Sitting of 25 April 1815

PAVEMENT OF THE METROPOLIS.
Mr. M. A. Taylorobserved, that, early in the present session, he had noticed the dangerous state of the pavement of the metropolis, and he had subsequently obtained leave to bring in a Bill to afford facilities for rendering the pavement better. Nothing, he believed, could be worse than it was at present; however, he was desirous of giving every accommodation to the various parishes, and of preventing any rumour from going abroad, which might impute to him a wish to press on the public

841]
a Bill of this description. Actuated by this feeling, he yesterday had a meeting with persons deputed from the different parishes, that were hostile to the measure. They allowed that the evil called for remedy and redress, and they pledged themselves, if he was not particularly partial to certain clauses of the measure he had proposed, to meet early in November, to arrange such a Bill as would meet the wishes of the public, and give general satisfaction. Resolutions, he understood, had been come to in all the parishes, by which the parties connected with the paving department bound themselves to pay every attention to the state of the streets, and to exert all the powers granted to them under the local acts of parliament, so that by the time the Bill was introduced, the public would find the pavement in a much better state than it had been for some time past. He should, therefore, with the understanding that a Bill would be brought in at the period he had specified, move, with the leave of House, "That the order for the second reading of the Bill for the better Pavement of the Metropolis, which stood for Monday next, be discharged."—The motion was agreed to.

TREATY OF VIENNA.
On the report of the Committee of Supply being brought up,
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that since the noble lord opposite had laid the substance of the Treaty of the 25th March, and the Memorandum, attached to it before the House, he had perused it attentively. He should take the liberty of asking in what sense that part of our explanatory Declaration was to be understood which said that a common effort was to be made against the power of Napoleon Buonaparté, but not to impose a government on France. Was he to understand that war was to be made on Napoleon Buonaparté, and that no peace was to be concluded with him as long as he remained in possession of the supreme authority in France?
Lord Castlereaghanswered, that the object was to destroy the power of Buonaparté, but the Treaty was only binding on the Allies so long as they chose to make it so. Of course they might agree to treat of peace, if they should hereafter think it prudent to do so.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that nothing could be plainer than his question, and nothing more obscure and unsatisfactory than the
[842
answer of the noble lord. Was he to understand that it was impossible for war to be avoided on the part of the country, with Napoleon Buonaparté exercising the power and government of France?
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the engagement entered into between the Ailed Powers might be dissolved; but that its object, at the time it was formed, certainly was to destroy the power of Buonaparté, and to make no peace with him.
Mr. Whitbreadfelt himself as much as ever at a loss with the answer of the noble lord. When the Address was moved, it was stated that there was an alternative of war or peace; and even down to the present time, except from an occasional loose or unguarded expression which dropped from one or other of the friends of the noble lord, nothing had ever been slated to the House to induce them to think that, there was not still an alternative. He believed it to be understood by those present in the House, who had no suspicion of any delusion, that there was a possible alternative in the existing state of things of war or peace with France. Now how could this be reconciled with the Treaty and explanation on the table?
Lord Castlereagh.—I think I answered the hon. member's question before. There is a possibility of resorting to the alternative mentioned, because the contracting parties may recede from their engagements; but, as to the probability of such an event, I will leave the hon. gentleman to form his own opinion from the appearance of things.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he had rendered his question as plain as possible, and the noble lord as usual had given a reply as equivocal as he possibly could. Those who thought that no peace should be made with Buonaparté would interpret his answer, as stating that war was unavoidable. Those who inclined to the other side of the question would infer from it, that an alternative still remained. His own interpretation was, that the Allies, when they concluded the Treaty, intended to go to war with Buonaparté, and that if they had not yet carried that plan into execution, it was in consequence of some other circumstances which had arisen since, and which the noble lord hoped might be got over, that war should ensue. He wished the House to be well informed on this subject before another message should come down, and that the noble lord should willingly do that which the House would be

843]
obliged to do without his assistance. If it was not conceived too early, he would tomorrow, but certainly on some day of the present week, take the sense of Parliament on the most important question—of peace or war.
Lord Castlereaghassured the hon. gentleman, that if he wished to take the sense of the House, he had only to make a motion, and that he should be prepared to meet him.
Mr. Tierneyinquired of the noble lord, whether his Majesty's ministers had entered into an engagement to relieve Russia of a part of the debt she had contracted with Holland, to the amount of two millions and a half, and what equivalent this country was to receive?
Lord Castlereagh, under the present circumstances, could not give an answer satisfactory to the House. With respect to Holland, and the arrangements regarding her colonies, it would be premature to enter into any details.
Mr. Tierneyhad not put his question with any reference to a war which might be approaching. Neither did he interfere with the arrangements made with respect to the Dutch colonies. He only asked an explanation of a transaction that had taken place, and whether this country had been subjected to an incumbrance of 2,500,000 l. Would the House endure that such a sum should be consigned to the treasury of Russia without any other answer than that returned by the noble lord?
Lord Castlereaghmaintained the impropriety of entering into the subject at this time.
Mr. Tierneywished to know whether any obligation had been entered into which the noble lord thought binding on this country?
Lord Castlereaghassured the hon. gentleman that no engagement had been entered into in which the interests of the country had not been consulted.
Mr. Whitbreadgave notice that on Friday next he should make a motion on the state of the country relative to peace or war.
Mr. Ponsonby, on casting his eye over the Treaty of the 25th of March, had been struck by a paragraph not forming any part of it, but added at the close of it, by which it appeared that the Treaty had been received in this country on the 5th of April and the answer dispatched on the 8th, and that authority and instructions had been given to lord Clancarty at
[844
Vienna, to sign a subsidiary engagement consequent upon the said Treaty. He wished to know what was the nature of those instructions, and the amount of the subsidies which he had been empowered to promise, as it was impossible that his lordship should have been left entirely at liberty to pledge this country to any amount he pleased.
Lord Castlereaghcomplained of this system of interrogation, which tended to put the House by anticipation in possession of all the subjects of negociation before they were settled or ratified. What had been or would be done, could not be executed without the consent of Parliament. The right hon. gentleman might well suppose that lord Clancarty had received instructions; but what those were, and the extent of the subsidiary engagement which he was empowered to sign, were matter of negociation with foreign Powers, and it would be premature and improper to force them into discussion.
Mr. Ponsonbycould see no impropriety either in the question which he had put to the noble lord, or in his giving the explanation he requested. The House would be obliged to make good the subsidies to whatever amount ministers had pledged it; for if would be idle to think that after they had contracted the engagement, it would be found practicable to refuse the supplies. And if the House only knew their amount after the pledge had been given, it would be reduced to the alternative of either breaking the faith of treaties, or else of paying sums which it considered injurious to the country.
Lord Castlereaghcontended, that the doctrine thus broached, and the system pursued, had a tendency to subvert the constitution, by infringing on the prerogatives of the Crown respecting peace and war.
Mr. Ponsonbydenied, that what he had said had any such tendency. The Crown had the power of making peace and declaring war, but no authority, in subsidiary treaties, to pledge Parliament to any amount it thought proper. It had no right to interfere in matters of money.
Lord Castlereaghstated, that the charge made on the Crown, of its pledging the House, was not founded on fact. Foreign Powers themselves never understood more, by our subsidiary engagements, than that the Crown would recommend to Parliament to grant supplies to the amount required.
Sir James Mackintoshunderstood the noble lord to have given it as his opinion, that for ministers to state beforehand the amount of a subsidiary treaty, would be a subversion of the constitution. [Hear, hear! and No, no! from the Ministerial side.]

