Page images
PDF
EPUB

a long series of succeeding dispatches from a succession of ministers, did lord William issue the proclamation of the 14th of March.

Limitations there were in the original instructions. Sicily and Sardinia were excepted. New exceptions undoubtedly arose in the course of events so plainly within the principle of the original exceptions as to require no specification. Every Italian province of a sovereign with whom Great Britain had subsequently contracted alliance, was doubtless as much to be excepted out of general projects of revolt for Italian independence, as those which had been subject to allied sovereigns in 1811. A British minister needed no express instructions to comprehend that he was to aid no revolt against the Austrian government in their former province of Lombardy. The change of circumstances sufficiently instructed him. But in what respect were circumstances changed respecting Genoa? The circumstances of Genoa were the same as at the time of lord Wellesley's instructions. The very last dispatches (those of lord Bathurst of the 28th December, 1813,) had pointed to the Genoese territory as the scene of military operations, without any intimation that the original project was not still ap plicable there, unless the Genoese nation should agree to submit to the king of Sardinia. I contend, therefore, that the original instruction of lord Wellesley which authorized the promise of independence to every part of the Italian peninsula, except Naples and Piedmont, was still in force wherever it was not manifestly limited by subsequent engagements with the sovereigns of other countries, similar to our engagements with the sovereigns of Naples and Piedmont; that no such engagements existed respecting the Genoese territory; and that to the Genoese people, the instruction of lord Wellesley was as applicable as on the day when that instruction was issued.

The noble lord may then talk as he pleases of disentangling, from the present question the question of Italy, to which, on a former occasion, he applied a phraseology so singular. He cannot disentangle these questions. They are inseparably blended. The instructions of 1811 authorized the promise of independence to all Italians, except the people of Naples and Piedmont. The proclamation of the 14th of March, 1814, promised independence to all Italians, with the manifestly-implied

exception of those who had been the subjects of Powers who were now become the allies of Great Britain. A British general, fully authorized, promised independence to those Italians, who, like the Genoese, had not been previously the subjects of an ally of Britain, and by that promise, so authorized, his government is inviolably bound.

But these direct instructions were not all. He was indirectly authorized by the acts and language of his own Government, and of the other great Powers of Europe. He was authorized to re-establish the republic of Genoa, because the British Government at the Treaty of Amiens bad refused to acknowledge its destruction. He was authorized to believe that Austria desired the re-establishment of a republic, whose destruction that Government, in 1808, represented as a cause of war. He was surely authorized to consider that re-establishment as conformable to the sentiments of the emperor Alexander, who, at the same time had, on account of the annexation of Genoa to France, refused, even at the request of Great Britain, to continue his mediation between her and a power capable of such an outrage on the rights of independent nations. Where was lord William to learn the latest opinions of the Allied Powers? If he read the celebrated Declaration of Frankfort, he there found an alliance announced, of which the object was the restoration of Europe. Did restoration mean destruction? Perhaps before the 14th of March, certainly before the 20th of April, he had seen the first article of the Treaty of Chaumont, concluded on the 1st of March, dum curæ ambiguæ dum spes incerta futuri,' where he found the object of the war declared by the assembled majesty of confederated Europe, to be "a general peace under which the rights and liberties of all nations may be secured;"-words eternally honourable to their authors, if they were observed→ more memorable still if they were openly and perpetually violated! Before the 26th of April, he had certainly perused these words, which no time will efface from the records of history; for he evidently adverts verts to them in the preamble of his proclamation, and justly considers them as a sufficient authority, if he had no other, to warrant its provisions. "Considering," says he," that the general desire of the Genoese nation seems to be to return to their ancient government, and considering

that this desire seems to be conformable to the principles recognised by the high Allied Powers, of restoring to all their ancient rights and privileges."

[ocr errors]

In the work of my celebrated friend Mr. Gentz, of whom I can never speak without regard and admiration, On the Balance of Power,' he would have found the incorporation of Genoa justly reprobated as one of the most unprincipled acts of French tyranny. And he would most reasonably believe the sentiments of the Allied Powers to be spoken by that eminent person-now, if I am not misinformed, the Secretary of that Congress on whose measures his writings are the most severe censure. But that lord William Bentinck did believe himself to have offered independence to the Genoese, that he thought himself directly and indirectly authorized to make such an offer, and that he was satisfied that the Genoese had, by co-operation, performed their part of the compact, are facts which rest upon the positive and precise testimony of lord William Bentinck himself, I call upon him as the best interpreter of his own language and the most unexceptionable witness to prove the cooperation of the Genoese. Let his proclamation of the 26th of April be examined. It is the clearest commentary on that of the 14th of March. It is the most decisive testimony to the active aid of the Genoese people. On the 26th of April, he bestows on the people of Genoa that independence which he had promised to all the nations of Italy (with the implied exception already often enough mentioned), on condition of their aiding to expel the oppressor. He, therefore, understood his own proclamation to be such a promise of independence. He could not doubt that he was authorized to make it, and he believed that the Genoese were entitled to claim the benefit of his proclamation by their performance of its condition.

