rose to call the attention of the House to a public grievance, which, in his opinion, required both immediate remedy and future precaution. The only question, be apprehended, would be as to the nature of that remedy; for the evil of which he complained was indisputable and universally felt, yet without the interference of parliament would probably remain unredressed. He wished to submit to the House the necessity that existed of preserving the pavements of the metropolis in such a state as should not endanger the safety of his Majesty's subjects. Many accidents had already occurred in consequence of the manner in which they were at present broken up; and not long since a coachman had been thrown from his box, and killed on the spot. He had been told, in the course of his inquiries into the cause of this shameful disorder and negligence, that it was an evil which it was impossible to prevent. This impossibility, however, he was determined to try, and would persevere at the risk of giving offence to the parish officers, and even though the water companies should put him in their reservoirs, or the gas light company into their furnaces. The city of London, he knew, was exempted by charter; but he trusted, that when they saw a proper system of inspection and control established in Westminster, they would think it worth their attention to imitate the example. With respect to the law as it already stood, there was no distinction between streets and highways, the former being so denominated only from their running through inhabited and populous places. They were indictable at quarter sessions, and it was the duty of the magistrates to assess a sufficient rate, and direct the parochial overseers to institute the proper repairs. The law, then, was entirely with him; but it was too dilatory in its application, and required the quickening energy of parliament to give it its due and salutary effect. The law guaranteed every man's title to the terra firma, and on him who obstructed or undermined it imposed the obligation of fully and completely repairing the mischief he had occasioned. The streets of Paris were not subject to this inconvenience; and those of Edinburgh, and from that to Leith, were equally safe and beautiful, forming an inclined plane, and enabling carriages to proceed with equal convenience and velocity. What he now proposed was, to bring in a Bill enabling the crown to appoint a board of commissioners, and to divide the metropolis into four or five districts. These commissioners were to act gratuitously, and to be composed of gentleman resident in the particular district over which they presided, and to possess, as a qualification, 300l. a year, or 10,000l. in money. They were to be called on to publish proper advertisements, and to appoint an inspector for each district, whose salaries, with those of a few clerks, would constitute the whole expense of his measure. The salary of the inspector ought to be, he conceived, not less than 500l. per annum, as he should be a person of uncorrupt character, and removable by the commissioners. It was his intention, if the House gave him leave to bring in the Bill, further to propose, that the Bill should become operative three months after its passing into a law. It was a measure which could inflict no hardship on the parishes, whose duty it was already by law to prevent all nuisances in the public streets. He should also introduce a compulsory clause on the water companies, restraining them from taking up any pavement at their own pleasure, or from laying down any other than iron pipes in future, as well as to limit their right of breaking up a street to a particular period of the year. It was obvious that it was an evil chiefly experienced in the winter season. The inspector must be armed with the power of levying fines, either on the parish, or the authors of the mischief, and in proportion to the extent of the evil, subject to the revision of the commissioners. He should also propose that these provisions might equally extend to the gaslight companies, and the commissioners of sewers, and that they should all be interdicted from laying down wooden pipes in future. He did not wish to interfere with the rivalship of different companies; no man was a greater enemy to monopoly than himself; his only object was to secure to the public what they had a right to possess—a good, safe, and commodious carriage-road. The fact was, the pavements, after being so opened, were not laid down again sometimes for months, and without some quick and compulsory measure, he was convinced the evil would continue to exist. He was sorry he could not compliment the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom he then saw in his place, on the condition of the streets near the Treasury. From thence to Scotland yard their state was disgraceful as well as dangerous. On inquiring at the Treasury on this subject, he had been told that the cause was, there was no money there [a laugh]; but he trusted the right hon. gentleman would not support such an assertion. He should now move for leave to bring in a Bill for the purposes he had mentioned, and could assure the House that nothing would give him greater satisfaction than the introduction of some measure better calculated than that of which he had just submitted the outlines, to accomplish the object he had in view—

'—si quid novisti rectius istis,

'Candidus imperti: si non, his utere mecum.'

The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the better paving of the streets of the metropolis."

inquired whether it was the hon. member's intention to include the borough of Southwark in the provisions of his Bill, as he conceived its streets rather deserved the eulogy passed on those of Edinburgh, than the censure on those in the neighbourhood of the Treasury.

replied, that in a bill of this nature, it was impossible to except any particular district; but if Southwark required no inspection, it would become liable to no expense. The expense already borne by the metropolis was immense, not less than 150,000l. per annum, while that of his Bill would be no more than 2,300l.

Leave was then given to prepare and bring in the Bill.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill for improving the West end of Cheapside, St. Martin's-le-Grand, &c. and for providing a site in that part of the town for a New Post-office.

declared, that the objections formerly urged against the propriety of changing the site of the Post-office, as being attended with an expense of 800,000l. were founded on a misconception of the amount required, either for the purpose of a removal, or of altering and improving the present office, to render it adequate for the fulfilment of the duties of that department. He had carefully calculated the expenses of both, and found them to be nearly equal. As the circumstance of expense was therefore removed, the point to be considered was, the increase of ornament and advantage the city would derive from the proposed change. The compensation for the property to be purchased in Cheapside, St. Martin's-le-Grand, &c. he estimated at 150,000l.; the expenses of erecting the office would be 140,000l.; making an aggregate of 290,000l. From this let 40,000l. (the price of the materials of the present office) be deducted, and 250,000l. would be the sum, required. To purchase the ground necessary for altering the present office, in. Lombard-street, would require 260,000l.; so that, as the estimates were nearly equal, the improvement and ornament of the city ought to decide in favour of the new situation.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to empower the commissioners appointed to examine into the fees of the courts of justice, to compel the attendance of witnesses to be examined on that inquiry. He contended that such powers were necessary, particularly in a case like the present. It had been stated, on a former evening, that the officers of the courts could not refuse to give evidence before the commissioners; yet it was manifest that without such a bill as be proposed there was no compulsion on them to attend, while no persons were more likely to wish for concealment than those whose conduct was to be examine into. Besides, others must be examined, as exparte statements would not be fully to be relied on. It had been the constant practice to arm committees with powers to compel attendance, and he could see no reason why those powers should not be necessary on this as well as on any other occasion. As one instance, he would allude to the Carnatic commissioners, who were armed with such powers. The details of his Bill would be liable to future discussion; but to the principle of it, he did not see how there could be any objection. He therefore moved, a That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the commissioners appointed, or to be appointed by royal commission, to examine into the state of the courts of justice of Great Britain and Ireland, to compel the attendance of witnesses upon them, and their disclosure of all such matters respecting the same, as may be within their knowledge, and under such regulations as would be adopted in a court of law."

contended, that there was no occasion for such a Bill as was proposed by the right hon. baronet. The commissioners appointed in 1702 had acted without any such powers, and yet they went on in accomplishing the objects entrusted to them. The instance alluded to was very widely different from the present case; for the Carnatic question was one of abuses in general. This was not an inquiry into general abuses, but one into fees actually taken, about which there could be no secret. The right hon. baronet did not state any abuses in any department but in the master's office, and surely the master of that office would not refuse, for his own character's sake, to give evidence on every thing on which he should be examined by the commission. The right hon. baronet seemed to attack the entire body of the magistracy, as if unwilling to give evidence; or why make a law to compel them to give it? On the whole, he saw no necessity whatever for the Bill, and would therefore move the previous question.