COMMISSIONERS OF WINDSOR FOREST.
Mr. Whitbreadinquired, whether the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to lay before the House, a copy of the commission granted to lord Yarmouth, Mr. J. Nash, and Mr. C. Bicknell, relative to the Royal Parks, for which he had moved on the preceding evening, and relative to the legality of which some doubts, it appeared, had arisen in the minds of the Lords of the Treasury?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it would be improper to lay it before the House, as it was at present under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown. He hoped he should be able in a few days to acquaint the House with the result.
Lord Yarmouthsaid, it was perfectly well known that for a number of years his present Majesty had set an example of farming to the country, which example was followed by the duke of Bedford, Mr. Coke, and others. The King farmed a part of the Royal Park by way of recreation; and the management of it was under different men at different times. Three gentlemen were appointed commissioners, of whom he was one, under a power of attorney. They had done no act which was not done by the former commissioners, and if it pleased God to restore his Majesty, he would receive back his farm in exactly its former state. He considered that an inquiry of this kind was prying into the private concerns of the Sovereign. His Majesty had always kept the wardenship of Windsor Forest unnamed, that the office might not be filled up by ministers. He could not help thinking this sort of prying into the private concerns of the King was rather indecorous. The only expense of the commission was a clerk of the lowest description.
Mr. Tierneysaid, according to the account of the noble lord, all the forests and parks might be divided into farms. This had never been the case in former times, and he should be glad to know why this new practice had prevailed. By the old practice, his Majesty had been always in the habit of appointing wardens, and there might be some reason for appointing
[846
commissioners. He wished to know whether this was really a power of attorney or a commission. There might be very good reasons for putting the matter under the consideration of the law officers, for it would require to be known whom these commissioners were to be responsible to. He knew no reason why Mr. Bicknell or Mr. Nash should devote their time without being paid for it. If there was no salary attached to their offices, it made the case more extraordinary; and he should like to know what an architect had to do with parks. If the noble lord wanted a legal adviser, he could not have a better than Mr. Bicknell; but he could not understand what assistance Mr. Nash could render him. It would be proper, therefore, that the power of attorney should be produced.
Mr. Whitbreadthen moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, a copy of any commission or instrument, purporting to vest certain powers and authorities in the earl of Yarmouth, John Nash, esq., and Charles Bicknell, esq. respecting the Royal Parks."
Lord Yarmouthsaid, there had been no ranger of the Great Park since the time of the late duke of Cumberland; and the King would not appoint a ranger or warden, in order that his amusements might not become a subject of inquiry before Parliament.
Lord Castlereaghapprehended, that the hon. gentleman did not consider the question as one of mere curiosity; but as no abuse had been alleged, and it had not been shown that the Treasury had been negligent, he did not consider it a subject for the control of Parliament. If his Royal Highness was not so fond of farming as his Majesty, it was not extraordinary that he should appoint persons to superintend the management of the parks. If it should appear, after inquiry had been made, that the Treasury had acted improperly, then the hon. gentleman might interpose.
Sir John Simeonopposed the motion.
Mr. Whitbreaddid not wish to pry into the amusements of the Crown. He had conceived that the power vested in the commissioners was greater than it now appeared to be; but he wished to know why no ranger, who was the old constitutional officer, had been appoint to Windsor park?
Lord Yarmouththought it was very plain that his Royal Highness had power to sign the commission.
Mr. Tierneydenied, that by the Act of the 53d George 3, it was intended to give the King a power to break up the parks that were given as a part of the royalty to maintain the dignity of the Crown. No answer whatever had been given, why a ranger of the parks had not been appointed; and he had not heard any thing to prove, that any direct advantage had been gained by a commission.
Mr. Arbuthnotthought, that what his noble friend had stated, namely, that his Royal Highness wished all the farms to remain in the same state as his Majesty left them, was a sufficient reason why no ranger had been appointed.
Mr. Tierneybegged to be informed what was the point of law that had now been referred to the Crown lawyers, and why it had not before been decided, when the commission had been so long in existence?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown was required as soon as the point was regularly raised.
Mr. Bennetasked whether there would be any objection made to the production of the expenses of the erection of the Thatched Palace in Windsor Great Park?
Mr. Huskissonreferred the hon. gentleman to the Treasury, which had issued warrants for the money which had been paid in his department.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted that there would be no objection to complete the accounts already upon the table, to a certain date, regarding the erections in Windsor park.
The question was then put, and negatived.

MOTION RESPECTING SERVANTS OF THE ROYAL HOUSEHOLD.
Sir Charles BurrellSir Charles Burrell rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move an Address to the Regent, upon the subject of certain gratuities received by the servants of the Royal Household from individuals attending the Court. He first drew the attention of the House to the observations of the two Civil List Committees upon this subject, which was beyond the control of the Lord Steward. He referred to the ancient and evil practice of visitors giving vails to the servants of noblemen and gentlemen, now entirely discontinued, and argued upon the necessity of abolishing the custom when visitors
[848
waited on the occupant of the throne. The existence of this system was, he said, a stigma upon the national character; and foreigners went away with the conviction that every thing was to be done by money in this country, without which they could not procure even a sight of the Sovereign. In the household of the Prince of Wales no such custom had ever prevailed; but since his Royal Highness had become Regent, it had been transferred with the Royal Household. There were usually belonging to the establishment, among the inferior officers eight marshals, who paid 800 l. for their situations, and yet only received a nominal salary of 22 l. 15 s. 6d., and they were obliged to procure themselves hats and other clothes, excepting coats, which were given once in two years: of course, they were obliged to derive their profits from the visitors of the Court. In the same situation was the serjeant-porter, whose place produced only 120 l. per annum, and the yeoman-porters and groom-porters, who gave 200 l. for their offices, and received salaries of 50 l. and 60 l. The gentlemen pensioners, or yeomen of the guard, gave 350 l. for the situation, and only obtained a salary from the Household of 39 l. 11 s. 3d. The consequence was, that, instead of being gentlemen as formerly, they were in truth beggars, and carried their begging books round to the nobility and gentry, for subscriptions to make up the deficiency. Besides these, there were the Regent's and the Queen's gentlemen-porters, footmen, and grooms of the chambers; all of whom were paid at the same inefficient rate, and who, in consequence, were constrained to prey upon the gratuities of those who visited the Court, and who thus became liable to the most vexatious demands. The object which he had in view, and which he was satisfied would be sanctioned by the House, was, that such provision should be made for these officers in future, that they would be sufficiently remunerated, without having recourse to a system which was discreditable to the honour and dignity of the Crown, as it was disgraceful to the country. The hon. baronet concluded by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, submitting to his Royal Highness's gracious consideration so much of the reports of the committees on the Civil List of the years 1812 and 1813, as relates to the mode of remunerating certain inferior servants of the Royal Household by gra-

849]
tuities collected from individuals attending the Court."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not object to the motion; but thought that the House would do well not to pledge itself too far, lest the sum necessary for the proposed commutation should be found greater than members would think fit to lay upon the public. The practice complained of prevailed in a greater or less degree in all the Courts of Europe.
Mr. W. Smithwould not concur in laving any great and additional burthen upon the nation for the sake of removing a sŭpposed stigma.
Sir C. Burrelldid not think that the sum could be considerable; it might be paid out of the Droits of Admiralty.
Mr. Huskissonremarked, that it would be necessary not only to give compensation to those who had bought their places, but to any persons who derived emolument from the prevailing custom, and more especially to those higher officers of the household, whose emoluments depended upon the sale of the situations of their inferiors.
Mr. Sumnersaid, that if the dignity of the Crown required the abolition of the present fees, he did not think the House would be restrained by motives of parsimony from taking measures to put this part of the household establishment on the same footing with all other parts of it.
The motion was agreed to.

MOTIONS RELATING TO THE NEW MINT.
Mr. Bankes, in pursuance of his notice, rose to move for certain papers connected with the expenses of the New Mint. His intention of submitting this motion, he observed, had arisen out of the papers which had recently been delivered to the House on this subject. From these papers it appeared, that notwithstanding the immense sum which had been expended on the budding of this magnificent edifice, it was now found that there were a certain number of persons, who it was desirable should live within the building, for whom no accommodations were prepared, and, in consequence, four new dwelling-houses were to be built, at an expense of 4,000 l. The example which this head of public expenditure had afforded he trusted would induce the House, in future, to be extremely scrupulous in examining into the objects for which they were called upon to grant money, and more especially when another great building—the new
[850
Post-office—was in contemplation. The hon. gentleman then moved for the folpapers: 1. "A statement of the number of dwelling-houses, or separate apartments used as dwelling-houses in the Mint, together with the names of the persons occupying the same, and their situations and employments, in that department; also of the number of persons who had residences in the old Mint, and the situations and employments which they held; also of the uses to which the residences or dwelling-houses in the old Mint have been convened. 2. An account of the expense of all machinery for coining erected in the Mint. 3. An account of the amount of the incidental expenses of the Mint in the year 1814, as to repairs or alterations in the building or machinery, furniture, and all other charges. 4. An account of the quantity of money or tokens coined in the New Mint since the establishment of the same, distinguishing gold from silver."
Mr. Wellesley Polesaid he had not the slightest objection to granting the information for which the hon. gentleman had moved. With respect to the houses alluded to, he observed, that it was considered desirable to accommodate a certain number of persons who had been 'imported' from Birmingham, for the purpose of managing the machinery of the new mint, within its walls; but it was found impracticable, notwithstanding the extent of the edifice—hence it was determined to erect the buildings in question, which would be effected with every regard to economy.
The motions were then put and agreed

MOTION FOR EXTENDING THE PROPERTY TAX TO IRELAND.
Mr. Bankes Mr. Bankes moved that the 7th Article of the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland be read, which was read accordingly. The hon. gentleman then said, that he moved to have that Article read to show gentlemen who might be unwilling to accede to his motion, that it was far from his intention to move for any tiling contrary to that Article. So far from wishing for any thing hostile to the interests of Ireland, the measure he had to propose, would be, he sincerely believed, of extreme benefit not only to the empire in general, but to Ireland herself. This he considered a new era of taxation, and the Propertytax should be looked on as a tax that was to exist for a great number of years. It