re

sional government till the 1st of January 1815, and the re-establishment of the ancient constitution of the republic, with certain reforms and modifications, from and after that period. Three-fourths of the proclamation have no reference whatever to a provisional government. The first sentence of the preamble, and the third and fourth article of the proclamation, refer to that object; but the larger paragraph of the preamble, and four articles of the enacting part, relate to the reestablishment of the ancient constitution alone. "The desire of the Genoese nation was to return to their ancient government under which they had enjoyed independence." Was this a provisional government? Were "the principles recognized by the high Allied Powers," the establishment of provisional governments? Did provisional governments imply storing to all their ancient rights and privileges?" Why should the ancient constitution be re-established,—the very constitution given by Andrew Doria when he delivered his country from a foreign yoke,-if nothing was meant but a provisional government preparatory to foreign slavery? Why was the government to be modified according to the general wish, the public good, and the spirit of Doria's constitution, if nothing was meant beyond a temporary administration, till the Allied Powers could decide on what vassal they were to bestow Genoa? But I may have been at first mistaken, and time may have rendered my mistake incorrigible. Let every gentleman, before he votes on this question, calmly peruse the proclamation of the 26th of April, and determine for himself, whether it admits of any but one construction. Does it not provide for a provisional government immediately, and for the establishment of the ancient constitution hereafter? The provisional government till the 1st of January 1815. The constitution from the 1st of January 1815. The provisional government is in its nature temporary, and a limit is fixed to it. The constitution of the republic is permanent, and no term or limit is prescribed beyond which it is not to endure. It is not the object of the proclamation to establish the ancient constitution as a provisional government. On the con

This brings me to the consideration of this proclamation, on which I should have thought all observation unnecessary, unless I had heard some attempts made by the noble lord to explain it away, and to represent it as nothing but the establishment of a provisional government. I call on any member of the House to read that proclamation, and to say whether he can, intrary, the ancient constitution is not to be common honour, assent to such an inter- established till the provisional governpretation. The proclamation, beyond all ment ceases to exist. So distinct are they, doubt, provides for two perfectly distinct that the mode of appointment to the objects: The establishment of a provi- supreme powers most materially differs.

[merged small][ocr errors]

exception of those who had been the subjects of Powers who were now become the allies of Great Britain. A British general, fully authorized, promised independence to those Italians, who, like the Genoese, had not been previously the subjects of an ally of Britain, and by that promise, so authorized, his government is inviolably bound.

But these direct instructions were not all. He was indirectly authorized by the acts and language of his own Government, and of the other great Powers of Europe. He was authorized to re-establish the republic of Genoa, because the British Go

Limitations there were in the original instructions. Sicily and Sardinia were excepted. New exceptions undoubtedly arose in the course of events so plainly within the principle of the original exceptions as to require no specification. Every Italian province of a sovereign with whom Great Britain had subsequently contracted alliance, was doubtless as much to be excepted out of general projects of revolt for Italian independence, as those which had been subject to allied sovereigns in 1811.vernment at the Treaty of Amiens had A British minister needed no express instructions to comprehend that he was to aid no revolt against the Austrian government in their former province of Lombardy. The change of circumstances sufficiently instructed him. But in what respect were circumstances changed respecting Genoa? The circumstances of Genoa were the same as at the time of lord Wellesley's instructions. The very last dispatches (those of lord Bathurst of the 28th December, 1813,) had pointed to the Genoese territory as the scene of military operations, without any intimation that the original project was not still applicable there, unless the Genoese nation should agree to submit to the king of Sardinia. I contend, therefore, that the original instruction of lord Wellesley which authorized the promise of independence to every part of the Italian peninsula, except Naples and Piedmont, was still in force wherever it was not manifestly limited by subsequent engagements with the sovereigns of other countries, similar to our engagements with the sovereigns of Naples and Piedmont; that no such en gagements existed respecting the Genoese territory; and that to the Genoese people, the instruction of lord Wellesley was as applicable as on the day when that instruction was issued.