spoke in favour of the sill; because it was hardly to be supposed that persons who were parties to those abuses which the commissioners were appointed to detect, who had either committed them, connived at them, or tempted others to commit them, would voluntarily come forward and disclose them. It might be true that the commissioners of 1732 had no such powers; but was that a reason why in 1815 such powers should not be granted if it was found necessary? A strong inducement to concealment on this occasion was voluntary attendance: for a person, who would draw on himself much anger from his superiors in office for giving information in such a case, could not be at all blamed, if his giving information were compulsory. This was a question of mere common sense. If it was necessary to give the commissioners such powers as the Bill required, to obtain information, how could the House refuse them? He, for his part, thought the powers were indispensably necessary, ands would therefore vote for the Bill.

hoped, that the right hon. baronet, in his remarks in a former debate, on the masters in Chancery, did not mean to insinuate, that they committed, individually, any of those offences of office which were now visited by his indignation. He believed, that if the right hon. baronet had known the body of the masters, he would acknowledge them to be most honourable in the discharge of their public duty. Had the right hon. baronet ever known a case, among the many abuses he has learned, where a complaint had been made to the masters and not attended to? He could with confidence defy him to produce it. It could not for a moment be imagined, that any men of liberal feelings could be induced, for a paltry fee, to render their honour suspected, or their characters liable to imputation. He declared, that if on the first motion for this commission he had been present, no motives of false delicacy would have prevented him as it did his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Stephen), from repelling, with indignation, the slightest breath of suspicion affecting the characters of the body of masters.

did not think the panegyric pronounced upon himself and the other masters of Chancery by the hon. and learned gentleman any answer to the observation of his hon. friend. The House had already resolved that an inquiry should take place; and the only question now to be considered was, whether this inquiry should be effectual, or the intention of the House last session should be frustrated or eluded. Mr. Horner asserted, that according to the information he had received, several officers of these, courts had acted in a most unjustifiable manner, by creating of their own authority fees which not only were not authorized by the judges of these courts, but were expressly contrary to an act of parliament. He did not know who the commissioners were that had been appointed in Ireland; but there was an instance in Scotland, where the person named as a commissioner was the very man who had, for twenty years acted as the chief officer of the court in which all the abuses complained of had arisen, and been put in continual practice. He thought it very extraordinary that any objection should be made to give the power now required to the commissioners, to summon witnesses to give evidence on oath; because, without such a power, the appointment of commissioners appeared to him to be nugatory. If the right hon. gentleman should succeed in resisting this motion, he had no doubt but that all future endeavours to check the abuses complained of would prove fruitless.

said, he must resist the present motion. The commissioners were gentlemen of most approved good character; and if they shewed the smallest dereliction of their duty, they would forfeit that high distinction which their previous conduct had obtained. His hon. and learned friend who spoke last, had complained, that persons had been appointed commissioners to inquire into the abuses of the courts of King's-bench and Chancery, who had held the situations of officers in the former court, and masters in the court of Chancery. This might be the case: yet he would venture to say, that no men stood higher in the estimation of the world than those who had been appointed commissioners; they had invested in them all the powers requisite to enable them to come at the truth. The objections offered by his hon. and learned friend were not available, because they could not, as he had asserted, choose their own time to be examined; and, therefore, could never be considered in the light of volunteers. He had intended to submit to the consideration of the House, that it would be a high misdemeanour to refuse to obey the summons of the commissioners: and who could suppose that any man in a respectable situation would render himself liable to the expenses and punishment of a misdemeanour rather than attend to a summons which called on him to do no more than to discharge a duty which he owed to himself and to society, by telling the truth? The power required to be given was unnecessary; and it was a settled and a sound principle, that the legislature should never exert its powers unnecessarily.

thought the powers asked for indispensably necessary, as the inquiry would be worse than useless without them, for it would be only putting the country to a great expense without being productive of the least benefit. The commissioners should be armed with summary powers to punish in case of refusal to attend, if it were intended to give any effect to the measure. The action for misdemeanour was so slow in its operation, that it was of little or no use. He therefore thought the Bill indispensably necessary. The hon. and learned gentleman urged many arguments to shew that the commission had not the necessary powers, and added, that if there was to be no method of compelling witnesses to give evidence, the business of the commission would more probably be eighteen rather than eight years before it was completed. So far from there being any harm in giving full powers to the commissioners, he insisted that this was the only means of preventing abuses, and effecting the ends of justice.

said, the present question was one that was the most essential to the due administration of justice which had ever been brought under the consideration of the House, Officers who had been guilty of mal-practices would not be very forward or anxious to give information that might criminate themselves; and if the commissioners had not the power to administer oaths, it was in vain to expect such persons would divulge the truth. It had been said, that the last commission made out for this purpose had continued eight years without producing any desirable effect. That might be, and he had no doubt was, very true; and he could, therefore, safely predict, that if the present commission was not vested with more extensive powers than the other had been, it would continue 18 years, and prove in the end equally inefficacious.

thought it necessary to say a few words by way of explaining why he had argued against the motion when last before the House, and afterwards voted in favour of it. On hearing the objection made to masters in Chancery being appointed commissioners, he had expressed his surprise, and pledged himself that if any mal-practices could be shown in their department he would vote for the motion. To his infinite surprise it appeared afterwards, that something of this kind had taken place in a particular department. He had, therefore, acted up to his pledge; and notwithstanding he, at the present moment, thought both practising barristers and masters in Chancery were very fit persons to be commissioners, he would still vote in favour of the present motion.

believed there had been abuses in all the courts on the subject of fees, very destructive to the interests of the country, and more particularly so from falling most severely on the lower orders of the people, who had most need of the protection of the legislature.

said, that the question was, as to granting powers to a commission which were not generally granted, even under the great seal.

The House divided: For the previous question, 88: Against it, 76: Majority against sir John Newport's motion, 12.