851]
then should be considered how taxation should fall most equally over the entire empire, and he must raise his voice against the injustice of having the rich of Great Britain subject to such a heavy tax as that under present consideration, while the rich of another part of the empire were exempt. Great Britain afforded the interesting phenomenon of a nation inferior in population to many others yielding a larger sum of taxation than others of far greater population, and with a less degree of complaint than most nations paid their taxes. This must be owing to some more wise and equal mode of laying on taxes. This wise and equal mode of taxation would be found only in apportioning it to property; and, in fact, what was so proper a source of taxation as property? He would wish, then, that that source of taxation should be introduced into Ireland. It would certainly be a better source of taxation than those articles which were used by the poor classes of society. The tax on soap, for instance, bore on those who were least able to bear taxation. There was also another circumstance to be attended to in laying on taxes. A tax which would have a demoralizing tendency was certainly in that respect a much worse one than any other. The tax on spirits and distilleries he had considered in that light. Here the hon. gentleman read ah address from the distillers of Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant, in corroboration of his opinion. The duty on distilleries was so high, that private and illegal distillation was the consequence, and spirits were sold much cheaper in some places than they could be, if they were only taxed fairly, and illicit distillation in consequence not resorted to. Besides, the duties on distillation in many parts of that country could not be collected without the assistance of the military. This tended to make the laws be held in less respect in that county; for where resistance to the law was resorted to with facility in one instance, the veneration for it was diminished in every instance. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to show that his motion would not contravene the Articles of the Union, winch provided that the taxation of Ireland should be but in proportion of two-seventeenths to that of Great Britain, for twenty years, and then that it should undergo a revision. He was not for equalizing the taxes on the countries, but only for extending to Ireland the best mode of
[852
taxation, and a mode that he thought was as well adapted to Ireland as to this country. He was discharging a disagreeable duty; but, however, from what he considered his duty he would not shrink. He had taken a vast deal of trouble to procure the best information possible on the subject. He found that Ireland was deficient in contributing her proper share to the burthens of the empire; and though she had certainly contributed not a little, it was not just that she should not contribute in an equal proportion with Great Britain. But he considered that it was the Property-tax which mainly enabled Great Britain to contribute more in proportion than Ireland had done; and if Ireland had that tax, she could have contributed in her due proportion. He then proceeded to remark on the superior advantages of the Property-tax to those taxes which Ireland now paid, under which there was a great facility of evasion, and an enormous expense of collection. The expense of collecting the revenue in England, under the ordinary heads, was 6l. 3s. 11 s. per cent.; of those in Ireland 14 l. 13 s. per cent. The expense of collecting the Property-tax was only 2l. 3s. 5d. per cent. It was therefore the most advantageous tax, as the great proportion of what was levied on the country came into the Exchequer. The imposition of this tax in Ireland, was far from being a violation of the Union, contemplated in that Act, and mentioned as the eventual means of estimating the relative power of the two countries. The state of the finances of Ireland rendered the adoption of some such measure most urgent. According to the last accounts, the ordinary revenue of Ireland was 5,100,000 l.; the interest of the funded debt 5,400,000 l., leaving a deficiency of 300,000 l. There was an extraordinary revenue, consisting of repayments from Great Britain, of 304,000 l. in the present year; but on the other hand, there was the interest of the unfunded debt, being 125,000 l.; charges of the Irish debt funded in this country, 23,000.; interest of the loan of 1811 for the service of Ireland, 279,000 l. The revenue, therefore, extraordinary and ordinary, was 5,400,000 l.; the expense of the debt, 5,900,000 l. There was besides a debt of 11,600,000 l. due to Great Britain, consisting of 6,100,000 l. excess of expense on the part of Great Britain above the portion stipulated for in the Act of Union; 4,500,000 l. a loan raised in 1811 for the service

853]
of Ireland by this country, and 3¾ years interest of that loan, being 1,046,000 l. Though there was such a deficiency in the revenue of Ireland, there was still to be provided for her share the current expenditure, which at the rate of the expenditure of the last year, was 9,100,000 l. The whole of this, together with the 500,000 l. excess of the interest of debt above the revenue, was to be provided for. It was, and always had been the practice to raise a great portion of the revenue of Ireland by loans, to such an extent, that if Great Britain had followed that plan to the same extent, the capital of our debt would have exceeded its present nominal amount by 400,000,000 l. of stock, or about 223,000,000 l. in money. Ireland ought not to be suffered to run on in the system of borrowing, till she would be no longer able to pay. She was too much in the system of having recourse to loans, which she had raised at 7½ per cent. She had gone back in the last three years four hundred thousand pounds, and was unable even to pay the interest of her debt. But what article would gentlemen say could bear an increase of taxation in Ireland? Could the distilleries or the imports into Ireland bear it? The increase of revenue in 1812, was only in duties on ditilleries, tobacco, &c.: in 1813, on tobacco, hides, and distilleries: in 1814, on auctions, East-India goods, stamps, postage, and a new schedule of the customs. He could not conceive that the present system was advantageous to Ireland, as it was only running her deeper in debt. It was not beneficial to England, as it did not enable Ireland to pay her proportion to the joint expenditure. The hon. gentleman then argued, that as the people of Ireland were assimilated to the people of England in manners and civilization, their system of taxation ought to be assimilated. He did not mean to propose the time or the proportion in which this tax should be extended to Ireland, but he looked to it as an event which ought to be adopted at no great distance. The collection of taxes in Ireland was at present attended with much difficulty. The taxation on distilleries could not be collected in many parts of that country without the assistance of the military. In part of the county of Donegal, soldiers were regularly obliged to be called out to assist in the collection of taxes from the distilleries. What was the state of the country where the taxes could not
[854
be collected without the military? His measure would make the collection of taxes easy, and would have a tendency to make the people amenable to the laws. Therefore, supposing it as turbulent and unlawful as it had been by some persons represented to be, this tax would be properly applied to that country. The lower class would be entirely exempted from it; and those who would be subject to it, were those who were most likely to hold the laws in the highest respect. The man of 50 l. a year would not be at all affected by it. The principle of the tax he considered fair to Ireland as well as to England; for though one was a poorer and the other a richer country, and though ten millions on a poor country would be a heavier burthen than ten millions on a rich country, yet a tenth or a fifth part of the property of each would leave them both in the same relative situation to each other. Another advantage of this tax was, that it could be collected cheaper than the present taxation of Ireland was. He did not mean to say that the tax was an advantage in itself and abstractedly taken; for all taxes were grievances, however necessary, and he did not suppose that the people of England were Fonder of them for their own sake than the people of Ireland; but he meant a comparative advantage. The Property-tax was collected in England for 2l. 3s. 5d. per cent., while the collection of the taxation of Ireland cost 14 l. 13 s. per cent. Besides, the officers in the employment of collecting the present taxes could be employed in the collection of this tax. The general principle of the measure was then the only thing to be considered. Ireland ought to bear her share of the general taxation, and her taxation ought to be put on the best footing. Ireland, he allowed, had made great exertions, but he lamented that those exertions had not been more judiciously applied. If instead of many other of her taxes, she had had this tax since the Union, he was convinced she would now be a much richer, happier, and more prosperous country. It was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland who was to dictate what taxes were or were not fit for her; no, nor even the whole of the members for Ireland: but it was the aggregate wisdom of that House that was to determine what were the taxes most suitable to her. She was a country with an increasing debt, and a decreasing revenue; in the three

835]
last years she had a deficiency of 400,000 l. He calculated up to the 5th of last January. The fact was, that the people of Ireland must have some tax, and therefore there ought to be no hesitation in adopting a mode of taxation winch had been found so beneficial to this country; a mode which alone had enabled us to look the dangers which threatened us in the face. The Property-tax had been proposed for England, as if it was to last only one year; but he was sure if the question could be put with propriety to his right hon. friend, he would say, that he would by no means recommend the taking it off at that period, as he must be aware that it would be impossible to part with a tax so serviceable and indispensable in the situation in which the country was about to be plunged; and it was equally impossible for this part of the empire to bear any longer to give Ireland such favour with respect to the Property-tax as would throw upon England the whole of the burthen. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, "That, for the purpose of carrying the seventh article of the Treaty of Union more effectually into execution, and for enabling Ireland to defray the proportionate part of the joint contribution stipulated therein, it is expedient that the profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices, within that pail of the United Kingdom, be made available towards that object."
Mr. Davies Giddysaid, he had not come to the House with any view of seconding the motion; but after what he had heard, he could not suffer it to fall to the ground, and would therefore support it. He coincided with a great deal of what had been said by the hon. mover, but yet he expressed his unwillingness to press the extension of the Property-tax to Ireland at present, especially as a committee above stairs was occupied in examining the financial concerns of that country; and he was free to say, that if it should appear to that committee that Ireland was incapable of contributing two-seventeenths of the expence of the united empire, he should be ready to entertain a proposition for reducing that proportion, although it was so settled at the period of the Union.
Mr. Vesey Fitzgeraldsaid, that he should most willingly have given way to the right hon. baronet (sir J. Newport, who rose at the same time that he did), par-
[856
ticularly as he feared that he was labouring under severe indisposition; but he was anxious, called upon as he had been, so distinctly and repeatedly by the hon. gentleman in the course of his speech, not to lose any time in setting himself right in the eyes of the House and of the country—and he flattered himself he should be able to show how completely unfounded the basis was, upon which the hon. gentleman had rested the whole of his argument. But before he proceeded to advert to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, the House would forgive him, if he expressed his regret, that his hon. friend (Mr. Davies Giddy) had been induced to second the motion, agreeing, as he did, with the hon. mover only upon general principles, but differing from him on the most important point, namely, the applicability of the measure to Ireland at the present period. For the hon. gentleman, who seconded the motion, had distinctly stated, that he doubted both the policy and the practicability of carrying the motion into effect at present, and had adverted to the expediency, or perhaps the necessity, of a revision of the principles upon which the joint contributions of Great Britain and Ireland were founded at the Union. He was happy to have it in his power to do justice to the sentiments by which that hon. gentleman was animated every where, but particularly in the committee which had been appointed to examine into the state of the finances of Ireland. The question now before the House was of much too high a nature, and embraced too many important considerations, to be argued or decided upon the narrow grounds which the hon. gentleman had urged to the House. It was much too great a question to be treated as a mere naked measure of finance. In considering a question of this nature, it was necessary that the House should bear in mind—indeed, it was impossible to put out of view—the political, the local, the natural state of that country, of which the hon. gentleman had candidly confessed himself to be completely ignorant; or he would rather say, with respect to which the hon. gentleman certainly wanted a great deal of information. The very arguments which he had urged, and the conclusions he had drawn, showed how completely misinformed he was with respect to the state of Ireland.
He should now proceed to follow the hon. gentleman through his statements,

