astonished that any man could suppose that the office of secretary of state could be removed to another country for any length of time. Acting on this idea, they bad seen a foreign secretary, converted into a sort of travelling officer all over Europe; and by this means lord William Bentinck received at times contradictory instructions from the office at bome and the office abroad. The Resolutions of his noble relation should have his cordial support. The Earl of Westmoreland entered into a justification of lord Castlereagh, and contended that there was not the slightest reason for charging the Government of this country with breach of faith to the Genoese. shortly the grounds on which he felt it his duty to support the resolutions of his noble relation. In the first place he considered lord William Bentinck to have been specially authorized to issue the Proclamations in question, because, as had been shown by his noble relative, his instructions were not limited to the encouragement of actual insurrection, but extended to any circumstances which might favour an insurrection. The noble earl had treated very lightly the fact of raising an expectation amongst the Genoese; but could any form of words or lightness of expression alter the character of a proceeding, by which the expectation raised upon the promises of a British general and plenipotentiary, speaking in the name of the Prince Regent, and pledging the honour of his country to their fulfilment, had been completely disappointed? The promises we had made had had the effect of inducing the Genoese to change their conduct; and we had thus not only broken our plighted faith, but had refused to pay the stipulated price for an actual benefit received. He did not know what was meant by negative co-operation; but it was obvious that one of the strongest places in Europe, with a garrison of 5000 men, never would have capitulated to an enemy, whose force did not exceed 8000, without a strong disposition manifested on the part of the inbabitants. True it was, Genoa had been conquered, but it had been conquered from the French garrison, not from the Genoese people. Even if lord William Bentinck had exceeded his instructions, still it would have been wise, in his opinion, to have ratified his proceedings; but at all events a British Cabinet sitting in London, would either have done so, or have solemnly and publicly disavowed the act of their minister. This, however, was not the course pursued under the counsels of our minister at Vienna, and this was one of the many practical evils resulting from the union in one person, of two such offices as those of secretary of state, and of diplomatic agent at a foreign court. How so extravagant a conception could enter into any man's mind, it was difficult to conceive. It was, in truth, nothing short of that crime described in our statute-book, under the name of encroaching upon the Royal power; it was to escape from the control of the Sovereign, and, in his judgment, to commit a high breach of the constitution. He was Earl Grey said, it was demonstrative of itself, that if lord William Bentinck had not been assisted by the Genoese, he never could have got possession of Genoa. So far was the indifference with which they had been charged from being true, that even the peasants scaled the walls before the British troops. If the Genoese did not rise on the 6000 men who garrisoned their town, they knew that there was not only these 6000 men, but an army of 80,000 men, under the Viceroy, at hand; and they had seen sufficient examples of French force and French vengeance. There was not the smallest reason to charge them with indisposition towards England. In addition to the instructions sent to lord William Bentinck, by which he was authorized to hold out to the Genoese the establishment of their government, there was the Declaration of the Allies, and the Treaty of Chaumont, in which their object was declared to be to secure a general peace, under which all nations might enjoy their rights, and the peace and security of the world be established. The noble earl then proceeded to his second point, namely the policy of the annexation of Genoa to Piedmont. He went into an examination of the various relations of the surrounding Powers, and argued that in giving Genoa to the King of Sardinia, lord Castlereagh had accomplished a French and not an English object. The true principle on which the Allies, in this, and other cases, should have proceeded, was to show that governments were made for the people, and not the people for the governments. Had they acted upon this system, many of the calamities we now had to lament would never have occurred. the maritime territory of Genoa. This transfer, he said, was not at all to be regretted on the score of the people of that country, because, from the aristocratical nature of the government, the interest of the state had always been sacrificed to that of the city. He therefore thought it was. evident, that the course which the Government had taken was not repugnant either to honour or policy. The Marquis of Buckingham briefly replied. He observed, by whatever means Genoa fell into our possession, a proclamation had been issued, in which lord William Bentinck, in the name of the British Government, had promised independence to the people of that state. The question then was, whether the British Government had recalled lord William Bentinck, and disavowed his proclamation, or abided by it. They had done neither; they had not disavowed the proclamation, but they had broken the promises which it held out. It was said, too, that the king of Sardinia was the natural