, in bringing forward the motion which he was about to submit to the House, conceived that where the fame and honour of the country were sullied, by any measure of government or their agents, it was as much the duty of an humble individual like himself, as of the most prominent member of the House, to stand forward, and endeavour to call down upon the transaction that reprobation which it merited. He now alluded to the late transfer of Genoa, a transaction the foulness of which had never been exceeded in the political history of this country, and which remained a blot on the character of the nation. He hoped that ministers would not be permitted, in this case, to follow the course they had all along pursued—refusing to answer to any charge exhibited against them in that House, on the pretext that the subject could not be discussed till the whole foreign affairs of the country came under the consideration of parliament. If ministers were in this manner permitted to continue their silence, from a feeling of inability to withstand the attacks of their opponents, and if the noble lord at Vienna was to be allowed to decide on the most important interests of the country, without the knowledge of the Cabinet at home, and without the knowledge of parliament, the functions of that House were at an end. He trusted, however, that if the right hon. gentleman should persist in this dishonourable silence, that a day would come when the country would no longer be degraded by such taciturn ministers. If in private life, he were to charge a man with a participation in the commission of a crime disgraceful to his honour and his reputation, would it be enough for him to turn about and say, he was innocent, but he could not defend himself until the return of a companion equally implicated with himself? He charged his Majesty's ministers publicly in the face of the House, with having degraded the country in the eyes of the world—with having abandoned a pledge given to a nation invited by them to independence. The disgraceful measure which he deplored was unfortunately no longer pending, but accomplished; and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would at least have the merit not to add duplicity to injustice, or to endeavour to deny the part which they had taken. The unfortunate Genoese had not only been delivered over, like droves of of cattle, to the king of Sardinia, but they had been so delivered over by England;—England had been the instrument of this oppression. What talismanic shield could defend them under this disgrace? What balance of power (a term always brought forward to justify every act of violence or rapine) could justify such a measure? The best balance of power would always be found, by sovereigns, in the steady affections of the people to their government. But, however disgraceful many of the measures which Europe had lately witnessed, to no particular instance had England become such a party as to the spoliation of Genoa. In April 1814, lord William Bentinck, in a proclamation, told the people of Genoa that their ancient government was restored, and that he acted on the principles declared by the allies in the treaty of Paris. The more just and generous the views professed in that treaty, the more disgraceful the avaricious squabbling for territory which they had subsequently displayed. Lord William Bentinck, in the name of the British government, appealed to the national feeling of the Genoese, recalled to them the days of their ancient prosperity, and pledged his country to reinstate them in their former privileges. Was there an English heart which did not beat responsive to such a proclamation? Was there a man in the country who was not convinced that it was most-glorious for England that the English arms should have been so employed? Not employed in acts of oppression, of plunder, or spoliation, but in restoring an ancient and illustrious state to its long-lost rights. Such were the promises held out to the Genoese; but far different was the execution. In eight months afterwards, when they had been tantalized with a momentary enjoyment of their ancient privileges, a mandate arrived from the degraded and detestable Congress of Vienna, annulling all that had been done in favour of Genoese freedom, and delivering up that unfortunate country to the king of Sardinia. This transfer was made by a British proclamation, signed by a British officer. This was an act, the criminality of which did not attach alone to the noble lord at Vienna, or the officer whose name appears to it, but to the whole of his Majesty's ministers. In this proclamation general Dalrymple informed the people of Genoa that the government appointed by lord William Bentinck had been delivered up into his hands, and that he surrendered it, by command of the Prince Regent of England, to the king of Sardinia. He would ask his Majesty's ministers, did they or did they not avow this order? If they disavowed it, then they ought to de- liver up general Dalrymple to the consequences of his conduct. If they avowed it, let them come manfully forward and justify themselves in the eyes of the nation, for having falsified the sacred word of England, for having rendered the name of England for the first time suspected among the nations of Europe. This most infamous measure was not one of those which ministers could avoid explaining; and it was in vain for them to think they could stand acquitted to the country by maintaining a profound silence on this, as they had done on so many other subjects. Such silence was not more disgraceful to themselves than to the country, who suffered them to be at the head of its affairs; and no one who had its honour and character at heart, but must regret to see it under the guidance of such ministers. He then moved for copies of the proclamations addressed to the Genoese by lord William Bentinck, dated 16th April, 1814, and by general Dalrymple dated Dec. 27, 1814; and of copies of the instructions sent by his Majesty's government to lord William Bentinck, in October, 1811, for the guidance of his conduct in Italy; of the correspondence between his Majesty's ministers and lord William Bentinck, in March, 1814; and of the instructions to the Italians, prisoners of war in this country at that period. His object in moving for the three last papers, was to shew that government had not only guaranteed the people of Genoa from the attempts of the French, but from all the world beside.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and colonel Wood rose at the same instant, but the former gave way.

then stated, that being nearly connected with the noble lord, whose conduct had been that night accused, he hoped the House would indulge him in offering himself a few minutes to their attention. He wished to suggest to the hon. mover, that on more mature consideration, he would see the unfairness of prematurely discussing a measure in the absence of the individual who was responsible for it, when he could not by any possibility be here to answer for himself. He addressed himself also in a particular manner to an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Whitbread), who had cheered the gentleman who spoke last, in the hope that he would consent to postpone for a few days the discussion of this subject. In acting otherwise, he would be departing from the conduct for which he had uni- formly been distinguished in his long opposition, of meeting his adversaries face to face, and giving them an opportunity of answering for themselves. He hoped he would not now depart from the practice which had always hitherto been so much to his honour, He put it to the hon. gentleman and to the House, if it was possible to look at Genoa as an isolated measure, and unconnected with the proceedings at Vienna, which had for their object the pacification of the world. When they looked at this Congress, they must not expect too much—[a laugh]. He understood the meaning of this laugh, but he would repeat the observation. The pacification of the world was beyond the reach of all human agency. Every man must be fully aware of the jarring and hostile interests of the different powers at the Congress. He trusted, however, that the result of the Congress would be a temporary repose to Europe from tyranny and bloodshed—and more than that could not be expected from it. The annexation of Genoa and other proceedings, must no doubt be considered as the proceedings of the government; but still he apprehended that a certain latitude must be understood to have been given to the noble lord when he undertook this mission; and the noble lord himself considered that he had subjected himself to a fearful responsibility. He happened to be in the North of Ireland, at the house of the noble lord's father, when he first heard of his intention to proceed to the quarters of the allies. The noble lord sent a letter, informing them of this, in which he stated that he was sensible he was taking on himself a fearful responsibility, but he considered it his duty not to shrink from it—he knew the generosity of the people of England, and their readiness to make allowance for the difficulties in which he was placed [Hear!]. A day would soon arrive, when the noble lord would be able to give an account of his conduct; when he hoped that the whole of his conduct would not only be creditable to the people of England, but satisfactory to the House and the nation; and he could not help thinking that the House would be of opinion that it was proper to suspend the discussion till the affair, in toto, could come before them. He should therefore move, That the House proceed to the other orders of the day.

said, that no apology was necessary on the part of the hon. gentleman who had brought for- ward the motion. The question was in itself one which was proper for the consideration of parliament; and he had brought it forward in an able, regular, and parliamentary manner. When he said this, he hoped the House would take into their consideration the very peculiar circumstances of this case. It could not be less the wish of his Majesty's ministers than of their opponents, to have an opportunity afforded them to exculpate themselves and the country from this accusation of a breach of national faith; but it was impossible to enter into this question, without at the same time going into a variety of particulars, which could not with propriety be at present explained. He claimed this temporary suspension on the notoriety of the circumstance, that this subject was intimately connected with all the great questions before the Congress at Vienna. Till the whole of these questions were, therefore, before the House, it was impossible for them to judge correctly on this subject. He would deny that the national honour had been violated. If the hon. gentleman thought his Majesty's ministers had degraded the country, he would ask him, under what ministers the country had lately risen to such a high degree of splendour and prosperity? He trusted ministers would be able to explain, that they had done nothing to degrade the splendid character of the country; and in that hope he entreated the House to suspend their opinion of the transaction in question for a short time. He conceived the proceeding to the other orders of the day was not a course sufficiently respectful to the motion, which was one that ought properly to be entertained, and one which gentlemen on the other side of the House could not be more anxious than he was to have brought under discussion. He should, therefore, request the hon. member to withdraw his motion, for the sake of allowing him to meet the original motion, by the previous question.