857]
not only for the purpose of vindicating himself and his predecessors, in the office which he had the honour to hold, but to vindicate Ireland from the charges which the hon. gentleman had brought against her. The hon. gentleman had given to the House a statement of the debt of Ireland, of her resources, and of the deficiency of her proportion of the joint contribution. The House would not be surprised if he was not prepared to go minutely into an investigation of all the financial calculations of the hon. gentleman; because it was impossible for him to suppose, that the hon. gentleman would have thought it necessary to introduce them in this discussion. He conceived that it would be merely necessary for him to show to the House, that it would be inexpedient, under the present circumstances, to apply the Property-tax to Ireland, which it was proposed to enact in Great Britain for one year only. It was true that the hon. member had said, that he did not consider that tax as applied in Great Britain for one year only; but it would not be fair to call upon him to refute the opinion which the hon. gentleman chose to entertain upon the subject. The hon. gentleman did not think proper, upon that subject, to give credit to his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had proposed it for one year; or to the House, who had voted it for that period—he took his solitary stand, and said, This tax is not voted for one year, because I think it is not; against such a mode of reasoning, the House would not expect him to contend. But though he had not brought all the documents which would be necessary to enable him to follow the hon. gentleman through the whole of his statement, his memory was sufficiently accurate, he hoped, to enable him to point out innumerable errors into which he had fallen. Indeed, there were some parts of the hon. gentleman's statement, in which his mistakes were so obvious, that they could not escape the observation of those who had paid even the slightest attention to the finances of Ireland. The result, however, of the hon. gentleman's calculations, was, that there was a very considerable balance against Ireland; and as he had applied himself particularly to the last three years, the weight of his charges fell upon him, and upon his right hon. friend who sat near him (Mr. Wellesley Pole). It was, however, a little hard, that as the hon. gentleman had directed his charges against
[858
the last three years of the administration of the finances of Ireland, he should have thought it fair to associate with them the debt contracted in 1811, under circumstances of a very peculiar nature. The hon. gentleman had asserted, that, for the two last years, he (Mr. Fitzgerald) had been unable to provide ways and means to meet the expenses, and had spoken lightly of the exertions made by Ireland in that period—exertions which, he would say without fear of contradiction, were greater than were ever made by any country situated as Ireland was; which were great, even when put in comparison with those of England at the commencement of the present reign, when she was great, powerful, and wealthy. It was not necessary for him to enter into a defence of the transactions of 1811; but he might be permitted to remind the House, that, with respect to that loan, Mr. Perceval then said, not indeed that it was to be considered as cancelled, but that there were circumstances connected with the proportions of the contribution as fixed at the Union, which ought to be maturely considered by Great Britain, and that the consideration of that Loan ought to be deferred till one of those periods, when, by the articles of the Union, the debts of the two countries were to come under the revision of Parliament.
In proceeding to controvert the arguments of the hon. gentleman, he begged that he might not be supposed to insinuate, that the hon. gentleman had intentionally misstated any of the figures, or had urged any argument, of the validity of which he was not himself convinced; he entertained too high an opinion of the hon. gentleman, and felt too sincere a respect for him, to insinuate any thing of the kind; and, therefore, it, in the warmth of discussion, any expression should happen to fall from him that might be supposed capable of such a meaning, he begged to declare, that nothing could be further from his intention. The hon. gentleman began by stating, that besides the loan of 1811, there was 6,100,000 l. due to Great Britain from Ireland, making, together, above eleven millions. And here it was necessary to observe, that the hon. gentleman, throughout the whole of his argument, had done that which it was impossible to do, consistently with any fair or even intelligible view of the subject;—he had formed all his calculations upon the supposition, that the accounts of the year

859]
ending on the 5th of January, were made up on that day. The House knew very well, that the joint accounts were not settled at that period, and, therefore, any arguments or calculations founded upon that supposition, must be erroneous. He begged, in the first place, to observe, that of this sum of 6,100,000 l., 3,500,000 l. remained in the Exchequer of Great Britain, applicable to the uses of the contribution account, and 2,000,000 l. surplus remained in Ireland, to be remitted to this country on further account. Every exertion had been made to accomplish remittances to this country, on account of the debt due on contribution account; but it had been found impossible to make remittances to a greater extent than 1,250,000 l. without injuriously interfering with the mercantile concerns of Ireland. When his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, last year, stated the English Budget, he estimated the whole contribution of Ireland at 8,700,000 l,; but in point of fact, the charge was 10,500,000 l., exceeding the estimate by 1,800,000 l.; and that sum, the hon. gentleman had conceived himself warranted in classing as a part of the debt due by Ireland to Great Britain, for which provision should have been made, although the hon. gentleman ought to have been aware, that the knowledge of this additional charge could only be derived from the documents which had been laid upon the table a few days ago, containing the accounts of the expenditure of each country. Instead, therefore, of a deficiency of 6,100,000 l., as stated by the hon. gentleman, there was, in point of fact, a deficiency only of 800,000 l.; and had it not been for an excess of expenditure over estimate, there would have been a surplus of nearly 1,000,000 l.
The hon. gentleman then adverted to the loans raised for Ireland within the last three years, which, he said, had been raised at 7½ per cent.; he then stated the amount of the tax raised to pay the interest, in which, he said, there was a deficiency of 400,000 l. in the same period as the provision ought to have been 1,600,000 l., and actually produced but 1,200,000 l. He would take upon himself to convince the hon. gentleman, that he was completely mistaken on both those points. In the year 1812, 4,700,000 l. was raised in England, at a charge, including the sinking fund, of 7l. 0s. 9d. per cent.; and a loan was raised in Ireland of 1,500,000 l. at the lesser charge of 6l. 4s.
[860
In 1815, 6,500,000 l. was raised in England, at 7l. 4s. 7d. per cent.; and 2,000,000 l. in Ireland, at 6l. 8s. 1d. And in 1814, 5,958,000 l. was raised in England, at 5l. 18 s. 9d. and 3,000,000 l. in Ireland, at 5l. 11 s. 9d. [Mr. Bankes seeming to doubt the accuracy of the latter statement], Mr. Fitzgerald said, he was quite certain that he was correct; because, though for the reason he had before stated, he had not brought all the necessary documents down to the House, he recollected perfectly well having called the attention of the House, last year, to this extraordinary circumstance, of the Irish Loan having been borrowed on lower terms than the English, notwithstanding the legal rate of interest in Ireland was one per cent, higher than it was in England. The entire charge, therefore, for these years, was, in 1812, 422,000 l.—in 1815, 595,000 l.—and in 1814, 521,000 l., making an aggregate, for the three years, of 1,540,000 l. The estimate of the taxes, to meet this charge, was, in 1812, 468,000 l.—1813, 600,000 l.; and, in 1814, 535,000 l., amounting to 1,605,000 l. He had no objection to meet the hon. gentleman on the ground he had taken, either with respect to the nature of the taxes, or the pace they had kept with the burthens of the country. The increase of the revenue in 1815, over that of 1812, was 1,561,900 l. The estimate of the taxes was 1,603,000 l., the deficiency, therefore, was but 230,000 l.; and, as in the produce which he had stated, credit was only given to him for six months, of the taxes laid on by him last year, he had a just right to assume, that the other half-year's produce would be 267,000 l., which would yield an exceeding of nearly 40,000 l.
He begged to observe, that he should not have been surprised if the new taxes had been unproductive last year, because they frequently were so, not only in Ireland, but in England also, the first year they were laid on. Besides, in Ireland the sources of taxation were so narrow, that individuals were frequently able to anticipate the taxes that were to be imposed, and were consequently enabled very much to diminish the receipt of the tax for a certain period after it was imposed. The hon. gentleman had animadverted upon the materials upon which the taxes in Ireland were imposed; they were, he said, almost always the same, such as the duties on spirits, sometimes raised, sometimes lowered, tobacco, stamps; and

861]
we had last year, said the hon. gentleman, a schedule of the customs. In his enumeration of the articles of taxation, the hon. gentleman had totally omitted the very great augmentation which had taken place in the assessed taxes, and it was some consolation to him to find, that what had been represented as one of the most objectionable of his taxes was so soon forgotten. But was the House aware that what the hon. gentleman had passed so slightly as a mere regulation of the Customs, was, in fact, no less than the important measure of equalizing the whole of the Custom-duties of Ireland to those of Great Britain—a measure more extensive than ever had been adopted in England, and by which the Custom-duties were made permanent in Ireland, as in England, and all the English war-duties were thereby adopted in that country. The House, he hoped, would forgive him for going into this detail, because no one could have supposed that what the hon. gentleman had lightly spoken of as a schedule of the customs, was really such a measure as he had now described. He did not arrogate to himself any credit for having brought forward that measure, because he had merely discharged his duty; but surely, if any man had ever departed from that system, which the hon. gentleman had reproached him with, of not looking difficulties in the face, and making exertions to meet the pressure of the day, he had done it in the instance to which he alluded.
With respect to spirits, he could not help observing that the observations which had been made upon this subject at different times, were extremely inconsistent. When a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Foster) had proposed to diminish the duty on spirits, it was objected to as being calculated to injure the health, and to demoralize the people, by making spirits cheap. When the duties were afterwards raised, partly in consequence of the recommendation of a committee for the purpose of encouraging the use of malt liquor in Ireland, objections were again made, and he thought rather inconsistently, and so thought an hon. gentleman opposite to him (Mr. Wilberforce), who now cheered the hon. gentleman, and supported him, who was himself a member of that committee, and who, on the occasion alluded to, supported the increase of duty on spirits, on the principle of encouraging the consumption of malt-liquor
[862
in preference. So much for 1812.—In 1813,the taxes were on tobacco, excise upon leather, assessed taxes, postage, and malt. There was not one of those taxes that had not exceeded the estimate, particularly the malt-duty. There was, at the same time, a duty of 6d. upon spirits, which was pressed upon him by the representatives of Ireland, and necessarily concurrent with the increased duty on malt. Last year there was the "schedule of the customs;" but the hon. gentleman said, there were spirits again—there was so, but the hon. gentleman knew very well the circumstances under which it was imposed—he knew that it was done to remove, if possible, the jealousies and apprehensions of the distillers of England, and to do away objections that had been urged to the intercourse of spirits, to which Ireland is entitled under the Act of Union. There was a paper, to which the hon. gentleman might have had access, as it had been laid before the Committee of Finances, up stairs. The statements in that paper were of a most satisfactory nature, and with the permission of the House, he would read some extracts from it, to show the inaccuracy both of the hon. gentleman's statements and of his conclusions.
Mr. Fitzgerald then slated, that the produce of malt in 1802, was 116,000 l. in 1811, 348,000 l.—and in 1814, 566,000 l. He would not trouble the House with going through all the small articles contained in that paper, but merely touch upon the leading ones. Spirits, in 1802, produced 270,000 l.—in 1811, 685,000 l.—in 1814, 1,575,000 l. Tobacco, in 1802, gave 140,000 l.—in 1811, 311,000 l.—in 1814, 504,000 l. Hearth-money had in creased from 32,000 l., in 1802, to 64,000 l. in 1814. The Assessed-taxes had been doubled, quadrupled, and quintupled. The Servants duty had been increased fourfold. Windows, in the last three years, had been increased 100,000 l. Without going into more details, he should only observe, that many thousand instances had occurred, in which articles had been brought to charge under the assessed taxes, which had never been made productive before; and he would show, when he came to state his budget to the House, improvements which had been made in the collection of taxes, which were absolutely unexampled.
He would now, with the permission of the House, proceed to state the amount

