Star.
London, England, 1822-03-26 00:00:00

but a subordinate agent in these telseattions. But
admitting that he was but a subertfinet e agent, still
he had large claims upon this Government. Besides,
the statement of the Honourable Writher was at
variance with the certificates of the British Officers
whose names had been mentioned. Lord William
Bentinck stated distinctly, 44 that Captain Romeo
had rendered most important services." General
Maitland's expressions were more remarkable. He
said, 44 that it was chiefly by the means of Captain
Romeo that he had obtained such assistance as
enabled him to counteract the machinations of con-
cealed and open enemies." These were strong
testimonials. If then it was true that the British
Army had been saved by means of Captain Ro-
meo, was it to be said that a pension of £5O was a
sufficient remuneration? And then as to arguingl
that because this Gentleman had, in a moment of
temporary distress, sold his pension, that he had ex-
cluded himself from any further claims, one would
expect that some petty attorney would take such ad-
vantage as this. But the question was, had or had
not Captain Romeo performed important services to
this country ? Had he suffered in her cause? The
proofs that he had were above exception, being the
certificates of British Officers: that he had not, we
had only the allegations of Neapolitan Ministers—
those men who themselves plotted the schemes which
he overturned. No Court of Justice in the world
would hesitate between these two classes of proofs,
and still less should the British Parliament hesitate
between them. He asked was it worthy a great na-
tion to discharge him with a pension of £5O a.year ?
He had no doubt, that it was solely on account of
his services to England, that Captain Romeo was
imprisoned and persecuted. To those services he
might attribute the sentence of exile, imposed by the
Neapolitan Government, which to him became one
of perpetual banishment, as he dared not return to a
country where the Government were his enemies. It
was not honourable to this Empire—it was not con-
sistent even on the score of liberality, that we should
suffer a person who had rendered services to our
arms—services admitted and acknowledged —to be
persecuted, imprisoned, and exiled, without afford-
ing him some remuneration. It would be far more
creJitable to the country, more honourable to our
own Government, that a full and sufficient reward
should be given to Captain Romeo, for the valuable,
services he had rendered. Every impartial man
would admit, that he had been the chief cause of
saving the British army.
Mr. GOULBURN said, that he hoped the House
would grant him its indulgence, in the few observa-
tionsbe would make, as lie had not the opportunity
of refreshing his recollection on this subject since the
last debate. He could not help entertaining very dif-
ferent sentiments upon it from the Hon. Gentlemen
opposite. He had received such information, that he
had made up his mind that what Capt. Romeo had
received at the close of the war, had been allowed as
full compensation, in comparison with others, as was
proportioned to his services. He considered it an ad-
mitted principle, that Government should apportion
their remuneration not only to the services rendered,
but with reference to the rank of the person by whom
they were performed. Though the Officers who held
a superior command to Captain Romeo might have
said that he had given some valuable services, it
would be found that they had only a tompensation
moderately greater than the sum paid to that indivi-
dual. It should be recollected that Capt. Romeo re-
ceived the usual pay of the Army all the time he was
in Sicily. Whatever duties he had performed, he was
bound to render every service in his power to that
Army—(Hear). During the time he was in employ-
ment he had sufficient remuneration for his exertions.
Captain Romeo claimed now a compensation for losses
he had suffered to the extent of £2,500. Was it not
consistent that the Officers who were witnesses of
those losses, who had the power of giving him re-
muneration, should have then done so? If they have
not, it was a strong presumption in favour of the
course adopted, and a sufficient reason for the House
not to interfere. The annuity of £5O which had been
settled, was afterwards commuted for a sum of £3OO,
at the desire of Capt. Romeo. When that settlement
was effected there was not any objection to a pass-
port being given him; but Capt. Romeo refused to
accept a passport, unless it was one signed by the
Noble Lord below him, which was never granted to
any other than a British subject. He was then offered
one to Malta or to Spain. If Capt. Romeo's objec-
tion to the terms that were made with him arose from
the circumstance of his not receiving the passport he
desired, he should at least have returned the money
he had been paid. His (Mr. Goulburn's) decision was
made on the report of the best authority on the sub-
ject, that of our Ambassador at Naples. .His report
was sufficient to satisfy the House that the proper line
of conduct had been pursued.
Sir ROBERT WILSON said that most essential
services had been rendered by Capt. Romeo, in the
detection of conspiracy. That several persons had
been condemned and executed for treason in conse-
quence of the information given by that individual,
and his exertions in detecting them. The remunera-
tion he had been allowed was by no means propor-
tioned to the advantages derived from his assistance.
Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON was desirous to ask the
Hon. Secretary (Mr. Goulburn) if he ever knew a case,
similar to the present, where an Officer, who had ren-
dered such services as those of Capt. Romeo, had been
so ill requited? He had been imprisoned, he had
been banished to the shores of Egypt, he had for-
feited his property in Calabria—he claimed compen-
sation for those sufferings is our service—he produced
the best possible testimony, that of the Officers under
whom he had been employed. The only compensa-
tion given him was £5O a year, and which sum was
afterwards commuted for £3OO. He asked if there
ever was an instance of similar service thus poorly
remunerated ? If the Hon. Secretary could produce
an instance equal to the present, the House would
then admit that Capt. Romeo had been sufficiently
remunerated. It was a strange proceeding that our
Government should refer the case of the individual
for investigation to those very persons who had per-
secuted him. The distinction should be made, that
the claim was not for protection titan the Neapolitan
Government, but fur losses incurred in the British ser-
vice, and which were attested by the evidence of six
of our Generals. He was justified in stating, on the
authority of General Campbell, that Captain Romeo
had incurred the indignation of his own Government
for valuable service rendered to our Army. It was