Colonel Wood accordingly withdrew his motion, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the previous question.

rose, and spoke in substance as follows:

Sir:—I rise to give my reasons for heartily supporting the motion which has been brought before the House, with so much vigour of talent and manliness of spirit, by my hon. friend, who has a second time maintained his hereditary reputation for independent principles, as well as for distinguished abilities.

If I had originally felt any doubt, whether the present case was one in which justice and public honour called aloud for the immediate interposition of parliament, that doubt would have been removed by the reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has urged in support of his application for delay of trial. He professes the greatest anxiety to meet the charge, but, like most other accused men, he declares that, for reasons known only to himself, justice cannot now be done, and that the inquiry must be postponed to a more convenient season: There are two questions distinguishable from each other, involved in the motion now before the House; whether there be a case for inquiry at all, and whether the present be a fit time for inquiry? On the first of these questions there seems to be scarcely any difference of opinion. The right hon. gentleman by his professions of eagerness for trial, and impatience for the moment of exculpation, has admitted, that the circumstances which appear on the surface of this transaction, are such as to demand inquiry, and to require explanation if they can receive it. What has been urged in behalf of delay, derives all its speciousness from a confusion of two distinct principles.

If the question had related to the policy of the transfer of Genoa to Sardinia (understanding the word 'policy' in its narrow and inferior sense), it might, with some show of reason, be contended, that the time is not yet come for the decision of such a question. Policy is almost always a balance of evils, a compromise between opposite inconveniences; it may depend on many circumstances which it may be yet unsafe to lay before the public: it may be influenced by the temper of one state, by the projects of another, by compensation for loss, by reward for fidelity, by punishment for inconstancy; it may be connected with measures still depending, so that it cannot be estimated till the Congress have concluded their arrangements. The answer to a charge of impolicy in this case, might certainly depend on facts and documents at present unfit to be communicated to the House.

But impolicy is not the charge. Though I think as ill of the prudence as of the morality of this transfer, I desire for the present to wave all consideration of its policy, or (to speak more correctly) of that temporary and local policy which is dis- tinguishable from, though not independent of justice—the grand permanent policy of the world.

The charge is one, in comparison with which all questions of mere policy sink into utter insignificance. The King's ministers are charged with the greatest crime ever imputed to the British government in its relations with foreign European states; the greatest crime of which British ministers can be accused, except a conspiracy, against the liberties of their country. They are charged with injustice aggravated by perfidy. I say injustice, because I contend that we have been guilty of injustice towards the independent and innocent people of Genoa, even if we had not been pledged by any declarations, or bound by any promises. In charging this as a substantive crime, independent of all engagements, I conceive that I am supported by the highest authorities in public law.

["We have seen," says Vattel, "that there may be an equitable, though not perhaps a strictly legal obligation to restore to a third party booty taken from the enemy, of which that third party had been deprived in an unjust war. The obligation is more certain and more extensive with respect to a people whom our enemy had unjustly oppressed; for a people thus spoiled of their liberty, never renounces the hope of recovering it. If they are not voluntarily incorporated with the conquering state, if they have not freely contributed their aid against us in the war; we certainly ought to use our victory not to change their masters, but to break their chains. It is a noble fruit of victory to deliver an oppressed people, it is a great gain thus to acquire a faithful friend."^*]

The passage seems to be prophetically written for the case of Genoa; the Genoese were our friends, if not our allies; they were not voluntarily incorporated into the conquering state, they did not freely contribute their aid against us. We have used our vicrory to change their master, not to break their chains; every part of our conduct is condemned by the impartial expositor of the sense of mankind on the morality between nations. How will the condemnation be evaded? Will it be by undervaluing the authority, as in the case of Norway, with respect to which the opinion of none but the slaves of fortune can be changed by the event? Will they oppose to it any authority of equal value? Can they quote the practice of good times? I defy them to produce a single example in which a just conqueror, in civilized periods, has treated the rescued territory of a friend, as if it were the conquered province of an enemy. This subversion of the independence of Genoa, is therefore as much condemned by authority, and unwarranted by example, as it is repugnant to the plainest rules of morality between friendly states, when one had been oppressed by the common enemy of all.

^* Vattel, book iii, chap. 13.

The second charge is more precise and simple, though not more strong than the first; it is a charge that our faith has been pledged to Genoa, and that our faith has been violated. I intreat the House to consider the nature of the only possible defences which can be made against such a charge. How can they be secrets of state? How can they be contained in documents unfit for publication? The charge admits only one of two answers: either, that the pledge was not made, or that the promise was not violated. A pledge to a people, is a public act. A breach of faith to them, is an act equally public. Neither the pledge nor the forfeiture can be affected by confidential communications, nor by secret negociations. The whole case consists of the faith pledged in the name of the British government, by lord William Bentinck, and forfeited under its authority by general Dalrymple. Here I take my stand, and I defy the right hon. gentleman to attack my position. No secret document can influence the question, whether the faith of this nation has been pledged and violated to the people of Genoa in the face of Europe.

Secret documents may be very material to their policy; and if the House shall determine that the discussion ought to be postponed till such documents can be produced, it will be a determination for the first time, I am sure, in the British House of Commons,—for the first time, I believe, in any civilized popular assembly,—that there may be some interest more important than national honour, that there may be some policy paramount to public faith, that interest and policy may justify oppression, injustice, and perfidy. This conclusion the gentlemen seem not willing to adopt, but they will find it difficult to escape it. They are evidently reduced to this dilemma. They must maintain, either that some secret circumstance may make the breach of a public promise to a people cease to be perfidy, or that there may be a political interest which may justify perfidy. They must choose between an absurd and an abominable proposition.

It is therefore, I think, evident, that neither the parties accused nor the public interest can suffer from immediate discussion. A very short review of the circumstances will shew how much the public honour must suffer from delay. The charge is founded on a crime already completed, and which contains in itself multiplied breaches of faith.

The first pledge given by the allied powers, that they would respect Genoese independence, was the declaration of M. Novozilzoff on the part of Russia, on the 16th of July, 1805. That gentleman had been sent to mediate between Great Britain and France at the request of Great Britain. On his journey to Paris, he learned at Berlin the incorporation of Genoa with France—there the mediation stopped. In his note addressed to M. Hardenberg, he declared, that after such an act as the violation of the independence of Genoa, all negociation must be vain, and all mediation dishonourable. Genoa filled up the measure of Napoleon's crimes. The emperor of Russia was willing to mediate after the death of the duke d'Enghien, after the assumption of the imperial dignity, after the incorporation of Piedmont, after the armed mediation which reduced Switzerland to a province, after the annexation of Lombardy under the name of the kingdom of Italy. But the subversion of the independence of Genoa exhausted his patience. He could no longer hold intercourse with its author, even to obtain peace for a friend. How sacredly must the faith of this great prince seem to have been pledged to the people of Genoa! How implicitly must they have believed, that he would not suffer an act to be repeated which he had thus resented as the most enormous of political, crimes! Austria has no less distinctly pledged her separate faith to this unhappy people. In September, 1805, she alleged the usurpation of their territory by France as a substantive cause of war. England had given a still earlier, and, if possible, a stronger separate pledge than either of her great allies. At the negociations of Amiens she refused to recognize the French usurpation, then called the Ligurian Republic—she declared, that she could consider nothing as a proof of their independence, but the restoration of their ancient government; she therefore declared more strongly than any other power, that she continued to acknowledge her ancient friend and co-estate in the commonwealth of Europe, the republic of Genoa, as still of right existing.