863]
of the revenues in the three years which the hon. gentleman had selected for his particular animadversion. In 1813, it was 6,016,448 l.—in 1814, 6,160,190 l.—and, in 1815, 6,716,056 l.—[Mr. Bankes said, across the House, "gross revenue?"]—Certainly he was speaking of gross revenue; and he was perfectly justified in so taking it; for the propositions of the joint contribution were founded upon the gross, not the net revenue. The hon. gentleman had repeatedly noticed the difference of the expense of the collection of the revenue in the two countries: in Ireland it was above 14 per cent., whereas, in England, it was little more than 6 per cent. That was true; but the reason must be obvious to any one who considered the different amount of the revenues of the two countries. In the one they were about 65 millions, and in the other about six millions. A moment's reflection must convince the House, that the expense of collection must be greater in Ireland, where, though the sum to be collected was smaller, yet the establishment was nearly as large as it was in Great Britain, and the number of the persons employed nearly as great. But if the revenues of Ireland were to be increased three-fold, the collection would remain the same, and then they would be raised at less than 5 per cent., and, therefore, cheaper than they were collected in Great Britain. The hon. gentleman had of course fallen into a similar fallacy with regard to the Property-tax, which he said was not above 2l. 3s. 5d. per cent. But the hon. gentleman and the House must be aware, that a very large proportion of the Property-tax was collected without any expense at all, he meant that which was deducted from the dividends paid at the Bank. Besides, it was to be recollected, that, in England, the commissioners were not paid.
He thought it right here to advert to a mistake into which the hon. gentleman had fallen—a mistake, however, in which it was highly important, that neither the House nor the hon. gentleman should for a moment continue. The hon. gentleman had stated, that the military in Ireland were employed in the collection of the revenue, and particularly that which was raised upon the distillers. Nothing could be more unfounded than that statement of the hon. member. The revenue in Ireland, of every kind, was raised by the civil officers, employed for
[864
that purpose, without any interference or aid of the military. The mistake of the hon. gentleman, he supposed, was founded upon the circumstance of the military being employed in putting down illegal distillation, and in assisting to apprehend persons who had violated, or were violating the penal law of the country. Outrages certainly had been committed in particular cases, and resistance had been offered; but it was when attempts were made to seize illegal stills, and not when the civil officers were collecting the revenue. He did not mean to conceal facts from the House, or to deny that great outrages had at various times been committed. He did not wish to hide the dark side of the picture; the people of Ireland had enough to be proud of; they were known to be gallant, generous, and brave; and those very disorders which every one lamented, might be the ebullitions of minds, more ardent and less cultivated perhaps than yours, but possessing some of the finest sentiments that adorn human nature. I think, said the right hon. gentleman, I know my country; and if the hon. mover was acquainted, in the slightest degree, with our wishes or our feelings, he would not have described us as he has done to the House to-night. But will not the House require some more data to proceed upon, before they adopt the hon. gentleman's proposition? He repeated—of that proposition he meant not to complain, he felt every respect for the quarter from which it proceeded, and for the public motives by which it was dictated; but had the hon. gentleman formed even the vague estimate of what the produce of this tax in Ireland might be, if we were to proceed upon any of those grounds upon which the Union proportion of contribution had been calculated; and he had no difficulty in saying, that erroneous as he believed them to be, as the measure of our expenditure, or of our means, they would be found still more fallacious as a scale of the respective income or property of the two islands; yet, adopting that proportion for the sake of argument only, the produce of a property-tax in Ireland, taking the highest relative produce which had ever been yielded in Great Britain, the produce from Ireland at 2–17 ths would be (he would state it generally) in amount, 1,600,000 l. The hon. gentleman would bear in mind, and it must not escape the recollection of the House, that this was

865]
giving credit to Ireland for a collection of the tax in the first year of its application, under circumstances of difficulty, which he would advert to by-and-bye, as accurate, as vigilant, and perfect as the experience of sixteen years, and the enactment of successive laws, had made it in Great Britain. If he were to compare the probable produce of tins duty in Ireland, with that which it had yielded in Great Britain on its first introduction there, he need not tell the hon. gentleman 2–17ths would not aid him much in providing ways and means for this single year, for which he had been good enough to undertake for him to find a supply;—but what further, Sir, was to be deducted from this sum of a million and a half, which we thus hope to receive?—first, the Property-tax now paid in this country by Irish proprietors resident in Great Britain. It is difficult to estimate, and impossible to ascertain the amount of that absentee property, which thus contributes to the British exchequer. In the year 1804, the state of the exchanges between Great Britain and Ireland, which had risen to an inordinate height against Ireland, were brought, by a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Foster), under the consideration of a committee of that House. It was many years before he (Mr. Fitzgerald) had the honour of a seat in it; but he recollected it was in evidence before that committee, stated by a gentleman who is since deceased, a man of ability and extensive information, (he meant Mr. Paget, whose house was then, as it is now, under his successor, Mr. Bainbridge, the principal medium of remittance between Great Britain and Ireland, as well of private remittance, as of all those sums which are sent over on account of the Irish Treasury)—it was stated by him, and he (Mr. Fitzgerald) had reason to think understood, that the remittances of absentees rents alone amounted to 2,000,000 l. annually. If we considered the great increase of the number of our absentees, which was natural, and of which, whatever might be the local effect in the country winch they left, it would be idle in him to complain, for it was out of our power to control it—if we considered further the great increase which the hon. gentleman was justified, he admitted, in stating, as an additional ground of the motion which he had submitted, in the rent and value of our lands, it would not be too much to estimate the remittances to
[866
absentees at the annual sum of 3,000,000 l. He was sure that he was warranted in estimating it at this sum. The tax received upon Irish rents in the Exchequer of England, was 300,000 l. This sum, then, was to be deducted from the gross produce which was expected from the duty on Irish property; for he did not suppose that the hon. gentleman would, if his principle was to be extended to Ireland, propose that this portion of the duty should remain in the British Treasury; if he did so, and thus charge the Irish landlord twice over, it would, indeed, be the most effectual absentee tax that could be suggested:—that which he (Mr. Fitzgerald) had thrown out as feasible in the last year, was but a trifle to it; and yet gentlemen had then started, even at the spectre of a tax, which would have affected the land of the absentee. But, to return—300,000 l. per annum was to be deducted on this head: there was another deduction to be made also, and we could get more accurately at the grounds of that; the dividends upon that portion of the Irish debt, which had been created in this country, and of which the interest was payable here, were already subjected to the Property-tax; and thus the resources of Ireland were made to contribute to that amount of British duty which had been stated. That is, either her means had paid you so much, or provision had been, found for it in these successive loans which had now become her permanent charge. The amount of our funded debt in Great Britain on the 5th of January last, was 94,000,000 l.; he hoped this year would not add much more than ten millions. The interest payable in Great Britain on that debt, was upwards of 4,000,000 l.; but allowing for that portion of the debt which, was redeemed, he might state the amount of Property-tax thus received from Ireland, at 300,000 l. more. You thus receive on her debt as much as from the absentee proprietors. Your estimated produce, then, in Ireland is reduced to 1,000,000 l. Did the hon. gentleman promise—did he even hope, that in the first year of its application, in any year of its application, the collection of that duty-could be made as effectual, or the duty itself relatively as effectual as the experience of years had made it in Great Britain?
He was ready to do justice to the public spirit of the English nation, to that spirit which had carried the country though the greatest contest in which any country had

