Page images
PDF
EPUB

lowed was carried on by all the powers of eloquence on both sides of the house, but necessarily by the same arguments as had been produced in the other house. The result was a division, in which the motion was rejected by a majority of 149 to 65.

On an impartial survey of the discussions on this topic, and the circumstances leading to them, it will probably appear, that although retrospective wisdom might find much to blame, yet that there existed causes for the lamented events which rendered them almost unavoidable. The plain fact seems to have been, that the allied sovereigns at Paris found themselves in a situation which took from them the feeling of security as long as Buonaparte remained at the head of an army; and there being no medium between forcing him to a surrender of his person, and negociating with him on a footing of independence, they hastily concluded a treaty which in various points was inconsiderate, and left him much power of future mischief. The unbroken attachment to him of the whole French army, and the small hold which the Bourbon government had upon the affections of the nation, rendered his return to power a matter of certainty as soon as he had effected a landing upon French ground; and it would be difficult to point out any plan by which such a man, recognized as possessing personal liberty and an imperial title, with a large command of money, could in any part of Europe have been restrained from access to that country.

The treaty with America was

[ocr errors]

another topic of parliamentary discussion which afforded scope for the inculpation of the ministers. On April 11, Mr. Hart Davis rose to move an address of thanks to the Prince Regent for the treaty of peace entered into with the United States of America. He said, he believed there were few men in this country who did not agree that the war declared by America was unprovoked on our part, at the same time, that person must have singular views of the policy of Great Britain, who should think that it ought to be continued by us for the purpose of territorial aggrandisement, or from vindictive feelings. Our sole object was to resist aggression, and to support our maritime rights. We had gloriously defended Canada, had surrendered no rights, and had made a peace in the spirit of peace, which would open again a wide field for the commerce and manufactures of this country. He concluded his speech with a motion for an address expressing perfect satisfaction with the arrangement by which the negociation had been terminated.

Mr. Ponsonby declared that no man in the house could more sincerely rejcice than himself at the termination of the contest with America; yet he could not agree to the address, as he thought it their duty to inform his Royal Highness of what he conceived the gross misconduct and mismanagement of ministers in the progress of the negociations. In this treaty no one subject of dispute between the two countries that existed before its signature, does not still exist; and all the pretensions

pretensions advanced by his Majesty's ministers in the course of the negociations were, one by one, abandoned by them.. The right hon. gentleman then dwelt upon the circumstance of the long, and as it appeared, the unnecessary delay of the signature of this treaty. The final treaty with France was signed on May 30th, and it was fitting that the House should be informed what obstacles prevented the conclusion of a definitive treaty with America immediately after. The first conference between the commissioners of the two countries did not take place till August 8th, when terms were laid before the Americans as a sine-qua-non, which were, pacification with the Indians, and defining the boundaries of their territories; the military occupation of the lakes in Canada, and the cession of certain islands which the Americans had occupied since 1783. These terms were absolutely rejected by the American commissioners; and being transmitted to the president, and presented to the congress, were unanimously refused by that body, and by the people of all parties. By the delay arising from these demands, which were all subsquently given up, except the simple pacification with the Indians, and the possession of the islands, which was referred to a future decision, the signature of the treaty did not take place till December 24th; and in the meantime military operations had gone on, occasioning a great waste of treasure, and the shedding of the best blood of the country. Mr. P. concluded with proposing a long amend

ment to the address, which contained all the points of inculpation of the measures pursued in negociating the treaty that had been dwelt on in his speech

Mr. Goulburn then rose in defence of himself and his brother commissioners. With regard to the delay of the treaty, he said that the American commissioners had been instructed to make no peace, without our relinquishment of the right of impressment, and our admission that the American flag covered all who sailed under it; and the 25th of June was the first day on which they were authorised to allow these matters to remain undecided, and to sign a treaty exclusive of their consideration, on which day the first conference was held at Ghent. As to the Indians, he said that stipulations would be found in the treaty, as well for their line of boundary, as for a pacification with them. He acknowledged that in the progress of the negociations some points had been abandoned. The Canadian line was laid aside for the purpose of securing for the Indians a recognition of their boundary as it stood in 1810: and he asserted that these people were not mere savages, as had been represented, but that some of their nations were far advanced in civilization, and were entitled to a fulfilment of all the engagements made with them. He said, that if the right hon. gentleman was in possession of the facts, he would alter his opinion that the delay arose from the pretensions of the British commissioners, who were bound to proceed with caution and circumspection

eumspection in their view of the interests of the country.

Mr. Baring warmly condemned the whole conduct of the negociation on the part of this country. He said that the American Commissioners seemed willing to have entered into the question relative to the impressment of our seamen, but that ours refused to listen to the proposal, and had left the matter upon the worst possible footing. It was doubtless a point of much difficulty, but for his own part he was convinced of the practicability of an arrangement. With respect to our alhes (as they had been called) the Indians, he allowed that they ought not to be left at the mercy of the American government, but all which could be required from us was to leave them as they had been before the war. The boundary demanded for them would have given to savage tribes more than one half of the United States; and would have been the worst possible policy for Great Britain, since instead of spreading out the Americans in agricultural settlements, it would have compelled them to become manufacturers and seamen. Mr. B. then adverted to the trial which government had chosen to enter into after the peace of Paris, how an impression could be made on the territory of the United States, the result of which had shewn that it could not be done with effect, either in the north or the south. He wished to hear a defence of the expedition to New Orleans; which, if it had succeeded, would only have produced the plunder of some cotton warehouses, and would infallibly, on VOL. LVII.

the arrival of warm weather, have rendered the greatest part of our men unfit for duty.

After several other speakers had taken part in the discussion, in which the delay of the treaty appeared to be more forcibly attacked than satisfactorily defended, the House divided upon the amendment, which was negatived by 128 to 37, and the address was then agreed to.

