The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-04-28 00:00:00

rifecor7A ar. . then On.
dicated Sir John' Dalrymple from the iinputtlti,ns
cast upon him by thr Ron. Opener of the question,
who owed en apology to that gallant OiEcer.
Mr. W. SMITH maintained, that from the doe"
meats before tile [louse, Genoa might be costsidore,l
at a friendly State. Lord Bathurst, in his letter to
Lord Vi. Bintinck, dated the 24th December, lgi3,
had directed him to take possession of Genoa. in the
name of the King of Sardinia, provided it be with
the entire concurroce of Ike ciliserty. Would
have said so if the city had been acquired by cou.
quest ?
Mr. WARD explained.

Mr. WM. BATHURST said, that Lord Wu.
Bentitick's instructions were not to force his co-ape.
ration, unless the Italians would voluntarily
It was not the intention to.restena lbe•peopk of (4.,
noa to their ancient state, but ,to that svhiFh•the cii-
cumstances ofT.orope woulo allow, and to free then
from the thraldom of France-. Lord Wm. Hemlock
approached Genoa because he thought the garrison
consisted but of '2OOO men. His Lordship',
patches showed that there was no co-eperalion ns
the part of the Genoese. The Han. Geutkrnau
concluded by opposing the motion.
Lord A. HAMILTON shortly supported the It,.
solutions.

Lord CASTLEREAGH began by observing, that
after the length and ability of the discussion, he
should not have thought it necessary to trouble the
House with any observations, were it not far the re.
Election, that it might be considered a duty in his si.
tuation not to suffer a question of this nature to he
passed with a silent vote. The suit:int had been pro.
perly divided into two branches, the first of which
respected the general policy of the arrangement en.
tered into with regard to Genoa, and the second of
which involved the far more important question,
whether or not a breach of faith had beep committed
by the British Government. The lion. and Learned
Mover's argument, however eloquently supported,
amounted to this, that Congress had no right to in-
terfere with, or alter the frame and Constitution of
the European commonwealth. If such a principle
had always been acted on, it was impossible that the
system of European policy could have advanced in a
course of progressive improvement, the Treaty of
Westphalia could never have been carried into effect,
and the very end and being of a general Congress of
different States would be utterly nugatory and ■n.
necessary. The Congress at Vienna was not as-
setnbled for the discussion of moral principles, but
for great practical purposes, to carry into effect the
Treaty of Paris, and establish effectual provisions for
the general security. The Powers there assembled
felt that they had to perform high political duties;
duties for the discharge of which they were responsi-
ble at the tribunal of public opinion, but which never
could have been beneficially discarged, had they
divested themselves of the right and full discretiou
of protecting the true separate interests of every
.state,, by _securing, upon an adequate basis of ar.
rangemetst, the general interests of the whole.-
1
One greet object was to provide against the re-
imains of that .military system which had existed in
France, and that military spirit that belonged to the
French character. What claim bad Genoa, then,
upon any particular gratitude or consideration, which
•had for a long series ofr yews been intimately coo•
netted .with, and subservient to, the views of Fraece,
at certain periods even incorporated with the
strength and resources of the French Empire, form.
ing a point of weakness. to the King of Sardinia, and
rendering
.Piedmont an ineffectual barrier betweea
Austria. and France? When Genea capitulated to
Lord W. Bentinck. it was not from a desire of lisi.
fish alliance, but from a dread of ,British conquest,
and a knowledge that the dignity of Bonaparte was
about to be at an end.i--111ear, hear !]-7-Could any
State be thus allowed to shelter itself against all the
consequences of legitimate hoqility, to escape from
the Taw of Conquest, ate) derive from • the enemy
against whom they had ectid the very means of
their.own defence and safety ? Ile could spinet to
great authorities in confirmation of the principles he
had laid down to the proposed arrangement of parti-
tion in• 1799, sanctioned by Mr. Pitt and Lard
Grenville; and to the conduct of Mr. Fox himself in
1805, with respect to Sicily. He proposed to read
to the House a paper drawn up and w riacn by Mr.
Pitt himself, in which in the year 1805, that great
statesman had expressed his approbation of the prin-
ciple of annexing Genoa to Piedmont, and had
framed a plan of settlement, of which the Congress
at Vienna had only been the servile copyists.
Sir JOHN'NE W PORT spoke to order, and ob-
jected to the Noble Lord's availing himself of his
official situation to read partial documents which
were not accessible to the other side.

Lord CASTLEREAGH resumed, and observed,
that there could be rio objection to his stating the
substance of a document, which, if moved for,
would be laid on the table. The charge brought by
the lion. and Learned Gent., was a charge, in tact,
against my .Lord W. Bentinck, and implied nothing
less than that be had practised a system of deception
upon the Genoese, and now resided in Gel-ilia in the
command of a British army, without Navin! tendered
his resignation. lie conceived, upon the whole, that
the present question n as nothing but a very laborious
till'ort of the Hon. Gent. to redeem a sort of pledge
that he had improvidently and indiscreetly given.
The Proclamation of the 14th of Ala rch could not he
issued with such an intention as nas attributed to
it, because Lord W. Bentitick was then acting in
conjutwinn with an Austrian General ; neither
could the Pr lciansation published at Genoa, hear the
construction pat upon it, inasmuch as Lord W. Ben•
tinck had at that time his positive instructions in hie
pocket. If Lord W. Helaine!: had supposed that
the Genoese had been deceived, could it be supposed
that his feelings woold'have permitted him still to re-
tain the command in that salmi city 'of Genoa ?
Sir AM ES MACKINTOSH replied at serf D'
siderahle length. . . . .
After some explanations..., between Lord BIN•
Ni NG and Sir J. NIACSISTI:iIi, •
The House divided • • •

F.lO the* utiao.'
Aghis tit'
Eaprity

- fi
1111

• Adjourned.

LtN VON Priatod • top. to it el I.e

RTATEsraii Orrice, 7, FlftT•fliee-