867]
ever been engaged; that spirit, he knew, was not extinct; and if we were again to assume the proud character which in the last war we had sustained, not less by the firm perseverance of the people, than by the successes of those armies whom a Wellington led, we should find, in that public spirit and constancy, which all classes of society had manifested, resources for the contest—far, far beyond what a measure of finance could give, or any revenues, from either country, though they had been called war's sinews, and were no contemptible weapons of war. But while he admitted all this—while he admitted that public spirit which he was convinced, in many instances, would not evade the fair, the legitimate, the lavish contribution to the public exigency; yet, had we not heard hon. gentlemen, even while approving the principle, yet complaining of its inquisitorial power? Upon what ground does my right hon. friend (Mr. Vansittart) resist the modifications which are so earnestly proposed, but that it is his duty to guard against those evasions which, even in England, would be attempted—which in every country would be attempted, and which, if the hon. gentleman would prevent in Ireland, he must give us something more than his naked resolution—something more than a mere assertion of principle;—he must show us that assimilation is not only good, but will be productive in a greater degree, than the application of any other principles is likely to prove. But, how productive? By what machinery does he propose that his duties are to be collected? Does he expect to find a class of men corresponding to those who act as commissioners of the Property-tax in that part of the United Kingdom with which he is acquainted, who are to be our un-salaried commissioners? To whom, said the right hon. gentleman, are we to confide this inquisition of a people? I would rather dwell with pleasure on those traits of national character, of which, as an Irishman, I am proud, than on that state of our society, than on those habits of our gentry, those unhappy feelings which religious and political differences have produced, and any or all of which leave us without that body of persons, who in England discharge so many important duties, and to whom none are confided more important than this. But, Sir, look at your own Acts; look at the complicated machinery which you employ, look at
[868
the corrected failures of one system, and the anticipated failure of another—in the first instance, the commissioners of your Land-tax to be commissioners of this Act, and to be chosen at a general meeting convened by the sheriff; the hon. gentleman is perhaps not aware that we have no persons in Ireland corresponding with them—yet these, Sir, are to choose commissioners, from whom I know not. I will not weary the House with the enumeration in the detail, but I think there are 57 cases of commissioners enumerated in the different Acts. I do not now refer to this as a further illustration of the inexpediency, of the absurdity, I had almost said, of creating this fabric for even a single year. I do not desire or wish to prove further than I have already done, how ridiculous it would be to enact for this year, to take as the source of that revenue which ought to flow into the Exchequer before that year is elapsed, a system of complicated operation, which it would take three years of industry equal to the hon. gentleman's, and of a zealous desire to collect Irish revenues, not less than his, to make available or productive: but I refer to this, to show that all the revenue which the hon. gentleman would thus collect, is not to be considered as clear gain. I believe he has more than once adverted to the expense of the collection of our revenue: I hope he will find in many branches of it, that since I have had the honour of administering that department, that expense has been diminished. At the same time it is inevitably greater than the example of Great Britain would lead those who are unacquainted with the subject to expect: but what is to be the expense of these new establishments in Ireland?—At least, we do not desire what I have seen some of the public prints impute to my right hon. friend (Mr. Vansittart), as his motive fop continuing the tax in England—this multiplication of new appointments, those armies of well-paid commissioners and assessors, whom the hon. gentleman, contrary to his ancient principles of economy, would create. In a word, Sir, the expense would interfere seriously, indeed, with, the hon. gentleman's project, however plausible it may seem. I am convinced, that, after the deductions which I have stated—after allowing for the expense which would attend its collection, the residue would not only not supersede the necessity of a great loan, would not only not

869]
enable us, after the example of England, to raise within the year, those supplies which the expenditure of the coming year will call for, but that its produce would fall far short of those taxes which it will be my duty to propose as provision for the Loan. They will be, I lament to say, of unexampled amount; but I shall not shrink from my duty in proposing, and I trust the country, even by these discussions, will not be unprepared to bear them; this will afford a permanent provision for the interest of that debt which we must contract, while the proposition of the hon. gentleman would give us only a tax for a single year—a tax which, if he is sincere in hoping that it will last in England only for the period of its present proposed enactment, he must also hope that we should be obliged, in Ireland, to repeal it; and I would ask him, where the public creditor was to look for his permanent security, or if he would be then ready to suggest other measures to supply the necessary deficiency of our revenue?
I think, Sir, that I have stated enough to justify me in resisting the hon. gentleman's motion, and in calling upon the House to resist it. I have shown, I hope to the satisfaction of the House, that the tax being proposed in England for one year, it could not be taken as a permanent provision for payment of that debt which we must create. I think I have a right to say, that this measure which he suggests, could not be fairly in operation until long after that period at which we hope to see its expiration in Great Britain. I have endeavoured to prove that so large a proportion of your duty in England must be affected by the deduction which in common fairness must be made, that even you would have to find fresh means, to no inconsiderable amount, to compensate that deficiency; and I am firmly convinced, that without reference to any local or political circumstances of the country, the creation of a system so widely complicated, and of such accumulated expense, would detract so much from the internal produce of the tax, that, if I had been satisfied to take this alone as the provision for the present year, in the expectation that it would be sufficient, I should have been deceiving both Parliament and myself. In what I have ventured to offer, I have taken a view only comparative of the motion of which the hon. gentleman has made, and of the means to which I shall myself recur. It
[870
is not from any fear of public obloquy, that I avoid what he calls the only statesman-like measure of finance. I am not ashamed to avow that I value popularity; I should be ashamed of myself if I did not; but it is that popularity which follows one's actions, and not which one's actions follow. If the necessities of the country should still unhappily continue, and we are to be placed either on a war expenditure, or obliged to continue in that state of military preparation of which the expenditure is as great as that of war, it may be my duty to propose to Parliament, a measure as strong as that which now I deprecate; from the performance of that duty I shall not shrink. I shall find in the public necessity my justification, if indeed any justification be necessary in the eyes of those who have never been backward when they could prove their attachment to the common cause; when they could participate in your dangers, or contribute to the glory of the empire. Sir, I shall say no more—what my feelings are on this subject is of little moment; but Ireland awaits with hope and with confidence the decision of the House of Commons.
Sir John Newportdeclared, that the right hon. gentleman had so ably vindicated the state and exertions of Ireland, that he had left him little to say. In 14 years since the Union, Ireland had brought into the Exchequer of the country considerably upwards of 60 millions, or more than four millions and a half annually, by taxes, exclusively of what she had been called on to produce by way of loan. He trusted the House would not vote an abstract proposition of this nature, as it would throw a firebrand of irreparable injury between both countries, which would be most fatal to Ireland.
Mr. Peelmade a few observations in support of the arguments of his right hon. friend, (Mr. V. Fitzgerald). If a tax were proposed, the collection of which was not feasible, it was doing nothing whatever for the country. He thought the Property-tax of England might operate for Ireland as an Absentee tax.
Sir H. Montgomerysaid, he had in all the stages opposed the renewal of the Property-tax, as the means of entering into a new war, which he deprecated as ruinous to the finances and security of the country. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer, that persons competent to assess and collect the tax in

871]
Ireland were not to be found, and that, therefore, it was particularly unfit to be introduced into Ireland. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland had estimated the annual amount of absentee income, which was spent in this country, and from which Ireland derived no benefit, at three millions annually, and the amount of the interest of debt payable to English creditors at four millions; the Income-tax on which, amounting to 700,000 l. a year, ought in justice to be carried to the credit of Ireland, which would make good the present deficiency in the revenue, and provide for the loan of the year. In reply to the Secretary for Ireland he said, there was this difference in the tax proposed in the Irish parliament on absentees and the present tax, that the first was receivable in aid of the Irish revenue, and the present tax was payable into the Treasury of England.
Mr. Grattanobserved, that he had heard with the greatest pleasure the able arguments of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland, and that he entirely coincided in opinion with him on the subject.
Mr. Bankesreplied. After which the House divided:

Yeas

5

Noes

78

Majority

—73

TREATY OF VIENNA—RUSSIAN LOAN IN HOLLAND.
Earl Grey, adverting to the allusion in the first article of the Treaty of Vienna, to certain stipulations which had been previously entered into, observed, that unless their lordships were in possession of those stipulations, it would be impossible for them to enter fully into the consideration of the Treaty itself.
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that the stipulations alluded to formed part of those prior proceedings of the Congress which in due time would be submitted to the consideration of Parliament.
Earl Greysaid, there was another point with respect to which he was desirous of having some explanation. He had received information of so extraordinary a nature, that had it not come from good, from indisputable authority, he should be inclined to think that it was not true. He had been informed that some time
[818
ago the Russian Government had negociated a loan in Holland, to the amount of ten millions, for which the Russian Government alone was liable. At the Congress of Vienna, however, an arrangement had been made, as he had been informed, by which it was agreed that Russia should pay only one half of this sum—that a quarter of it was to be paid by Holland, and the other quarter by Great Britain. Now, if this was correct, the British Government and nation had been pledged to the payment of a sum of no less than two millions and a half without any previous communication to Parliament, or any communication to Parliament, having as yet been made on the subject. This was a most extraordinary step in the Executive Government, to engage the faith of the country for a sum, the payment of which must lay so heavy an additional burthen on the people, without any intimation to Parliament on the subject either before or after the engagement had been entered into. He wished the noble lord to explain how this stood, and to state whether such an engagement had been really entered into under the circumstances which he had stated.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he was ready to admit, that as no taxes could be raised in this country without the consent and aid of Parliament, no obligations could be contracted of the nature to which, the noble earl had referred, except subject to the condition, that Parliament would adopt the obligation, and take the requisite steps for its fulfilment. Further than that, he did not feel himself justified in giving any explanation at this moment; but such a stipulation, if it had been entered into, must come in its regular course before Parliament, by which alone the means of payment could be furnished.
Earl Greysaid, he knew perfectly that no taxes could be raised in this country without the consent and aid of Parliament, and that in that sense every such engagement must be subject to the condition, that Parliament would enable the Executive to fulfil it. But in the mean time Parliament, by the proceeding to which he had adverted, was put in this predicament, that they must either exact the money and impose the burthen on the nation, or they must violate the national faith pledged by the Executive Government. It was on this account that, before such an engagement was formed, Parliament ought to have been consulted,