The noble lord may then talk as he pleases of disentangling from the present question the question of Italy, to which, on a former occasion, he applied a phraseology so singular. He cannot disentangle these questions. They are inseparably blended. The instructions of 1811 authorized the promise of independence to all Italians, except the people of Naples and Piedmont. The proclamation of the 14th of March, 1814, promised independence to all Italians, with the manifestly-implied

refused to acknowledge its destruction. He was authorized to believe that Austria desired the re-establishment of a republic, whose destruction that Government, in 1808, represented as a cause of war. He was surely authorized to consider that re-establishment as conformable to the sentiments of the emperor Alexander, who, at the same time had, on account of the annexation of Genoa to France, refused, even at the request of Great Britain, to continue his mediation between her and a power capable of such an outrage on the rights of independent nations. Where was lord William to learn the latest opinions of the Allied Powers? If he read the celebrated Declaration of Frankfort, he there found an alliance announced, of which the object was the restoration of Europe. Did restoration mean destruction? Perhaps before the 14th of March, certainly before the 20th of April, he had seen the first article of the Treaty of Chaumont, concluded on the 1st of March, dum curæ ambiguæ dum spes incerta futuri,' where he found the object of the war declared by the assembled majesty of confederated Europe, to be "a general peace under which the rights and liberties of all nations may be secured;"-words eternally honourable to their authors, if they were observedmore memorable still if they were openly and perpetually violated! Before the 26th of April, he had certainly perused these words, which no time will efface from the records of history; for he evidently adverts to them in the preamble of his proclamation, and justly considers them as a sufficient authority, if he had no other, to warrant its provisions. Considering," says he, "that the general desire of the Genoese nation seems to be to return to their ancient government, and considering

[ocr errors]

1

that this desire seems to be conformable to the principles recognised by the high Allied Powers, of restoring to all their ancient rights and privileges."

[ocr errors]

sional government till the 1st of January
1815, and the re-establishment of the
ancient constitution of the republic, with
certain reforms and modifications, from
and after that period. Three-fourths of
the proclamation have no reference what-
ever to a provisional government. The
first sentence of the preamble, and the
third and fourth article of the proclama-
tion, refer to that object; but the larger
paragraph of the preamble, and four arti-
cles of the enacting part, relate to the re-
establishment of the ancient constitution
alone. "The desire of the Genoese nation
was to return to their ancient government
under which they had enjoyed indepen-
dence." Was this a provisional govern-
ment? Were "the principles recognized
by the high Allied Powers," the esta-
blishment of provisional governments?
Did provisional governments imply “re- ·
storing to all their ancient rights and pri-
vileges?" Why should the ancient con-
stitution be re-established,-the very con-
stitution given by Andrew Doria when
he delivered his country from a foreign
yoke,—if nothing was meant but a provi-
sional government preparatory to foreign
slavery? Why was the government to be
modified according to the general wish,
the public good, and the spirit of Doria's
constitution, if nothing was meant beyond
a temporary administration, till the Allied
Powers could decide on what vassal they
were to bestow Genoa? But I may have
been at first mistaken, and time may have
rendered my mistake incorrigible.
every gentleman, before he votes on this
question, calmly peruse the proclamation
of the 26th of April, and determine for
himself, whether it admits of any but one
construction. Does it not provide for a
provisional government immediately, and
for the establishment of the ancient con-

In the work of my celebrated friend Mr. Gentz, of whom I can never speak without regard and admiration, On the Balance of Power,' he would have found the incorporation of Genoa justly reprobated as one of the most unprincipled acts of French tyranny. And he would most reasonably believe the sentiments of the Allied Powers to be spoken by that eminent person-now, if I am not misinformed, the Secretary of that Congress on whose measures his writings are the most severe censure. But that lord William Bentinck did believe himself to have offered independence to the Genoese, that he thought himself directly and indirectly authorized to make such an offer, and that he was satisfied that the Genoese had, by co-operation, performed their part of the compact, are facts which rest upon the positive and precise testimony of lord William Bentinck himself, I call upon him as the best interpreter of his own language and the most unexceptionable witness to prove the cooperation of the Genoese. Let his proclamation of the 26th of April be examined. It is the clearest commentary on that of the 14th of March. It is the most decisive testimony to the active aid of the Genoese people. On the 26th of April, he bestows on the people of Genoa that independence which he had promised to all the nations of Italy (with the implied exception already often enough mentioned), on condition of their aiding to expel the oppressor. He, therefore, understood his own proclamation to be such a promise of independence. He could not doubt that he was authorized to make it, and he believed that the Genoese were entitled to claim the benefit of his pro-stitution hereafter? The provisional goclamation by their performance of its condition.

