and he therefore wished the noble earl to state, whether it was true that such an engagement had been entered into without any communication having before or since been made to Parliament.

The Earl of Liverpool could only repeat what he had before said, that no such engagement could be formed, except suhject to the opinion and control of Parliament; and he did not feel himself warranted in giving any further explanation at present.

Earl Grey remarked, that he must consequently understand that the noble earl did not deny but that such an engage ment had been entered into on the part of this country without any intimation to Parliament.

The Earl of Darnley adverted to the statement of the noble earl (Liverpool), in moving a late Address to the Prince Regent, that Parliament was pledged to nothing by agreeing to that Address, but to a consent that the country should be placed in a state of preparation. He understood, however, that at the time of moving that Address, the noble earl had in his possession the Treaty concluded between the Allies at Vienna, pledging themselves to renew the war. The noble earl ought to have communicated that circumstance to the House when he moved the Address.

The Earl of Liverpool, in reply, stated, that by the Address of the 7th of April Parliament had pledged itself only to a concurrence in placing the country in a state of preparation, and nothing further. He had no hesitation in avowing that on the day previous to the vote of that Address, his Majesty's Government were in possession of the Treaty. There were circumstances, however, which rendered it improper for his Majesty's ministers to mention it on that occasion. He would state one. He had himself, in moving the Address on the 7th of April, observed that it was not the policy of his Majesty's Government to urge the Continental Powers into any measures beyond their own sense of necessity. The Treaty adverted to by the noble earl was signed at Vienna on the 25th of March, at which period, although the present ruler of France had reached Paris, yet the Allied Powers were not in possession of that fact, or that the King of France had quitted it. Under those circumstances it was not considered just towards our Allies to deem the Treaty a conclusive engagement on

their part, until they became apprized of the facts of which they were ignorant at the time of their framing it.

The Earl of Darnley still thought their lordships ought to have been informed of the existence of this Treaty, before they were called upon to vote the Address. He wished to know if the Treaty was now to be deemed conclusive?

The Earl of Liverpool replied, that his observations referred to circumstances at a former period, not at the present. Now the Treaty was unquestionably concluded, and directions had been given to our minister to ratify it, subject to an expla nation.

MOTION RESPECTING THE TRANSFER OF GENOA.*] The Marquis of Buckingham rose to submit to their lordships his motion on the subject of the transfer of Genoa to the king of Sardinia. When he had the honour to call their lordships attention to that subject on a former occasion, he was informed that the time was not yet come for entering fully into that question, or giving the necessary explanations respecting it. Now, however, the time bad arrived-that time so much longed for by the noble earl opposite had at last come; and he now requested their lordships attention to the result. He had called for information on the subject, and ministers had given him half of what he asked. They had produced some papers relative to this transfer, and such papers only as they themselves thought fit to produce-and what was the result? The case before rested on such a statement as he had been enabled to make from other sources of information, and on such arguments as be bad been enabled to adduce. It now rested on the papers produced by the Executive Government themselves; and the result was, that every statement he had made had been confirmed-that every argument which he had used was fully supported, and the whole case completely established. Foul and disgraceful to the nation as be had stated this proceeding to be, it sunk almost to nothing when compared with the foul and disgraceful proceeding which appeared in these papers. When we summoned the nations to rise and oppose the violation of treaties and broken faith, we ought to be sure that we ourselves had

*For copies of the Papers relating to Genoa, referred to in the course of this debate, see p. 387.

not supported a violation of faith and pro- | mises solemnly pledged to the Genoese. Ministers had in these papers made out a case against themselves. The national faith had been solemnly pledged to the Genoese that their former government should be restored, and that pledge had been violated. The Genoese had been transferred to the king of Sardinia, and the violation was complete: but still this country might do itself the justice to refuse its approbation to the conduct of the Executive. This was a most important point, with a view to the war which appeared to be about to commence. Uncertain and contradictory orders and instructions, vacillating counsels, violated faith, and broken promises, marked the conduct of ministers throughout the great crisis which had lately taken place. It appeared that in 1811 a noble friend of his (marquis Wellesley), whom at that moment he did not see in his place, had recommended the policy of attempting to rouse the people of Italy to shake off the French yoke, by promising them independence and restoration to their ancient governments. That noble marquis had also sketched out the plan of co-operation, which had since proved the salvation of Europe, and strongly recommended its adoption; and ministers could hardly have been aware of the inference that might be drawn from that document, otherwise they surely would not have produced it: but it showed clearly, that the object, even at that time, was to endeavour to gain the co-operation of the Italian states against the common enemy, by a promise of independence and a restoration to their ancient governments. At a subsequent period, his noble friend opposite (earl Bathurst) had sent out a dispatch to lord William Bentinck, then commanding our forces in Italy, instructing him not to transfer Genoa to the king of Sardinia without the entire and direct concurrence of the Genoese people. These instructions appeared to have been withheld by lord Castlereagh, who himself acted as the Executive Government; at least he talked of having withheld some dispatch, which he supposed to be this. [Lord Bathurst said, that was not the dispatch which was withheld.] It was immaterial to the argument whether it was or not: but such were the instructions given by his noble friend; and upon the faith of these instructions, Genoa had been entered, and a proclamation had been issued, by which, as he contended, the faith of