819]
and he therefore wished the noble earl to state, whether it was true that such an engagement had been entered into without any communication having before or since been made to Parliament.
The Earl of Liverpoolcould only repeat what he had before said, that no such engagement could be formed, except subject to the opinion and control of Parliament; and he did not feel himself warranted in giving any further explanation at present.
Earl Greyremarked, that he must consequently understand that the noble earl did not deny but that such an engagement had been entered into on the part of this country without any intimation to Parliament.
The Earl of Darnleyadverted to the statement of the noble earl (Liverpool), in moving a late Address to the Prince Regent, that Parliament was pledged to nothing by agreeing to that Address, but to a consent that the country should be placed in a state of preparation. He understood, however, that at the time of moving that Address, the noble earl had in his possession the Treaty concluded between the Allies at Vienna, pledging themselves to renew the war. The noble earl ought to have communicated that circumstance to the House when he moved the Address.
The Earl of Liverpool, in reply, stated, that by the Address of the 7th of April Parliament had pledged itself only to a concurrence in placing the country in a state of preparation, and nothing further. He had no hesitation in avowing that on the day previous to the vote of that Address, his Majesty's Government were in possession of the Treaty. There were circumstances, however, which rendered it improper for his Majesty's ministers to mention it on that occasion. He would state one. He had himself, in moving the Address on the 7th of April, observed that it was not the policy of his Majesty's Government to urge the Continental Powers into any measures beyond their own sense of necessity. The Treaty adverted to by the noble earl was signed at Vienna on the 25th of March, at which period, although the present ruler of France had reached Paris, yet the Allied Powers were not in possession of that fact, or that the King of France had quitted it. Under those circumstances it was not considered just towards our Allies to deem the Treaty a conclusive engagement on
[820
their part, until they became apprized of the facts of which they were ignorant at the time of their framing it.
The Earl of Darnleystill thought their lordships ought to have been informed of the existence of this Treaty, before they were called upon to vote the Address. He wished to know if the Treaty was now to be deemed conclusive?
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that his observations referred to circumstances at a former period, not at the present. Now the Treaty was unquestionably concluded, and directions had been given to our minister to ratify it, subject to an explanation.

MOTION RESPECTING THE TRANSFER OF GENOA.*
The Marquis of Buckinghamrose to submit to their lordships his motion on the subject of the transfer of Genoa to the king of Sardinia. When he had the honour to call their lordships attention to that subject on a former occasion, he was informed that the time was not yet come for entering fully into that question, or giving the necessary explanations respecting it. Now, however, the time had arrived—that time so much longed for by the noble earl opposite had at last come; and he now requested their lordships attention to the result. He had called for information on the subject, and ministers had given him half of what he asked. They had produced some papers relative to this transfer, and such papers only as they themselves thought fit to produce—and what was the result? The case before rested on such a statement as he had been enabled to make from other sources of information, and on such arguments as he had been enabled to adduce. It now rested on the papers produced by the Executive Government themselves; and the result was, that every statement he had made had been confirmed—that every argument which he had used was fully supported, and the whole case completely established. Foul and disgraceful to the nation as he had stated this proceeding to be, it sunk almost to nothing when compared with the foul and disgraceful proceeding which appeared in these papers. When we summoned the nations to rise and oppose the violation of treaties and broken faith, we ought to be sure that we ourselves had
* For copies of the Papers relating to Genoa, referred to in the course of this debate, see p. 387.

821]
not supported a violation of faith and promises solemnly pledged to the Genoese. Ministers had in these papers made out a case against themselves. The national faith had been solemnly pledged to the Genoese that their former government should be restored, and that pledge had been violated. The Genoese had been transferred to the king of Sardinia, and the violation was complete: but still this country might do itself the justice to refuse its approbation to the conduct of the Executive. This was a most important point, with a view to the war which appeared to be about to commence. Uncertain and contradictory orders and instructions, vacillating counsels, violated faith, and broken promises, marked the conduct of ministers throughout the great crisis which had lately taken place. It appeared that in 1811 a noble friend of his (marquis Wellesley), whom at that moment he did not see in his place, had recommended the policy of attempting to rouse the people of Italy to shake off the French yoke, by promising them independence and restoration to their ancient governments. That noble marquis had also sketched out the plan of co-operation, which had since proved the salvation of Europe, and strongly recommended its adoption; and ministers could hardly have been aware of the inference that might be drawn from that document, otherwise they surely would not have produced it: but it showed clearly, that the object, even at that time, was to endeavour to gain the co-operation of the Italian states against the common enemy, by a promise of independence and a restoration to their ancient governments. At a subsequent period, his noble friend opposite (earl Bathurst) had sent out a dispatch to lord William Bentinck, then commanding our forces in Italy, instructing him not to transfer Genoa to the king of Sardinia without the entire and direct concurrence of the Genoese people. These instructions appeared to have been withheld by lord Castlereagh, who himself acted as the Executive Government; at least he talked of having withheld some dispatch, which he supposed to be this. [Lord Bathurst said, that was not the dispatch which was withheld.] It was immaterial to the argument whether it was or not: but such were the instructions given by his noble friend; and upon the faith of these instructions, Genoa had been entered, and a proclamation had been issued, by which, as he contended, the faith of
[822
the British Government was pledged to the restoration of their ancient government to the Genoese. Had they consented to the tranfer of their state to the king of Sardinia? Had they not, on the contrary, expressed the utmost objection to it? His noble friend opposite had instructed lord William Bentinck to attend to the wishes of the people respecting their government. "Don't mind the wishes of the people;" said lord Castlereagh, "make no arrangements without consulting the Austrian commander;" and thus the people of Genoa were transferred to a power to which they had long been opposed by every feeling which could animate one nation against another. The promises of independence and restoration to their ancient government had been liberally made, when it was problematical whether we should ever be called upon to make good these promises: but when the moment for their fulfillment seemed fast approaching, then we began to draw back, and to shrink from the performance, At the treaty of Chaumont the object of the Allies was declared to be the independence of nations, and their restoration to their ancient governments. The Genoese and lord William Bentinck had heard of this, and reckoned upon it. His lordship had issued his proclamation upon these principles, and the Genoese had assisted him in taking possession of their city upon the faith of the principles contained in that Treaty. It was clear it was no conquest, but a voluntary admission of our troops, upon the understanding that the British nation stood pledged to restore them their ancient form of government. Lord William Bentinck had been so instructed, and he was sure ministers could not deny that such had been his instructions. But lord Castlereagh had at last discovered that the proclamation related only to a provisional government for Genoa, and the discovery was made in this way: the duke of Campo-Chiaro, Murat's minister, had noticed this proclamation, and finding the principle of the restoration of the ancient governments there stated, he applied to lord Castlereagh, who had guaranteed Naples to his master. This proclamation proceeds on the principle of restoring their ancient governments to the states of Italy, and in that way Naples would be restored to the old family, and in that case what becomes of your guarantee? Lord Castlereagh upon this sent to lord William Bentinck, stating that there were some things

823]
in his proclamation which might be liable to misconstruction,—that nothing ought to be done which should preclude the effect of the arrangements which it might be thought proper to make at the Congress,—that a provisional government merely ought to be formed, and the people to be kept quiet in the mean time. Lord William Bentinck, who felt like a British soldier, informed lord Castlereagh that the people were unanimous in preferring their ancient government. What would have been the reply of an honest man—he meant of an honest statesman, for he was to be understood always as only speaking of lord Castlereagh in his public capacity,—what would have been the reply of an honest statesman? That the people must have their ancient government, according to their wishes, and the prospect held out to them. But lord Castlereagh, who, while he had guaranteed Naples to Murat, appeared to have been engaged in the design of restoring the old family, proceeded in a different way. The Genoese were to await the arrangements of the Congress, and were at last, in direct opposition to their wishes and their protest, transferred to the king of Sardinia. It could not surely be pretended, that the provisional government, established by lord William Bentinck, was appointed for the purpose of a temporary administration, till the determination of the Congress was known. A provisional government was appointed, but, certainly, with no such views as that. He requested their lordships' particular attention to the proclamation itself. Their lordships would there find, beyond all possibility of doubt, that the provisional government was framed, not with a view to any arrangements at the Congress, but merely for the purpose of providing for the administration of the affairs of the state till the proper steps could be taken for the restoration of the old form of government. This was undoubtedly the object and meaning of all the parties at the time; and it was, as he conceived, impossible to found an argument upon that ground in favour of the conduct of the British Government. The national faith, therefore, in this transfer, had been shamefully violated. The conduct of Great Britain in regard to Spain, Portugal, Holland, and Sicily, had been held out to the people of Italy, as examples of the integrity and good faith of the British Government: but what was the proceeding with respect to these coun-
[824
tries? Spain had been liberated and restored to its ancient government; Portugal had also been liberated, and still retained its ancient government, and the same was the case with Sicily. Holland had been liberated, and its ancient government restored. The people must have conceived that their ancient government was to be restored to them; and yet the result was, that in spite of promises and engagements direct and implied, Genoa was transferred to the king of Sardinia. And even with respect to the king of Sardinia himself, how was the promise of restoring the ancient governments and states preserved? The king of Sardinia was deprived of part of his dominions, and that part was, by the Treaty of Paris, given to France. It was the most vulnerable part, too; opening to the French a passage into Italy, without striking a blow. It was then necessary to cast about for an indemnity to the king of Sardinia, and thus Genoa was delivered up to him. And here he must, once for all, protest against the plan of a Secretary of State going abroad, and taking upon himself the whole executive government, which ought to reside in the Sovereign alone. The noble marquis then examined the spirit in which the British Government had acted as to the Genoese. The general was to give them their old constitution if they resisted; and they did so, and he then gave them over to the king of Sardinia. Then came lord Castlereagh's cold and contemptuous note, talking of the Prince Regent's generosity, and in the same breath sealing the fate of that ill-used people. Then they were told to apply to Congress, and at Congress they were handed over to three commissioners, of whom the French one, M. de Noailles, declined having any thing to do with the matter, unless England gave up her treaty with Murat. And this was our policy, and this the way Europe was to be reconciled! The noble marquis here appealed to older and wiser men among their lordships than himself, whether it was constitutional in any man to make himself, as lord Castlereagh had done, a walking depositary of royal authority? The constitution did not, he was convinced, authorize any individual to go out of the country, taking with him the power of the Crown, and subsequently issuing instructions directly contrary in their spirit to those which originally emanated from the Government to which he belonged. He

