DEC. 1831. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN IRELAND. 127 the two countries are those whose attention it is necessary to excite upon this occasion. We are surrounded by difficulties and dangers. God knows how we shall extricate ourselves! But I am convinced that the straight course of principle is the best. (Quoted from the Act of Union with Ireland.) "The Churches of England and Ireland to be united as one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland,' and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said United Church shall be in full force for ever, as the same are now by law established for the Church of England; and that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union." "OATH. And I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as established by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am, or may become, entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant government in the United Kingdom." "And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them?" The Establishment of the Church of England in Ireland is provided for by the union with Scotland. The Right Hon. J. C. Herries to Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington. I have reason to believe that you are right in your recollection of the sums paid for repairs and improvements of some of the fortresses in Belgium, in the current service of the campaigns, not having been considered as part of the contribution of 2,000,000l. by Great Britain. The total sum paid £ 8. d. 1,999,999 10 10 was For execution of the treaty 223,699 0 0 2,223,698 10 10 Truly yours, J. C. HERRIES. 128 EXPENDITURE ON BELGIAN FORTRESSES. DEC. 1831. Colonel Sir J. Jones to Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington. MY LORD DUKE, Woolwich, 14th December, 1831. I think it right your Grace should see the two accompanying letters, as it appears to me some question has been raised respecting the expenditure on the fortresses of the Netherlands. I have the honour to remain, with the greatest respect, Mr. Backhouse presents his compliments to Colonel Sir J. Jones, and has the honour to inquire, with reference to the communication made to him by Sir J. Jones a few days ago on the subject of the expenditure upon the Belgian fortresses, to whom Lord Palmerston ought to address himself for a statement of the sums for which the contractor's accounts and vouchers for the work performed have been received. DEAR SIR, II. Colonel Sir J. Jones to Mr. Backhouse. Woolwich, 14th December, 1831. I have just received your note of the 12th, and, referring to the conversation I had the honour to hold with you on Monday week, I beg to repeat, that the sum appropriated for the erection of the Belgian fortresses was paid by large instalments into the Belgian treasury at periods agreed on between the two governments. The work of the fortresses was executed on contracts made by open tender by the proper Belgian authorities at each place, and the vouchers and other official documents relating to the expenditure were transmitted to the office of the Belgian Minister at War, on whose verification and approval they were paid out of the funds lodged in the Belgian treasury. These contracts were open to my inspection as agent of the Duke of Wellington, and it was my duty to ascertain that the work was duly executed, and to certify its having been so to his Grace; but neither the Duke of Wellington nor myself, as his deputed authority, ever had anything to do with the money, or the various payments of detail. A monthly statement of the expenditure, which I verified in the gross during my several inspections, was transmitted to the Duke, which is, of course, in his Grace's possession; but all the contractor's accounts and vouchers for the work performed are in the custody of the Dutch government. La rectification de l'article concernant la navigation intérieure, le droit de pilotage et de ratissage dans l'Escaut d'après les indications renfermées dans le Mémorandum néerlandais du 10 décembre 1831. 2. Suppression complète de la servitude de route ou de canal à travers le canton de Sittard. S'il se pourrait, on tâcherait d'obtenir en outre : 3. La capitalisation, à un taux modéré, de la route qui demeurerait à la charge de la Belgique ; et 4. Des arrangements, relatifs à la liquidation du syndicat d'amortissement, analogues aux vues exposées par le gouvernement néerlandais dans le Mémorandum du 14 décembre. 17th April.-Le ministre de Prusse énonce et fait connaître les justes attentes de sa cour, savoir: Que les ministres des puissances signataires vont, avant tout, s'occuper des modifications en faveur de la Hollande, qui, sans porter atteinte à la substance des vingt-quatre articles, pourraient y être apportées; et qui, si la conférence tombait d'accord et si le nouveau souverain de la Belgique consentait à les accepter, pourraient être érigées en articles explicatifs ou supplémentaires, et avoir ainsi la même valeur que les autres. La Prusse croit pouvoir et devoir insister d'autant plus sur ce point que, d'après les assurances souvent répétées de la France et de l'Angleterre, le moment de s'occuper de cet objet important a toujours dû trouver sa place après celui de la ratification. D'ailleurs, le traité du 15 novembre ratifié et signé, il faudra que les Alliés arrivent aux moyens de l'exécuter; or, avant de se concerter sur ces moyens, un préalable nécessaire, dicté par l'équité et la prudence, serait d'essayer de parvenir au but en convenant de quelques modifications, qui finirait peut-être par placer les parties contendantes sur la même ligne. [ 1999. ] VOL. VIII. K 130 [2000.] MEMORANDUM ON DEC. 1831. MEMORANDUM ON HOLLAND AND BELGIUM. A. The partiality towards Belgium and the injustice of the 1. By their premature declaration of the independence of 2. By their omission to enforce their own resolution in the Protocols 11th, 12th, and 19th of January, 1831, in respect to the basis of the arrangement agreed to by Holland, and declared to be invariable. 3. In the conduct pursued in respect to the election of King Leopold. 4. In the proposition of 18 Articles on the 27th of June. 5. In their assumption in October of the character of arbitrators. 6. In their proposition of the 24 Articles on the 15th of that month declared to be inexorable. 7. In their conversion of these Articles into a Treaty with Belgium, notwithstanding the declared objection of the King of the Netherlands to them. 8. In the ratification in this form of the Treaty by France and England alone on the 31st of January, 1832, notwithstanding that on the 4th of January preceding a Note had been agreed to by the Conference making some important alterations and concessions to the King of the Netherlands. 9. This injustice is particularly attributable to the governments of England and France. The other three Powers made important reserves in their ratification of the Treaty with Belgium. In a Note verbal of the 23rd of February, Count Orloff stated that the Articles respecting the interior navigation and the right of pilotage and ratissage of the Scheldt ought to be modified, as proposed by the King of the Netherlands and (the King of Prussia says) the Emperor of Austria. 10. Subsequent to the ratification of the Treaty the negotiations for the acceptance of the King of the Netherlands were broken off solely because on the 31st of August the DEC. 1831. HOLLAND AND BELGIUM. 131 Belgian minister said he could not take part in any negotiations unless the King of Holland should withdraw from Antwerp. 11. This communication was followed on the 6th of September by the proposition of a new Treaty by the Secretary of State acting from himself. As to this Treaty the King of the Netherlands gave no answer. 12. The proceedings of the Conference from that time forward led evidently to the result that followed, viz. a fresh French expedition into the Netherlands, and the siege of Antwerp. B. The nature of that arrangement occasioned by the desire in France to conciliate the war party. C. Whether we are at war or not. D. Whether Belgium is a party. Colonel Sir J. Jones to Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington. MY LORD DUKE, Woolwich, 16th December, 1831. I think it right again to trouble your Grace with the perusal of the accompanying letter from Sir George Shee and my reply. I have the honour to remain, with the greatest respect, Your Grace's very faithful and obliged humble servant, [ENCLOSURES.] JOHN T. JONES. DEAR SIR, Sir G. Shee to Colonel Sir J. Junes. Foreign Office, 14th December, 1831. I have shown to Lord Palmerston your letter of yesterday's date addressed to Mr. Backhouse, but he desires me to say that it does not exactly afford the information which he was desirous of obtaining. What Lord Palmerston wished to know is, whether there are in this country any means of ascertaining whether the whole of the sums issued by the British government to the Netherlands government on account of fortresses has been expended; that is to say, whether contract-work has been done to the extent of the issues made. If you can furnish Lord Palmerston with that information, he would feel much obliged by your transmitting it to me. I have the honour to be, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, G. SHEE. |