guardian of the Alps. What had the British Government done? they had taken from him Chambery and the two natural passes of the Alps, and had given them to the French, on which territory Buonaparté was now collecting an army. Such was the conduct of the Government, and upon principles of honour and policy the House was bound to reprobate it. The Earl of Liverpool thought it hardly necessary, after the luminous speech of his noble friend (earl Bathurst) to detain the House with many observations. The original instructions were sent to lord W. Bentinck under special circumstances, and when particular information was received as to the disposition of the people of Italy, a large discretion was necessarily entrusted to him. The information, however, had proved erroneous, and lord William Bentinck's force was then diverted to the south-east coast of Spain, in order to co-operate with the duke of Wellington. He thought it quite clear that there was not a single word in the instructions to warrant lord William in establishing the ancient government of Genoa; and lord William himself never meant to preclude his own Government from determining the question of independency. All he could do was to establish a provisional government; and Great Britain could not do more, as it was a combined concert between her and her allies, and we could not make conquests, except in the name of the Allies. A noble lord had said, that lord Wiliam Bentinck was not only a military officer, but also a minister plenipotentiary; but he had no general discretion at that time, and the Allies alone could decide the fate of Genoa. If lord William had entered into a treaty with the Genoese, it would not have been valid, till ratified by his own Government. The noble earl contended, that there had been no breach of faith on the part of this country. Expectations were never held out by this Government Non-Contents that were not fulfilled; while, on the other hand, the Italians, and the Genoese in particular, had led this Government to believe that there was a disposition to rise against the authority of Buonaparte. This disposition, supposing it had ever existed, had never in the slightest degree been carried into effect. The noble earl then went into the point of policy, arguing, that in consequence of the weakness of the king of Sardinia, Buonaparté had been able to over-run and conquer Italy. The object was, to place a barrier between France and Italy, that would prevent such a consequence in future. And if the passage of the Alps was to be protected, it was only to be done by making the Power which was the natural guardian of the Alps strong enough to defend the passages, which was impracticable, unless the possession was given of some part of Their lordships then divided: Proxies Majority against the motion...... 72 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, April 25. PAVEMENT OF THE METROPOLIS.] Mr. M. A. Taylor observed, that, early in the present session, he had noticed the dangerous state of the pavement of the metropolis, and he had subsequently obtained leave to bring in a Bill to afford facilities for rendering the pavement better. Nothing, he believed, could be worse than it was at present; however, he was desirous of giving every accommodation to the various parishes, and of preventing any rumour from going abroad, which might impute to him a wish to press on the public a Bill of this description. Actuated by this feeling, he yesterday had a meeting with persons deputed from the different parishes, that were hostile to the measure. They allowed that the evil called for remedy and redress, and they pledged themselves, if he was not particularly partial to certain clauses of the measure he had proposed, to meet early in November, to arrange such a Bill as would meet the wishes of the public, and give general satisfaction. Resolutions, he understood, had been come to in all the parishes, by which the parties connected with the paving department bound themselves to pay every attention to the state of the streets, and to exert all the powers granted to them under the local acts of parliament, so that by the time the Bill was introduced, the public would find the pavement in a much better state than it had been for some time past. He should, therefore, with the understanding that a Bill would be brought in at the period he had specified, move, with the leave of House, "That the order for the second reading of the Bill for the better Pavement of the Metropolis, which stood for Monday next, be discharged."-The motion was agreed to. TREATY OF VIENNA.] On the report of the Committee of Supply being brought up, Mr. Whitbread said, that since the noble lord opposite had laid the substance of the Treaty of the 25th March, and the Memorandum, attached to it before the House, he had perused it attentively. He should take the liberty of asking in what sense that part of our explanatory Declaration was to be understood which said that a common effort was to be made against the power of Napoleon Buonaparté, but not to impose a government on France. Was he to understand that war was to be made on Napoleon Buonaparté, and that no peace was to be concluded with him as long as he remained in possession of the supreme authority in France? Lord Castlereagh answered, that the object was to destroy the power of Buonaparté, but the Treaty was only binding on the Allies so long as they chose to make it so. Of course they might agree to treat of peace, if they should hereafter think it prudent to do so. Mr. Whitbread said, that nothing could be plainer than his question, and nothing more obscure and unsatisfactory