Besides these separate and early pledges of each of the allied powers, there is a recent and collective pledge given by them all in the treaty of Chaumont on the 1st of March, 1814, of which the object was declared to be "a general peace, under the protection of which the rights and liberties of all nations may be established and secured." By what sophistry are the Genoese people excluded from this protection, thus sacredly covenanted? How have they forfeited their claim to a restoration thus promised to all states! Are they not a nation? Is a republic which has flourished for 800 years not a nation? Is that people not eminently deserving the name of a nation, which has shewed as many proofs of national spirit as any in Europe; which had expelled foreign invaders more often, and, after longer periods of bondage than any other; who three times expelled the French after long possession; who braved a bombardment by Louis 14th in the zenith of his power; and whose scarcely armed populace drove out a brave and disciplined Austrian garrison from their capital?

But all these solemn declarations are not sufficient. England had pledged her faith to Genoa, in a more detailed and minute form, and for that reason, I presume, she was selected as the principal actor in the breach of that faith. When lord William Bentinck appeared before Genoa, the people hailed him as their deliverer; they considered their restoration to their ancient independence as secured. They hastened to do that which Great Britain had required of them in 1802, as the condition of obtaining her friendship; they re-established their ancient government, with such reforms as the lapse of time and the liberal opinions of the age demanded; they engrafted liberty upon legitimate authority; they founded a reformed government upon the solid basis of ancient institutions. Lord William Bentinck, instructed by his own just opinions and generous sentiments, instructed by the acts of the British goverment in 1802, instructed by the recent and solemn declaration of assembled Europe at Chaumont; sufficiently authorized by these acts and declarations, whether he had more positive instructions or not, established the reformed constitution in the name of his sovereign and his country, "considering the wish of the people of Genoa to be conformable to the principles of the high allied powers to restore to all their ancient rights and privileges." Lord William Bentinck interpreted the treaty of Chaumont as the Geneose did. He did not intend his proclamation to be a cruel satire on the future conduct of these high allies; he acted upon his honest interpretation of their language. Perhaps It was a case in which, the immediate consequences of the act being irreparable, his government could not have disavowed him: at all events the disavowal must have been immediate; it must have been explicit, it must have been as public as the act disavowed. No such disavowal appeared; on the contrary, the Genoese government was established: the Genoese flag was once more seen in the ports of the Mediterranean. All the badges and symbols of independence were displayed to the people of Genoa, and to their neighbours, by the authority of a British officer, without interruption from the British government.

So much for the long series of express or implied promises made to the Genoese people by the allies, and chiefly by England. Now comes the sad and shameful story of their violation. One British officer was chosen to announce the violation of the faith pledged by another.—General Dalrymple announced to the Genoese on the 27th of December, the determination of his government to deliver them over to the king of Sardinia; and that prince, on the 7th of January, was pleased to inform the magistrates and citizens of the republic, that "he took possession of his new states." In virtue of what title? Of the ancient fundamental laws? No! Of the voice of the people? They hated his government more than that of any other foreign master—as nations are naturally and reasonably most jealous of their neighbours with whom they have most fiercely contended, and from whose power they have most to dread. By the right of conquest? Even that harsh and odious right did not exist, and, if the two states were left to themselves, probably never would. By none of these, the only titles to authority hitherto known among men! But, "in concurrence with the wishes of the principal powers of Europe." A new language in public law! A new title to authority! Or rather, an avowed adoption of those principles of partition or plunder, the prime source of all the calamities of Europe, which, originating with the spoilers of Poland, and copied on a gigantic scale by the leaders of France, had now returned to their first seat, without changing their nature or abating their malignity. What is it but declaring that the tenure of dominion throughout Europe is to be the pleasure of an oligarchy of sovereigns at Vienna, who have no more right to transfer Genoa than the county of Middlesex?

But, says the right hon. gentleman, we cannot now inquire, because the Congress is still sitting. Now, for that reason, Sir, I conceive that we ought now to inquire. If their deliberations had been finished, there could have been no great inconvenience in delay. But we may now, by immediate inquiry, prevent other mischief. The crime against Genoa is indeed consummated. But we may contribute to prevent the perpetration of like offences against other nations; or at least we may withdraw Great Britain from participation in them.

The efforts of a minority in this House may be despised by the right hon. gentlemen; but they are not despised in other countries: they have, during the present session, been acknowledged by the independent and enlightened part of Europe as speaking their, sentiment. The moral character of this kingdom, high at the moment of the peace of Paris, and of which I heard with pride and delight in the remotest vallies of the Alps, has suffered from this and other recent events. The popularity of Englishmen abroad was somewhat restored by the stand made in this place against the oppression of unoffending states.

That moral character, our firmest strength, and our proudest distinction, is this night in your hands. Your vote will determine, whether you consider any interest as a justification of perfidy, and whether you approve this violation of the rights of Genoa, the representative of Italy, and by that approbation ratify the outlawry of that illustrious and unfortunate country, and confirm the sentence which once more irrevocably condemns it to that provincial degradation which has so long palsied its powers, and blasted its hopes.