the British Government was pledged to. the restoration of their ancient government to the Genoese. Had they consented to the tranfer of their state to the king of Sardinia? Had they not, on the contrary, expressed the utmost objection to it? His noble friend opposite had instructed lord William Bentinck to attend to the wishes of the people respecting their government. "Don't mind the wishes of the people;" said lord Castlereagh, "make no arrangements without consulting the Austrian commander;" and thus the people of Genoa were transferred to a power to which they had long been opposed by every feeling which could animate one nation against another. The promises of independence and restoration to their ancient government had been liberally made, when it was problematical whether we should ever be called upon to make good these promises: but when the moment for their fulfilment seemed fast approaching, then we began to draw back, and to shrink from the performance. At the treaty of Chaumont the object of the Allies was declared to be the independence of nations, and their restoration to their ancient governments. The Genoese and lord William Bentinck had heard of this, and reckoned upon it. His lordship had issued his proclamation upon these principles, and the Genoese had assisted him in taking possession of their city upon the faith of the principles contained in that Treaty. It was clear it was no conquest, but a voluntary admission of our troops, upon the understanding that the British nation stood pledged to restore them their ancient forin of government. Lord William Bentinck had been so instructed, and he was sure ministers could not deny that such had been his instructions. But lord Castlereagh had at last discovered that the proclamation related only to à provisional government for Genoa, and the discovery was made in this way: the duke of Campo-Chiaro, Murat's minister, had noticed this proclamation, and finding the principle of the restoration of the ancient governments there stated, he applied to lord Castlereagh, who had guaranteed Naples to his master. This proclamation proceeds on the principle of restoring their ancient governments to the states of Italy, and in that way Naples would be restored to the old family, and in that case what becomes of your guarantee? Lord Castlereagh upon this sent to lord William Bentinck, stating that there were some things

in his proclamation which might be liable to misconstruction,-that nothing ought to be done which should preclude the effect of the arrangements which it might be thought proper to make at the Congress, that a provisional government merely ought to be formed, and the people to be kept quiet in the mean time. Lord William Bentinck, who felt like a British soldier, informed lord Castlereagh that the people were unanimous in preferring their ancient government. What would have been the reply of an honest man-he meant of an honest statesman, for he was to be understood always as only speaking of lord Castlereagh in his public capacity, what would have been the reply of an honest statesman? That the people must have their ancient government, according to their wishes, and the prospect held out to them. But lord Castlereagh, who, while he had guaranteed Naples to Murat, appeared to have been engaged in the design of restoring the old family, proceeded in a different way. The Genoese were to await the arrangements of the Congress, and were at last, in direct opposition to their wishes and their protest, transferred to the king of Sardinia. It could not surely be pretended, that the provisional government, established by lord William Bentinck, was appointed for the purpose of a temporary administration, till the determination of the Congress was known. A provisional government was appointed, but, certainly, with no such views as that. He requested their lordships' particular attention to the proclamation itself. Their lordships would there find, beyond all possibility of doubt, that the provisional government was framed, not with a view to any arrangements at the Congress, but merely for the purpose of providing for the administration of the affairs of the state till the proper steps could be taken for the restoration of the old form of government. This was undoubtedly the object and meaning of all the parties at the time; and it was, as he conceived, impossible to found an argument upon that ground in favour of the conduct of the British Government. The national faith, therefore, in this transfer, had been shamefully violated. The conduct of Great Britain in regard to Spain, Portugal, Holland, and Sicily, had been held out to the people of Italy, as examples of the integrity and good faith of the British Government: but what was the proceeding with respect to these coun

tries? Spain had been liberated and restored to its ancient government; Portugal had also been liberated, and still retained its ancient government, and the same was the case with Sicily. Holland had been liberated, and its ancient government restored. The people must have conceived that their ancient government was to be restored to them; and yet the result was, that in spite of promises and engagements direct and implied, Genoa was transferred to the king of Sardinia. And even with respect to the king of Sardinia himself, how was the promise of restoring the ancient governments and states preserved? The king of Sardinia was deprived of part of his dominions, and that part was, by the Treaty of Paris, given to France. It was the most vulnerable part, too; opening to the French a passage into Italy, without striking a blow. It was then necessary to cast about for an indemnity to the king of Sardinia, and thus Genoa was delivered up to him. And here he must, once for all, protest against the plan of a Secretary of State going abroad, and taking upon himself the whole executive government, which ought to reside in the Sovereign alone. The noble marquis then examined the spirit in which the British Government had acted as to the Genoese. The general was to give them their old constitution if they resisted; and they did so, and he then gave them over to the king of Sardinia. Then came lord Castlereagh's cold and contemptuous note, talking of the Prince Regent's generosity, and in the same breath sealing the fate of that ill-used people. Then they were told to apply to Congress, and at Congress they were banded over to three commissioners, of whom the French one, M. de Noailles, declined having any thing to do with the matter, unless England gave up her treaty with Murat. And this was our policy, and this the way Europe was to be reconciled! The noble marquis here appealed to older and wiser men among their lordships than himself, whether it was constitutional in any man to make himself, as lord Castlereagh had done, a walking depositary of royal authority? The constitution did not, he was convinced, authorize any individual to go out of the country, taking with him the power of the Crown, and subsequently issuing instructions directly contrary in their spirit to those which originally emanated from the Government to which he belonged. He