than the answer of the noble lord. Was he to understand that it was impossible for war to be avoided on the part of the country, with Napoleon Buonaparté exercising the power and government of France? Lord Castlereagh said, that the engagement entered into between the Alled Powers might be dissolved; but that its object, at the time it was formed, certainly was to destroy the power of Buonaparté, and to make no peace with him. Mr. Whitbread felt himself as much as ever at a loss with the answer of the noble lord. When the Address was moved, it was stated that there was an alternative of war or peace; and even down to the present time, except from an occasional loose or unguarded expression which dropped from one or other of the friends of the noble lord, nothing had ever been stated to the House to induce them to think that there was not still an alternative. He believed it to be understood by those present in the House, who had no suspicion of any delusion, that there was a possible alternative in the existing state of things of war or peace with France. Now how could this be reconciled with the Treaty and explanation on the table? Lord Castlereagh.-I think I answered the hon. member's question before. There is a possibility of resorting to the alternative mentioned, because the contracting parties may recede from their engagements; but, as to the probability of such an event, I will leave the hon. gentleman to form his own opinion from the appearance of things. Mr. Whitbread said, he had rendered his question as plain as possible, and the noble lord as usual had given a reply as equivocal as he possibly could. Those who thought that no peace should be made with Buonaparté would interpret his answer, as stating that war was unavoidable. Those who inclined to the other side of the question would infer from it, that an alternative still remained. His own interpretation was, that the Allies, when they concluded the Treaty, intended to go to war with Buonaparté, and that if they had not yet carried that plan into execution, it was in consequence of some other circumstances which had arisen since, and which the noble lord hoped might be got over, that war should ensue. He wished the House to be well informed on this subject before another message should come down, and that the noble lord should willingly do that which the House would be obliged to do without his assistance. If it was not conceived too early, he would tomorrow, but certainly on some day of the present week, take the sense of Parliament on the most important question-of peace or war. Lord Castlereagh assured the hon. gentleman, that if he wished to take the sense of the House, he had only to make a motion, and that he should be prepared to meet him. Mr. Tierney inquired of the noble lord, whether his Majesty's ministers had entered into an engagement to relieve Russia of a part of the debt she had contracted with Holland, to the amount of two millions and a half, and what equivalent this country was to receive? answer Lord Castlereagh, under the present circumstances, could not give an satisfactory to the House. With respect to Holland, and the arrangements regarding her colonies, it would be premature to enter into any details. Mr. Tierney had not put his question with any reference to a war which might be approaching. Neither did he interfere with the arrangements made with respect to the Dutch colonies. He only asked an explanation of a transaction that had taken place, and whether this country had been subjected to an incumbrance of 2,500,000l. Would the House endure that such a sum should be consigned to the treasury of Russia without any other answer than that returned by the noble lord? Lord Castlereagh maintained the impropriety of entering into the subject at this time. Mr. Tierney wished to know whether any obligation had been entered into which the noble lord thought binding on this country? Lord Castlereagh assured the hon. gentleman that no engagement had been entered into in which the interests of the country had not been consulted. Mr. Whitbread gave notice that on Friday next he should make a motion on the state of the country relative to peace or war. Mr. Ponsonby, on casting his eye over the Treaty of the 25th of March, had been struck by a paragraph not forming any part of it, but added at the close of it, by which it appeared that the Treaty had been received in this country on the 5th of April and the answer dispatched on the 8th, and that authority and instructions had been given to lord Clancarty at Vienna, to sign a subsidiary engagement consequent upon the said Treaty. He wished to know what was the nature of those instructions, and the amount of the subsidies which he had been empowered to promise, as it was impossible that his lordship should have been left entirely at liberty to pledge this country to any amount he pleased. Lord Castlereagh complained of this system of interrogation, which tended to put the House by anticipation in possession of all the subjects of negociation before they were settled or ratified. What had been or would be done, could not be executed without the consent of Parlia ment. The right hon. gentleman might well suppose that lord Clancarty had received instructions; but what those were, and the extent of the subsidiary engage, ment which he was empowered to sign, were matter of negociation with foreign Powers, and it would be premature and improper to force them into discussion. Mr. Ponsonby could see no impropriety either in the question which he had put to the noble lord, or in his giving the explanation he requested. The House would be obliged to