved, in justice and honour, from paying its portion of the debt. He thought not. The separation was not such a separation as was contemplated by the Treaty, which was exclusively ono effected by foreign force.

the deepest moment that the national honour should be preserved inviolate. Considering, that upon this subject hung the national faith and honour of England, he confessed it did in the highest degree astonish him, that hon. Members should think of introducing topics which had not the slightest relation to such a subject. If we were bound by the solemn obligations of a mutual compact, of what importance to us was the general conduct of the Monarch with whom that compact might have been contracted? Were we

at full liberty to enter into as many treaties as we please with all the Monarchs of the world, and yet keep faith only with those who proved to be merciful, liberal, and constitutional rulers? We entered into treaties with the Burmese and Siamese governments, and were we to require of them that they should conform their respective principles of government to that which we conceived might be suitable and becoming as between them and their subjects! The only argument on that side of the House was the necessity of keeping faith; and how had the hon. and gallant Member met that argument? Why, the hon. and gallant Member talked as if we paid tribute to Russia, at the moment it was attacking Poland. On what ground else did he speak of economy? To exercise economy in a case of this description, the payment must be optional, for he had not yet heard anybody rise in the House and say, that economy was to be preserved at the expense of national honour. If the common-sense interpretation of the treaty called upon this country for its execution, the hon. and gallant Member might as well call upon them to economize by a reduction of the Three per Cents, or a non-payment of Exchequer Bills. The question which they were then engaged in debating, naturally divided itself into two parts. The first was, whether or not the country was bound, by the most obvious principles of public faith, to continue these payments; secondly, did Government act illegally in continuing them without obtaining a new Act of Parliament for the purpose? All the hon. Members who spoke upon the other side, pro

fessed to pursue the object of keeping these questions perfectly distinct; and yet it strangely enough happened, that there was not one amongst them who did not mix both these topics; and that confusion of those questions was strikingly conspicuous where Vattel was referred to. Referring to the Treaty of 1815, he must admit, that if they examined the letter of that treaty, they would find, that the proviso had arisen, and that we were absolved from the payment of the debt. Yes, according to the letter of the treaty we were absolved. According to the letter we might be absolved; but were they now to be told for the first time, that the foreign policy of this great and renowned country was to be governed by such pettifogging rules of construction as were enunciated from the other side? Principles such as those were never meant, in any age or country, to be applied to the construction of compacts affecting the peace or the fate of nations. Reference, for the purposes of present argument, had been made to the opinions of jurists; but he knew enough of jurists to know, that they were the most convenient authorities that could in any case be referred to for the purposes of such a debate as the present. In the early ages of the Church the Fathers were frequently quoted, and many of them so frequently to serve opposite ends, that it became a proverb, that you might apply to the Fathers and obtain their authority in support of either side of almost any question. If they adopted the rule of literal construction, there must be an end of all that had heretofore been considered the faith of treaties. Hon. Members on the other side had spoken much and emphatically of the authorities which they had quoted in support of their respective opinions; but he would call their attention to one authority which few amongst them would be disposed to dispute—he meant the authority of the Duke of Wellington. One of the great conventions to which he was a party bore date in the same year with that which they were then discussing. It related to the entrance of the Allied Armies into Paris in the year 1815. By that Con