The same topic was introduced to the House of Lords on April 13th, by a speech of Marqu's Wellesley, in which he took a wide view of the whole negociation with America. As in its main points it was entirely similar to that of Mr. Ponsonby, it will uot be necessary to repeat any of the arguments employed in censure of the conduct of ministers on that occasion. His Lordship concluded with moving an address to the Prince Regent for laying before the House copies or extracts of the correspondence which took place between his Majesty's Plenipotentiaries and those of the United States of America relative to the late negociations for peace.

Earl Bathurst began his reply with regarding it as a very extraordinary thing to move, at the conclusion of a negociation for peace, for making public the correspondence between the ministers who had conducted it, and shewed the objections to such a proceeding. His subsequent defence of the negociation, as far as he chose to enter into it, was founded on the same grounds as that in the other house. With respect to the charge of delay, he said he was convinced that if [C]

it

it had been entered upon two months sooner, we should have met the American Commissioners instructed to insist on points which we had declared we could never accede to; the delay there fore could not be considered as an improvident one.

Earl Stanhope, in supporting the motion, begged leave to rewind their Lordships, that before the breaking out of this war he had submitted to the house a motion for declaring a reciprocity of rights among all maritime nations. This had met with no support; but he was happy now to find that the noble Earl had expressly declared that this country had no other maritime rights than what belonged equally to all other nations.

The Marquis's motion was negatived by 83 votes against 30.

Notice has been taken taken of some parliamentary proceedings at an earlier period, relative to the transfer of Genoa to the king of Sardinia, which were intermitted on account of the assertion of ministers, that the time was not yet come for giving the necessary explanations on the subject. Some public papers having afterwards been laid before parliament relative to this topic, the Marquis of Buckingham on April 25th rose to make a motion on the subject. He began with affirming that the statement of the case which he had before made upon other information was fully confirmed by the papers produced. He then gave a general sketch of the whole proceedings, introductory to a set of resolutions which he moved, and which contained all the particulars. The

substance of these was, 1. That earl Bathurst did, by a letter dated Dec. 28, 1813, instruct lord William Bentinck to encourage any dispositions in the Geuoese to rise against the French government, and, if it were clearly with their concurrence, to take possession of Genoa in the name and on the behalf of his Sardinian Majesty. 2. That in pursuance of those instructions, in March 1814, his lordship disembarked with the British forces at Leghorn, and issued a proclamation calling upon the Italians to vindicate their own rights and be free. 3. That in April the Genoese having materially contributed to oblige the French, garrison to surrender the city, lord W. Bentinck entered Genoa, and issued a proclamation of the following tenor: "Considering that the general desire of the Genoese nation seems to be to return to that ancient form of government under which it enjoyed liberty, prosperity, and independence, and considering likewise that this desire seems to be conformable to the principles recognized by the high allied powers of restoring to all their ancient rights and privileges, I declare, that the constitution of the Genoese States, such as it existed in 1797, with such modifications as the general wish, the public good, and the spirit of the original constitution of 1576 seem to require, is re-etablished. (Two articles follow organizing a provisional government) 4. That in a letter to lord Castlereagh, lord W. Bentinck represented that the Genoese universally desired the restoration of their ancient repub

lic, and that they dreaded above duct of his Majesty's government

[ocr errors]

$

all other arrangements their an-, nexation to Piedmont. 5. That it does not appear that any sub-, sequent dispatch or instruction from the ministers did convey to lord W. Bentinck the opinion that he had exceeded his powers in issuing the said proclamation, and that it had never been pubkely disavowed. 6. That in May a forcible representation was made to lord Castlereagh by M. Pareto, minister plenipotentiary of the government of Genoa, of the continued desire of the Genoese to return to their ancient government, and of their confident reliance on the assurances, given them by the commander of the British forces. 7. That similar representations were repeatedly submitted to his Majesty's government, more particularly in a protest against any resolutions that might be taken contrary to the rights and independence of Genoa laid before the Congress at Vienna in December 1814. 8. That notwithstanding these remonstrances, and in violation of the solemn engagements contracted by lord W. Bentinck on the part of the British government with the Genoese people, lord Castlereagh had instructed lieutenant-general Dalrymple, commanding the British forces in Genoa, to take the necessary measures for delivering over the same to the king of Sardinia. 9. That the government of Genoa was delivered accordingly to the officer of his Sardinian Majesty, and this transfer was secured and enforced by the continued occupation of that city by a British force. 10. That the con

in thus availing itself of the occupation of the Genoese territory,, in order to inake a compulsory tranfer thereof to a foreign power, was not only a violation of the promises held out in lord W. Bentinck's declaration of March 14th, and of the implied engagement by which the British troops were received, but a manifest breach of the public faith expressly pledged to that republic. by his Majesty's general, and was also wholly repugnant to those general principles of policy and justice which it was equally the interest and duty of this country to uphold in all the discussions respecting a final settlement of the affairs of Europe."

The first resolution being moved, Earl Bathurst rose for the purpose of clearing away the charge of ill faith brought against this country. In his statement of facts he said, that the instructions of December 1813, which had been quoted as encouraging the Italians to insurrection, merely said, Rise, and we, on receiving information of it, will assist you. Italy was completely under the domination of the enemy. Lord Bentinck in 1814 regularly attacked Genoa like any other fortress: the outworks were carried, and a bombardment was prepared, when the Genoese had yet never stirred. Now, indeed, a deputation of citizens came out with some French officers, begging an armistice; this was their first movement. What did they to expel the French? Nothing. Lord W. Bentinck denominated taking the city a conquest. The people were undoubtedly hostile to the [C 2]

French,

« PreviousContinue »