said, that if any doubt had existed with respect to the real object of the motion then before the House, that doubt would have been removed by the speech of the learned gentleman who had just sat down. The House must now be convinced that the motion was brought forward at the present time, and under the present circumstances, merely as a vehicle of attack and condemnation, not only of his Majesty's ministers, but of our allies and of the whole Congress. The House was called upon to assent to a motion brought forward for such a purpose, without a tittle of evidence, without a single document to support the charge, which rested solely upon the conjectures of the learned gentleman with respect to what had passed, was passing, and might hereafter pass at the Congress. It was impossible, in his opinion, to have heard the last half hour of the learned gentleman's speech, without seeing that it went entirely upon general principles; that it contained dissertations upon the law of nations, and comments upon the consequences of the proceedings of the Congress (upon which he unsparingly bestowed every species of opprobrious epithet); and this the learned gentleman seemed to think quite sufficient to induce the House, without further evidence, to pronounce his Majesty's ministers guilty. The learned gentleman had accused ministers of a great and heinous offence; so heinous, indeed, that he had declared he could not conceive a greater, unless that of a conspiracy against the liberties of this country, and had, throughout the whole of his speech, assumed all the facts upon which his argument was founded as proved. But the learned gentleman should recollect, that the hon. member who brought forward this motion (certainly with pretty strong language, but not more than might be expected from young and ardent minds), declared, that be wanted certain documents to enable him to prove to the House the charges he had preferred; and the learned gentleman should also remember, that his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, did, in the most distinct and unequivocal terms, deny the truth of the charges, and added, that when all the documents could with propriety be laid upon the table, the House and the country would be convinced how groundless these accusations were. This was all that his Majesty's ministers could do consistently with their duty to their country or to themselves, when called upon to give partial, uncon- nected, and imperfect information upon the important subjects now under discussion at Vienna. He assured the House that ministers were as anxious, quite as anxious, as the gentlemen on the other side could be, for a full discussion upon this subject and they stood pledged to the House, that when the hour arrived at which disclosure could be made without danger, every document should be produced; and then the House and the country would see, that in no one instance had the national honour been compromised, or the national faith violated. This was the ground upon which he rested. And were ministers to be told, that because they opposed the production of papers moved for by a palpable parliamentary manœuvre—(he did not mean any thing invidious by that expression, because it had always been considered fair for parties in that House so to assail their opponents); but were ministers, he repeated, to be told, that because they resisted the production of partial and imperfect information, called for by a parliamentary manœuvre, that therefore they were to be considered by the House, and the country, as guilty of a dereliction of their duty? He was sure the House and the country would not so decide. Had the gentlemen on the other side a right to say, 'Because you will not, to suit our convenience, produce these papers now, you are therefore guilty, and shrink from investigation?' "This (said Mr. Pole) is not fair or just, and I am sure that the country will feel that it is not." [Loud cheers.] Ministers did not desire the protection of that House, they demanded its justice; and by the justice of their case they were content to stand or fall. He did not mean to follow the learned gentleman through the course of his argument; but he might be permitted to notice, what must have been observed by every gentleman in the House, namely, that the learned gentleman, throughout his whole speech, begged the question, and, having assumed his facts at pleasure, he drew his inferences without much difficulty. He had produced a proclamation issued by a British general upon entering a town which he had taken at the point of the bayonet, and this he had considered as conveying a solemn pledge on the part of the government of this country; but he would not enter into details at present, the treatment which ministers had experienced was not fair; he was sure the learned gentleman would not think it fair if applied to himself—he would complain, and with reason, if without an inquiry, if without a single document, he was to be pronounced guilty. If the ministers had expressed a wish to prevent all investigation—if they had intimated a desire to suppress any information, then, indeed, their conduct would have been justly open to censure: but he was sure that there was no impartial man in the House or in the country, who considered the present state of the Congress, and the expectation of the immediate return of lord Castlereagh, but must feel that it was quite impossible for government at this moment, to communicate every information which would be necessary to a fair and impartial decision upon this subject. The delay asked was but for a few days; and surely, for a few days, the gentlemen on the other side might exercise a little of that quality of which they exacted so much daily from ministers—he meant patience: if they would follow so good an example, for the short time required, he and his colleagues would pledge themselves that they would not only produce every information respecting Genoa, but respecting Saxony and Poland, and, in a word, give satisfactory answers to those innumerable questions, which had been asked with so much good humour and so much good taste, almost daily, from the commencement of the session to the present hour. With respect to his noble friend, to whom such frequent allusions had been made, he begged to repeat a sentiment which gentlemen had on a former occasion attempted to ridicule, but which they now seemed anxious to enforce, viz. that all his Majesty's ministers were equally bound and equally accountable for the conduct of any one. That his noble friend stood pre-eminent from the arduous task which he had to perform, and from the burthens imposed upon him, every one would admit: but the ministers would not deserve for one moment to retain their situations, if they attempted to shift upon one another the responsibility of the acts for which they were all responsible; and therefore he had no hesitation in declaring, that as every measure of the noble lord had had the sanction of his colleagues, so they all stood equally answerable for every part of the transaction; and his noble friend would, on his return, be equally anxious with his colleagues to meet the fullest investigation, and equally willing to abide by the sense of parliament. There was only one point more to which, before he sat down, he wished to advert, viz. an assertion of the learned 'gentleman's, that ministers admitted that their conduct called for inquiry. To that assertion he gave an unequivocal denial. The hon. gentleman had made a very serious charge against ministers, couched in very strong terms. Under these circumstances, and not from any doubt of the rectitude of their own conduct, it was that they felt an inquiry necessary; and when it did take place, ministers, he had no doubt, would stand fully acquitted, not in the minds of the gentlemen opposite—that he was not sanguine enough to hope—but in the justice of the House, and in the feelings of the country.

, in explanation, said, that he did not consider the documents he had stated as conclusive evidence of guilt, but he thought that they were sufficient to call on ministers for an answer.

