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 be 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. 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 Mr. Stephen thought it necessary to say could suppose that any man in a respec- a few words by way of explaining why table situation would render himself liable he had argued against the motion when to the expenses and punishment of a mis- last before the House, and afterwards demeanour rather than attend to a sum-voted in favour of it. On hearing the mons 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. 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. Lord Milton 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. Mr. Abercrombie 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 pre-in venting abuses, and effecting the ends of justice. Mr. Ponsonby said, the present question was one that was the most essential to The Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. TRANSFER OF GENOA.] Mr. Lambton, 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 | brought forward to justify every act of like himself, as of the most prominent violence or rapine) could justify such a member of the House, to stand forward, measure? The best balance of power would and endeavour to call down upon the trans- always be found, by sovereigns, in the action that reprobation which it merited. steady affections of the people to their He now alluded to the late transfer of government. But, however disgraceful Genoa, a transaction the foulness of which many of the measures which Europe had had never been exceeded in the political lately witnessed, to no particular instance history of this country, and which re- had England become such a party as to the mained a blot on the character of the spoliation of Genoa. In April 1814, lord nation. He hoped that ministers would William Bentinck, in a proclamation, told not be permitted, in this case, to follow the people of Genoa that their ancient the course they had all along pursued-government was restored, and that he refusing to answer to any charge exhi- acted on the principles declared by the bited against them in that House, on the allies in the treaty of Paris. The more pretext that the subject could not be dis- just and generous the views professed in cussed till the whole foreign affairs of the that treaty, the more disgraceful the country came under the consideration of avaricious squabbling for territory which parliament. If ministers were in this they had subsequently displayed. Lord manner permitted to continue their si- William Bentinck, in the name of the lence, from a feeling of inability to with- British government, appealed to the nastand the attacks of their opponents, and tional feeling of the Genoese, recalled to if the noble lord at Vienna was to be al- them the days of their ancient prosperity, lowed to decide on the most important and pledged his country to reinstate them interests of the country, without the know- in their former privileges. Was there an ledge of the Cabinet at home, and without English heart which did not beat respon the knowledge of parliament, the func- sive to such a proclamation? Was there a tions of that House were at an end. He man in the country who was not contrusted, however, that if the right hon. vinced that it was most glorious for Enggentleman should persist in this disho- land that the English arms should have nourable silence, that a day would come been so employed? Not employed in acts when the country would no longer be de- of oppression, of plunder, or spoliation, graded by such taciturn ministers. If, in but in restoring an ancient and illustrious private life, he were to charge a man with state to its long-lost rights. Such were a participation in the commission of a the promises held out to the Genoese; crime disgraceful to his honour and his but far different was the execution. Ia reputation, would it be enough for him to eight months afterwards, when they had turn about and say, he was innocent, but been tantalized with a momentary enjoyhe could not defend himself until the re- ment of their ancient privileges, a manturn of a companion equally implicated date arrived from the degraded and dewith himself? He charged his Majesty's testable Congress of Vienna, annulling all ministers publicly in the face of the that had been done in favour of Genoese House, with having degraded the country freedom, and delivering up that unforin the eyes of the world-with having tunate country to the king of Sardinia. abandoned a pledge given to a nation in- This transfer was made by a British provited by them to independence. The dis- clamation, signed by a British officer. graceful measure which he deplored was This was an act, the criminality of which unfortunately no longer pending, but ac- did not attach alone to the noble lord at complished; and he hoped the right hon. Vienna, or the officer whose name appears gentleman would at least have the merit to it, but to the whole of his Majesty's not to add duplicity to injustice, or to en- ministers. In this proclamation general deavour to deny the part which they had Dalrymple informed the people of Genoa taken. The unfortunate Genoese had not that the government appointed by lord only been delivered over, like droves of William Bentinck had been delivered up of cattle, to the king of Sardinia, but they into his hands, and that he surrendered it, had been so delivered over by England; by command of the Prince Regent of -England had been the instrument of England, to the king of Sardinia. He this oppression. What talismanic shield would ask his Majesty's ministers, did could defend them under this disgrace? they or did they not avow this order? If What balance of power (a term always they disavowed it, then they ought to de(VOL. XXIX.) (30) liver up general Dalrymple to the conse- | formly been distinguished in his long quences of his conduct. If they avowed opposition, of meeting his adversaries face it, let them come manfully forward and to face, and giving them an opportunity of justify themselves in the eyes of the na- answering for themselves. He hoped he tion, for having falsified the sacred word would not now depart from the practice of England, for having rendered the name which had always hitherto been so much of England for the first time suspected to his honour. He put it to the hon. genamong the nations of Europe. This most tleman and to the House, if it was possible infamous measure was not one of those to look at Genoa as an isolated measure, which ministers could avoid explaining; and unconnected with the proceedings at and it was in vain for them to think they Vienna, which had for their object the could stand acquitted to the country by pacification of the world. When they maintaining a profound silence on this, looked at this Congress, they must not as they had done on so many other sub- expect too much-[a laugh]. He unjects. Such silence was not more dis- derstood the meaning of this laugh, but graceful to themselves than to the country, he would repeat the observation. The who suffered them to be at the head of pacification of the world was beyond the its affairs; and no one who had its honour reach of all human agency. Every man and character at heart, but must regret to must be fully aware of the jarring and see it under the guidance of such ministers. hostile interests of the different powers at He then moved for copies of the procla- the Congress. He trusted, however, that mations addressed to the Genoese by lord the result of the Congress would be a William Bentinck, dated 16th April, 1814, temporary repose to Europe from tyranny and by general Dalrymple dated Dec. and bloodshed-and more than that could 27, 1814; and of copies of the instructions not be expected from it. The annexation sent by his Majesty's government to lord of Genoa and other proceedings, must no William Bentinck, in October, 1811, for doubt be considered as the proceedings of the guidance of his conduct in Italy; of the government; but still he apprehended the correspondence between his Majesty's that a certain latitude must be understood ministers and lord William Bentinck, in to have been given to the noble lord when March, 1814; and of the instructions to he undertook this mission; and the noble the Italians, prisoners of war in this coun- lord himself considered that he had subtry at that period. His object in moving jected himself to a fearful responsibility. for the three last papers, was to shew that He happened to be in the North of Ireland, government had not only guaranteed the at the house of the noble lord's father, people of Genoa from the attempts of the when he first heard of his intention to proFrench, but from all the world beside. ceed 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. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and colonel Wood rose at the same instant, but the former gave way. Colonel Wood 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 The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that no apology was necessary on the part of the hon. gentleman who had brought for 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. 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. Sir James Mackintosh 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 If the question had related to the policy of the transfer of Genoa to Sardinia (understanding the wordpolicy' 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 copsideration 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. 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 autho repugnant to the plainest rules of morality between friendly states, when one had been oppressed by the common enemy of all. 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 minis-rity, and unwarranted by example, as it is ters 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? • 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 |