This brings me to the consideration of this proclamation, on which I should have thought all observation unnecessary, unless I had heard some attempts made by the noble lord to explain it away, and to represent it as nothing but the establishment of a provisional government. I call on any member of the House to read that proclamation, and to say whether he can, in common honour, assent to such an interpretation. The proclamation, beyond all doubt, provides for two perfectly distinct objects: The establishment of a provi

Let

vernment till the 1st of January 1815.
The constitution from the 1st of January
1815. The provisional government is in its
nature temporary, and a limit is fixed to
it. The constitution of the republic is
permanent, and no term or limit is pre-
scribed beyond which it is not to endure.
It is not the object of the proclamation
to establish the ancient constitution as a
provisional government.
On the con-
trary, the ancient constitution is not to be
established till the provisional govern-
ment ceases to exist. So distinct are they,
that the mode of appointment to the
supreme powers most materially differs.

Lord William Bentinck nominates the | at all events, the disavowal to be effectual two colleges who compose the provisional must have been prompt, clear, and public. government. The two colleges who are Where is the disavowal? Where is the afterwards to compose the permanent go- public notice to the Genoese, that they vernment of the republic, are to be nomi- were deceived? Did their mistake deserve nated agreeably to the ancient constitu- no correction, even on the ground of comtion. Can it be maintained that the in- passion? I look in vain through these téntion was to establish two successive papers for any such act. The noble lord's provisional governments? For what con- letter of the 30th of March was the first ceivable reason? Even in that case, why intimation which lord William Bentinck engage in the laborious and arduous task received of any change of system beyond of reforming an ancient constitution for Lombardy. It is only a caution for future the sake of a second provisional governconduct, and it does not hint an intention ment, which might not last three weeks? to cancel any act done on the faith of the And what constitution was more unfit for proclamation of the 14th of March. The a provisional government, what was more allusion to the same subject in the letter likely to indispose the people to all far- of the 3d of April, is liable to the very ther change, and, above all, to a sacrifice same observation; and, being inserted at of their independence, than the ancient the instance of the duke of Campo-Chiaro, constitution of the republic, which rewas evidently intended only to prevent vived all their feelings of national dignity, the prevalence of such ideas of Italian and seemed to be a pledge that they were liberty, as were inconsistent with the accesonce more to be Genoese? In short, Sir, sion then proposed to the territory of I am rather fearful that I shall be thought Naples: it certainly could not have been to have overlaboured a point so extremely supposed by lord William Bentinck to clear. But if I have dwelt too long upon apply to Genoa, for it was in his possesthis proclamation, and examined it too sion on the 26th, when he issued the minutely, it is not because I think it proclamation, which he never could have difficult, but because I consider it as de- published if he had understood the discisive of the whole question. If lord patch in that sense. William Bentinck in that proclamation bestowed on the people of Genoa their place among nations, and the government of their forefathers, it must have been because he deemed himself authorized to make that establishment by the repeated instructions of the British Government, and by the avowed principles and solemn acts of the Allied Powers, and bound to make it by his own proclamation of the 14th of March, combined with the acts done by the Genoese nation in consequence of that proclamation.

The noble lord's dispatch of the 6th May is, in my opinion, fatal to his argument. It evidently betrays a feeling that acts had been done, to create in the Genoese a hope of independence. Yet it does not direct these acts to be disavowed-it contains no order speedily to undeceive the people. It implies that a deception had been practised; and instead of an attempt to repair it, there is only an injunction not to repeat the fault. No expressions are to be used which may prejudge the fate of Genoa. Even then that destiny is left I think I have proved that he did so, doubtful. So far from disavowal, the that he believed himself to do so, and that noble lord proposes the re-establishment the people of Genoa believed it likewise. of Genoa, though with some curtailment -Perhaps, however, if he had mistaken of territory, to M. Pareto, who maintained bis instructions, and had acted without the interests of his country with an ability authority, he might have been disavowed, and dignity worthy of happier success. and his acts might have been annulled. I And the Treaty of Paris itself, far from a doubt whether, in such a case, any dis. disavowal, is, on every principle of rational avowal would have been sufficient. Where- construction, a ratification and adoption of ever a people, in consequence of the acts the act of lord William Bentinck. The of an agent whom they had good reason 6th article of that Treaty provides, that to trust, have done acts which they cannot " Italy, beyond the limits of the country recall, I do not conceive the possibility of which is to revert to Austria, shall be coma just disavowal of such an agent's acts. posed of sovereign states." Now, Sir, I Where one party has innocently and rea- desire to know the meaning of this provi sonably advanced too far to recede, justice sion. I can conceive only three possible cuts off the other also from retreat. But constructions. Either that every country

« PreviousContinue »