said, that he could not yield to the entreaty of the relation of the noble lord, not to discuss this subject in his absence. He thanked him, however, for doing him the justice to believe, that he should much rather see the noble lord in his place, than appear to call for any discussion in which his conduct was implicated, in his absence. However highly he felt obliged to the hon. colonel for what he had said of his character in other respects, yet he could not consent to sacrifice another part of his character, which was still dearer to him, and that was his resolution to make those remarks that appeared to him necessary, at the time that he judged the most proper for making them. He was not alarmed at all at the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, telling the House, in a portentous manner, that what he said would be found—at some time or another—entitled to great weight. He had heard similar assertions from the right hon. gentleman before, without having yet discovered the weight of them. The right hon. gentleman, in his comments upon the observations that had been made, had introduced words that never were more misapplied. He had said, that his honourable friends had proceeded entirely on conjectures of their own. What did he call conjecture? Did he mean to deny the proclamations of lord William Bentinck, and of general Dalrymple, which were so generally pub- lished? Or would he say that those proclamations amounted only to a conjecture? It appeared to him that those proclamations, published to all the world, were of much greater weight than those reports which the House had heard of, or than those private letters from lord Castlereagh to his friends in the north of Ireland, stating his deep sense of the heavy responsibility attached to the delicate situation in which he had been placed by his colleagues. It was certain that the acts of lord Castlereagh must be considered as the acts of the government; and yet there were some minor papers from the frontiers of Austria, which stated that lord Castlereagh had been so angry with his colleagues for their manner of answering questions, that he had sent them positive instruction not to expose them selves in that way for the future; and that in consequence of this instruction, they now preserved the most profound silence. If this should be the case, ministers would be exercising that virtue they so recommended—patience upon compulsion. They really appeared to have carried their patience to the utmost length, and to have stood rather too long in a white sheet. In the early part of the session they answered all manner of questions upon their responsibility. Their responsibility had now changed its nature, and as lucus was derived a non lucendo, so their responsibility at present was to prevent them from answering any questions. The right hon. gentleman had, however, perhaps without being aware of it, spoken words that night which were of great importance. He had pledged both himself and his colleagues, that, at some time or another, every paper would be furnished which could be desired, both about Genoa, Saxony, Poland, and the proceedings of the Congress at Vienna. That was a pledge for which he should hold him responsible. Although it was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had made this promise, yet another of his Majesty's ministers, the Master of the Mint, that high and responsible minister of the crown, had pledged himself that the House should have all those papers. Notwithstanding the avidity of ministers for their trial, yet when it was proposed to obtain evidence for the purpose, they refused it. They said that they were as anxious for the trial as their accusers could be: the only difference was, that their accusers wished to go to the trial, but they would not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to the hon. mover, had made a reasonably moderate speech, after his manner, in which he called for some delay. The right hon. gentleman who followed him said, that it was the grossest injustice to arraign men who could give an explanation if they thought it proper. For his part, he should be much more pleased to have it in his power to praise ministers for delivering Europe, (as they said they had done) than to be obliged to condemn them as parties to one of the foulest acts that ever disgraced the page of history. He considered that, in all such cases, policy and justice were inseparable: and in the same proportion that he condemned the injustice and immorality of this transaction, in exactly the same proportion did he conceive it one of the greatest acts of political folly that ever was committed. The right hon. gentleman had not ventured to deny the proclamation of the king of Sardinia any more than that of lord William Bentinck. When his Sardinian majesty, however, chose to publish that he took possession of the Genoese states, he was happy to say that he had been mistaken, and never had been able to take possession of them. He trusted that he never would be able to take possession of them, but that he and the other sovereigns would find themselves arrested in their unjust career by the public feeling all over Europe. He hoped, that the discussions in that House, and the sentiments there delivered, would have a powerful effect in arresting those proceedings. Supposing lord Castlereagh was returned, did ministers expect that any papers could be found in his portfolio which would justify the violence offered to Genoa? When lord William Bentinck was sent out to Italy by the marquis Wellesley, he understood that he had express instructions to give every encouragement to the object of effecting a revolution there. Italian prisoners were enrolled in our army, with the express promise that they would have to contend for the independence of Italy. All manner of secret societies, free-masons, and others, were encouraged to co-operate in effecting a revolution to secure the independence of Italy. Even the particular man was named, who was to be placed at the head of Italy as an independent nation. After those instructions, lord William had a right to address the proclamation he had done to them, and the Genoese could have no doubt of this language being the sincere disposition of our government. Mr. Whitbread said, he should much rather have been in a situation to continue the praises which in the early part of last year he had bestowed on the magnanimity of our allies, than be now obliged to accuse them for descending from their high eminence, as liberators of Europe, and truckling about territories to which they had no title. The hon. member proceeded to state, that lord William Bentinck, in his proclamation reminding the Genoese of the ancient glories of their Dorias, promised them the restoration of their ancient constitution: but before the 1st of January their hopes were disappointed, and the protocol of their annexation to Piedmont arrived from Vienna. That document stated what was not true, namely, that the deed was assented to by the Genoese envoy at the Congress; whereas the fact was, that he protested against it in the strongest terms. There had also appeared in the public prints a whining letter from lord Castlereagh on the subject, lamenting the difficulties in which he was placed, and regretting that such should have been the result. There appeared, therefore, some truth in the remark, that les Républiques ne sont plus à la mode with the sovereigns assembled in Congress. Then came Victor Emanuel with his proclamation to the Genoese, in which he tells them he would make them all very happy under his government: but so very different were the feelings of the Genoese, that to that hour his Sardinian majesty had sent no troops to take possession of his newly acquired states, from the fear of their being assassinated. So strong were the hostile sentiments of the inhabitants, that not one soldier had been admitted into this place that was to prove the ark of Sardinian safety; and he hoped to God that Sardinian troops never would get possession of it Thus this miserable, unhappy court of Sardinia, while exposed to the wanton injustice and rapacity of the House of Austria, which endeavoured to lay hold of the very citadel of Turin, was compelled to receive that as a boon, which instead of contributing to its strength, would prove a vital source of weakness. All this had been done; and yet we were intreated to wait till all the transactions of Congress were finished. He would rather say, if this was a sample of them, what would the full harvest be? He should judge of the Hercules by his foot; and it was not yet perhaps too late for the expression of public opinion to have some beneficial effect on the continent, where none could speak of this transaction, if they dared speak at all, without indignation and abhorrence. True, the noble viscount on his arrival would produce his papers: but he might also say, the mischief was already done,—that the emperor Alexander had 500,000 men in Poland; that Austria had Italy in thraldom; and that, in short, the matter could not be mended,—it was in vain to protest. Such might be the sort of defence set up, when it was too late: but he would call upon the House to bring those to justice who had disgraced the country by assenting to so gross and infamous an act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had last night mentioned an exhortation of Mr. Burke while contemplating the probable duration of the late war, "Durate, et vosmet rebus servate secundis:" but if there was any sincerity in the splendid orations which he had heard that gentleman utter, he would now, were he living, unless he belied his own professions, himself tell ministers that their proceeding towards Genoa was a compound of folly and profligacy.

contended, that the Amendment which had been moved did not in any manner negative the general question; it merely went to substitute another time, which would be more convenient for the discussion than the present. When that time should come, he had no doubt that the hon. member's information, upon which he so confidently relied, would be found without any foundation, as it mostly was—[Hear, hear! from Mr. Whitbread]. Much had been said about the presence of the noble lord; but were it possible, by any power, that the noble lord could transport himself from Vienna to London one day, and from London to Vienna another, it would not make one iota of difference as to the course that ought to be pursued. While such momentous questions were in agitation at the Congress, the good sense of that House would stop the noble lord, supposing it possible that he could be present and willing to communicate what the emperor of Russia said one day, what the king of Prussia might say on another, and what prince Hardenberg on a third. Yet a similar course was what the hon. member wished should be pursued, in order that the minority of that House might decide the matters which were pending, and, to use his own language, interrupt the march of the Congress—[Hear, hear! from Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Lambton].—He was cheered by the hon. member, and the hon. mover of the question; and, perhaps, such proceedings might suit the ardour of their minds. With regard to the distinguished individual to whom the management of those important concerns was confided, it would not be easy to find a person more peculiarly qualified for the arduous post; a character so mixed up of firmness in principle, and yet of conciliation in manner, that it was equally impossible to subdue the one or to ruffle the other. He believed his noble friend would be found to have supported the character and honour of this country in those negociations to as high a pitch as they had ever attained. The hon. gentleman had admitted, himself; that it would be impossible to discuss the question of Genoa without undoing or retarding the proceedings of the Congress; and that very admission was an argument for not going into the matter now. It was not, indeed, proper to discuss such questions partially or imperfectly. The hon. gentleman had said that he should look to his right hon. friend (Mr. W. Pole) for the production of certain papers, if there should be any attempt to withhold them manifested by the noble lord on his return: now he would venture to affirm, that not a word was said by his right hon. friend of any papers respecting Saxony and Poland—[loud and reiterated cheers from the Opposition]. He certainly would affirm it—[Hear, bear! from Mr. Whitbread]. Did the hon. gentleman mean to imply that he was uttering an untruth [Mr. Whitbread—"Certainly not."] With regard to the motion then before the House, its only object was to obtain two proclamations issued by two British officers—[Hear, hear! from the Opposition]. He was aware that certain instructions were added; but they were not before the public; and it was only on the documents that were before the public that the discussion then turned. It had been asserted, that the honour of the country was compromised; but in reply to that it was affirmed, that no such compromise had taken place: and in common justice, therefore, the judgment of the House ought to be suspended till the time should arrive when a full and complete explanation might with propriety be given. For these reasons he should support the Amendment.

explained. What he stated, or meant to state, was, that when his noble friend came home, he had no doubt he would take the earliest opportunity of communicating ample information, not only with respect to Genoa, but of Poland, Saxony, and every other part where Great Britain was at all concerned in the transactions. He repeated, therefore, that it was his opinion no information would be withheld; but the hon. gentleman would not take him au pied de la lettre, and suppose that every secret and confidential dispatch would be laid before the House.

explained. With respect to the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst), he had cheered him, not because he doubted what he heard, but because he knew what he (Mr. Whitbread) heard. As to the explanation of the other right hon. gentleman, he was not at all disappointed; he knew too much of ministers to take any thing which they said au pied de la lettre.