make good the subsidies to whatever amount ministers had pledged it; for it would be idle to think that after they had contracted the engagement, it would be found practicable to refuse the supplies. And if the House only knew their amount after the pledge had been given, it would be reduced to the alternative of either breaking the faith of treaties, or else of paying sums which it considered injurious to the country. Lord Castlereagh contended, that the doctrine thus broached, and the system pursued, had a tendency to subvert the constitution, by infringing on the prerogatives of the Crown respecting peace and war. Mr. Ponsonby denied, that what he had said had any such tendency. The Crown had the power of making peace and declaring war, but no authority, in subsidiary treaties, to pledge Parliament to any amount it thought proper. It had no right to interfere in matters of money. Lord Castlereagh stated, that the charge made on the Crown, of its pledging the House, was not founded on fact. Foreign Powers themselves never understood more, by our subsidiary engagements, than that the Crown would recommend to Parliament to grant supplies to the amount required. Sir James Mackintosh understood the noble lord to have given it as his opinion, that for ministers to state beforehand the amount of a subsidiary treaty, would be a subversion of the constitution. [Hear, hear! and No, no! from the Ministerial side.] COMMISSIONERS OF WINDSOR FOREST.] Mr. Whitbread inquired, whether the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to lay before the House, a copy of the commission granted to lord Yarmouth, Mr. J. Nash, and Mr. C. Bick nell, relative to the Royal Parks, for which he had moved on the preceding evening, and relative to the legality of which some doubts, it appeared, had arisen in the minds of the Lords of the Treasury? The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it would be improper to lay it before the House, as it was at present under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown. He hoped he should be able in a few days to acquaint the House with the result. Lord Yarmouth said, it was perfectly well known that for a number of years his present Majesty had set an example of farming to the country, which example was followed by the duke of Bedford, Mr. Coke, and others. The King farmed a part of the Royal Park by way of recrea tion; and the management of it was under different men at different times. Three gentlemen were appointed commissioners, of whom he was one, under a power of attorney. They had done no act which was not done by the former commissioners, and if it pleased God to restore his Majesty, he would receive back his farm in exactly its former state. He considered that an inquiry of this kind was prying into the private concerns of the Sovereign. His Majesty had always kept the wardenship of Windsor Forest unnamed, that the office might not be filled up by ministers. He could not help thinking this sort of prying into the private concerns of the King was rather indecorous. The only expense of the commission was a clerk of the lowest description. Mr. Tierney said, according to the account of the noble lord, all the forests and parks might be divided into farms. This had never been the case in former times, and he should be glad to know why this new practice had prevailed. By the old practice, his Majesty had been always in the habit of appointing wardens, and there might be some reason for appointing commissioners. He wished to know whether this was really a power of attorney or a commission. There might be very good reasons for putting the matter under the consideration of the law officers, for it would require to be known whom these commissioners were to be responsible to. He knew no reason why Mr. Bicknell or Mr. Nash should devote their time without being paid for it. If there was no salary attached to their offices, it made the case more extraordinary; and he should like to know what an architect had to do with parks. If the noble lord wanted a legal adviser, he could not have a better than Mr. Bicknell; but he could not understand what assistance Mr. Nash could render him. It would he proper, therefore, that the power of attorney should be produced. Mr. Whitbread then moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, a copy of any commission or instrument, purporting to vest certain powers and authorities in the earl of Yarmouth, John Nash, esq., and Charles Bicknell, esq. respecting the Royal Parks." Lord Yarmouth said, there had been no ranger of the Great Park since the time of the late duke of Cumberland; and the King would not appoint a ranger or warden, in order that his amusements might not become a subject of inquiry before Parliament. Lord Castlereagh apprehended, that the hon. gentleman did not consider the question as one of mere curiosity; but as no 'abuse had been alleged, and it had not been shown that the Treasury had been negligent, he did not consider it a subject for the control of Parliament. If his Royal Highness was not so fond of farming as his Majesty, it was not extraordinary that he should appoint persons to superintend the management of the parks. If it should appear, after inquiry had been made, that the Treasury had acted improperly, then the hon. gentleman might interpose. Sir John Simcon opposed the motion. Mr. Whitbread did not wish to pry into the amusements of the Crown. He had conceived that the power vested in the commissioners was greater than it now appeared to be; but he wished to know why no ranger, who was the old constitutional officer, had been appointed to Windsor park? |