, in an animated speech, took a view of the conduct of the British government towards Genoa. He began by stating, that if the House rightly felt the question then before them, they would be aware that it depended in no manner whatever upon any information with respect to the proceedings of Congress. He certainly did not understand the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst), that the House of Commons had no right to interfere in any acts resulting from negociations still in progress. Would it he said, that it was not the duty of that House, when a measure had been adopted which involved the honour and good faith of the country, to raise its voice, and, if possible, stop the course of those proceedings which tended to degrade the British name? He would boldly affirm, that what had been done was contrary to the honour and dignity of the nation; and he cared not by what negociations, or by what motives of policy that act was preceded. The apparent breach of faith, the apparent violation of national honour, the apparent cruelty and perfidy of the deed, might be explained; but he was sure it never could be explained without the abandonment of all that constituted the moral greatness and political dignity of a nation. It seemed to be acknowledged on the other side, that the transaction bore on the face of it the appearance of a breach of faith; but it was hinted that the general policy, or the tranquillity of Europe might have required it. He would argue it in a way exactly the reverse; and would assert, that the remote considerations of policy could not be admitted into the question at all, without an utter abandonment of every moral principle. No view of expediency, political, financial, or military, could ever alter his opinion of the transaction which had taken place at Genoa. It was, indeed, reviving the old revolutionary language. If countries were to be partitioned according to the will of the sovereigns assembled at the Congress—if they were to indulge in the same unscrupulous practices which disgraced the worst periods of the French Revolution, wherein did they differ from those men who, with philantrophy in their mouths, were the scourges of society? Was this to be the kind of general peace that was promised to Europe? Was the attachment of people to their sovereign, to their ancient laws and constitutions, to be totally disregarded? That such principles were acted upon, was manifest from the case of Saxony and Genoa; but never till the latter event, was England a party to such enormities, The partition of Poland, though unfortunately not opposed, was at least not sanctioned by this country; but now we could only feel remorse and self-reproach for our share in the perpetration of as great an act of injustice as any that the annals of revolutionary France could display. Knowing as we did what it was to possess an ancient government of free and equal laws, conscious of all the hereditary feelings of attachment which such a government was calculated to inspire, was the House now to sanction a crime of this magnitude, with a full impression on their minds of all the sufferings which it must have inflicted on the people of Genoa? He had to request the attention of the House to the effect produced by these proclamations on the minds of the Genoese people, and the military occurrences that succeeded. How different were the hopes of Genoa last year from her present condition! When lord William Bentinck landed in Italy, and proclaimed the independence of Italy, the animating cry spread from village to village, till it pierced the walls of Genoa, and decided the fate of the French army within them. It was the moral influence of that sentiment which produced the effect, not the point of the bayonet. Genoa was surrendered by the French, because the people trusting to the proclamation of a British officer, would not defend the place; and what were the advantages which our perfidy obtained for us? By giving us possession of the territory round Genoa, it gave us, in effect, possession of the whole of the north of Italy. By our promises we gained that advantage; and having gained it, we violated those promises. To the latest day of her servitude Genoa could never forget that she owed her bondage to the perfidy of Great Britain. This might throw them into the hands of France, who, as the strongest part of Italy had been transferred to the weakest power in Europe, might obtain the surrender of Genoa, whenever they pleased, from the king of Sardinia, who would sign its transfer in order to preserve his crown. It was to France alone the Genoese could hereafter look; and it was to France that we had probably consigned the future government of this unfortunate people. Such a consideration was, however, in his mind, of far inferior moment to the paramount question respecting which the House was called on to decide—Had the faith of this country been violated—aye or no? All the facts on which such a decision ought to be founded, were before them; they were contained in two documents, the genuineness and authenticity of which it had not been attempted to deny. If the facts were admitted, no considerations of policy could alter or justify them. That man must have a peculiar constitution of mind who could suffer any notions of political, commercial, military, or financial expediency, to enter at all into his estimate of the character and justification of a direct breach of a moral obligation. Something had been said, of the effect that might be produced elsewhere, by such discussions as the present. He cared not what effect might be produced: on such an occasion he considered it to be the bounden duty of every member to state his impressions, and leave those impressions to produce the effect that belonged to them in this country and in Europe.

said, that if the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) had really treated this question as one of mixed policy and justice, he was not one of those the constitution of whose mind would have allowed him to hesitate a moment in supporting the present motion. He should not then have thought it necessary either to wait for or listen to any defence. If the pledged faith and sacred honour of Great Britain had been violated, no conceivable advantages would weigh in his mind more than dust in the balance against that sentence of condemnation which he hoped would ever attend such palpable delinquency. The crime, however, was denied by his Majesty's ministers, who only required of the House not to prejudge a question which would come on to be heard in its proper place, and he accompanied by proper evidence. He did not think it would be too great a stretch of courtesy to respect this declaration, and to suspend their opinion upon this question till they should possess all the means of fairly trying it. The hon. member for Bedford had, on a former evening, referred to a document, the authenticity of which he doubted, but which purported to be an instrument of consent on the part of the Genoese to the union of the state with that of Piedmont. Surely if there was then any reason to suppose that such a protocol had been registered in Congress, the importance of its bearing on the question of justice ought alone to suspend the deliberations of the House. He admired the display of talents made by his hon. and learned friend, who had seconded the motion; but he thought there was no person who ought to be more cautious against coming to precipitate conclusions on subjects of national and civil justice. He had been glad to hear that the honour and high character of this country were extolled in the recesses of the Alps; and when he considered who were the men that had placed them on their present lofty pinnacle, he thought it would hardly be justice to the noble lord who was now on his return, to condemn him without a hearing.

was at a loss to conceive the reasons from which the opposition to the present motion sprung. Was the ground of the defence of ministers the unauthenticity of lord William Bentinck's proclamation was it a forgery? If so, why, then, object to a motion which would at once acquit them of the heavy responsibility with which they stood charged? No one would venture to assert that to be the ground of their defence; on the contrary, they admitted the substance of the accusation. Neither would it be hinted, as their subterfuge or defence, that lord William Bentinck had no power to pledge the faith of the country—that, in fact, he had exceeded the powers intrusted to him. No such hint would be thrown out. He knew that noble lord, and believed him as incapable of signing the first proclamation to the Genoese, without authority, as he would be in afterwards violating it without imperative command. He would as soon believe this, as that the most honourable man would commit the basest action. It was ridiculous to argue, that the whole of the case was not before them; the whole of it was, unless, indeed, the public papers moved for, as having been issued, were at once, from authority, declared forgeries. Had sir J. Dalrymple also acted unadvisedly? Would that defence be set up? If these points would not be denied, on what grounds, he would ask, could his Majesty's government attempt to acquit this country of being a party to so foul and base an action The right hon. gentleman concluded by contending that there was sufficient information before the House for it, to enter into the subject, and that he hoped ministers would be able to put forth some justification against so foul a charge.

, in reply, stated, that to see whether there remained a spark of ancient English spirit in the breasts of the representatives of the nation, he should call for a division. A division then took place.