825]
denied also the right of the great Powers of Europe to constitute themselves into a tribunal—to summon before them the Sovereigns of independent states not conquered by their arms—to inflict penalties upon those Sovereigns, and ultimately to share among themselves the advantages thus obtained. It was, he said, a tame and cold-blooded insult on the part of lord Castlereagh, and unworthy of an honest statesman; it was a gross instance of political hypocrisy, to tell the Genoese how happy he was to be the instrument of carrying into effect the Prince Regent's wish to watch over their interests, at the very moment that he was consenting to the destruction of their independence. In vain did the people of Genoa protest to the last against their annexation to Sardinia. The Congress would not even insert the Genoese protest in their protocol. He called on their lordships to wipe off the stain which the character of the country had received in this transaction. Whatever might be the result of the dreadful contest in which we seemed about to be engaged, he was solicitous that at least we should not be depressed by the weight of our own delinquency. The noble marquis concladed by moving the following Resolutions:

1. "That it appears to this House that the earl Bathurst, one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state, in consequence of information which had been received by the British Government respecting the disposition of the inhabitants of Genoa and Piedmont, did, by a letter dated the 28th December, 1813, instruct' lieut.-general lord William Bentinck, 'if any circumstances should occur to encourage the 'inhabitants to rise against the government 'of France, to lose no time in giving every 'possible assistance; and further, provided it were clearly with their entire 'concurrence, to take possession of Genoa 'in the name and on the behalf of his 'Sardinian Majesty.'

2. "That it further appears to this House that lieutenant-general lord William Bentinck, acting under the aforesaid instructions, did, some time previous to the 14th March, 1814, disembark at Leghorn with the British forces under his command, and did on that day issue a proclamation calling on the Italians 'to vin'dicate their own rights and to be free,' and concluding with these words, 'Only 'call, and we will hasten to your relief, 'and then Italy, by our united efforts, will
[826
'become what she was in her most prosperous periods and what Spain now is.'

3. "That it further appears that, previous to the 26th April, 1814, the inhabitants of Gesoa having been invited 'to vindicate their rights,' as aforesaid, and, in consequence of such invitation, having materially contributed to oblige the French garrison to surrender that city, lord William Bentinck entered Genoa, and issued on the said 26th April, 1814, 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,

'1st, 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-established.
'3rd, That a Provisional Government, 'consisting of thirteen individuals, and 'formed into two colleges, as heretofore, 'shall immediately be appointed, and 'shall continue in office until the 1st of 'January 1815, when the two Colleges 'shall be filled up in the number required 'by the constitution.
'6th, That the two colleges shall pro-'pose to the lesser and greater councils all 'the measures which they shall judge ne'cessary for the entire re-establishment of 'the ancient form of government.'

4. "That in a letter to lord Castlereagh one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state, enclosing the aforesaid proclamation, and informing him of the measures which had been taken in consequence 'of the unanimous desire expressed by the 'Genoese to return to their ancient state,' lord William Bentinck did, amongst other things, represent that 'the Genoese universally desired the restoration of their 'ancient republic,' and that they 'dreaded 'above all other arrangements their annexation to Piedmont, to the inhabitants 'of which there had always been a peculiar aversion.'

5. "That it does not appear that any subsequent dispatch or instruction from lord Castlereagh, or any other of his Majesty's ministers, did convey to lord William Bentinck the opinion of the British

827]
Government, that he had exceeded his powers in issuing the said proclamation of the 26th April 1814, or in the proceedings consequent thereon; and that, in point of fact, the said proclamation never has been disavowed in any public act of his Majesty's Government, or by any letter, dispatch, or instruction to lord William Bentinck, or by any declaration to the Genoese people.

6. "That it appears that on the 11th of May a forcible representation was made to lord Castlereagh by M. Pareto, the minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary of the Government of Genoa, of the continued desire of the Genoese to return to their ancient government, of 'their invincible repugnance to a foreign 'domination,' of their confident reliance on the assurances given them 'by the 'commander of the British forces, the 'depositary of the intentions of the British 'Government,' and of their just expectations that 'his royal highness the Prince 'Regent, sanctioning what had been done 'in his name by lord William Bentinck, 'would employ his good offices with the 'Allied Powers to induce them to acknowledge the re-establishment of the republic of Genoa, and of the integrity and 'Contiguity of its territory.'

7. "That similar representations of the wishes and hopes of the Genoese, together with further representations of the injury which would be done to them by the transfer of their territory to a foreign dominion, not only as it would affect their rights and liberties, but their commercial interests, and the internal prosperity of their country, were repeatedly and at various times submitted to his Majesty's Government, and more particularly in a Paper of Observations communicated by M. Pareto on the 18th of May, and in a Protest against 'any resolutions that 'might be taken contrary to the rights 'and independence of Genoa,' laid before their excellencies the ambassadors and ministers assembled at the Congress at Vienna on the 10th December 1814, by the marquis de Brignoli, the minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary of that government.

8. "That, notwithstanding these repeated claims and remonstrances, and in violation of the solemn engagements contracted by lord William Bentinck on the part of the British Government with the Genoese people, it appears that lord Castlereagh, in a letter dated the 17th De-
[828
cember, 1814, in which was enclosed 'the final decision of the Powers who 'signed the Treaty at Paris, annexing the 'State of Genoa, under certain conditions, 'to the crown of Sardinia,' did instruct lieut.-general John Dalrymple, then commanding the British forces in Genoa, 'to 'take the necessary measures in concert 'with the existing Provisional Government, 'to deliver over the same, in conformity 'with the decision above mentioned, to 'the King of Sardinia, or to such persons 'as his Sardinian Majesty may appoint to 'take charge thereof, continuing himself to act with the troops under his command as an auxiliary corps at the disposal of 'his Sardinian Majesty, until he received 'further orders.'

9. "That it appears, that, in conformity to the foregoing instructions, the government of Genoa was delivered over accordingly by sir John Dalrymple to the officers appointed to take charge thereof by his Sardinian Majesty, and that the submission of the Genoese to this transfer of their government and territory to a foreign power was secured and enforced, and is still maintained by the continued occupation of that city by a British force.

10."That the conduct of his Majesty's Government, in thus availing itself of the occupation of the Genoese territory by a British force, which they owed, in a considerable degree, to the amicable disposition of the inhabitants, in order to make a compulsory transfer of the possession and sovereignty thereof to a Foreign Power, was not only a violation of the promises held out in lord William Bentinck's declaration of the 14th March, and of the implied engagement by which the British troops were received by the Genoese nation, but also a manifest breach of the public faith, expressly pledged to that republic by his Majesty's general, sufficiently authorized to that effect, and never disavowed by his Majesty's Government; and that this measure was also wholly repugnant to those general principles of policy and justice, which it was equally the interest and the duty of this country to uphold in all the discussions respecting a final settlement of the affairs of Europe."

The first Resolution being put,
Earl Bathurstobserved, that there had been so little reluctance to meet this motion, that every paper was given at once; but that he was so strongly aware of the impropriety of discussing these matters in their present state, that he should only

829]
go into a short detail, which, however, would be quite sufficient to clear away the charge of ill-faith brought against this country. The first fact which he should state, related to the promises supposed to be held out to the Genoese. So far back as 1809, there had been in Italy parties who were anxious to get rid of the French. They had made proposals to Austria, which were declined, from the improbability to their being able to effect them, and subsequent events appeared justify that conclusion; but nothing could be more unsettled than the sentiments of those parties on the government they were to re-establish. Some were for a great republic, some for federative governments, some, and probably the majority, for a king and free constitution. The extent of the new kingdom to the South, was also matter of division. From this want of consent it happened, that when the fairest prospect of success was opened, the North of Italy never stirred. The instructions of the 28th of December, 1813, which were quoted as encouraging the Italians to insurrection, did no such thing. They merely said—Rise, and we, on receiving information of it, will assist you. This was what we said to Spain and Holland. Rise first, show that you have the spirit and the means; we will then help you, though we will not hurry you into an unprepared conflict. Those instructions did not, however, reach lord W. Bentinck till after the 2d of February, 1814, previously to which he had sent a confidential person on the invitation of marshal Bellegarde to the Austrian camp, to concert his further movements. Italy was then before them, completely under the domination of the enemy. Marshal Bellegarde gave the British general his alternative of an attack on Genoa or Leghorn. The advantage of the former was, that the city was then ill garrisoned; that of the latter, the securing a retreat in case of disaster. Lord William Bentinck took possession of Leghorn. By this time the garrison of Genoa was made up from two to four or five thousand men. The place was regularly attacked like any other fortress, the strong works round it taken, and the bombardment prepared. The Genoese had never moved. Now, however, they did so; for a deputation of the citizens with some French officers, came out from the city begging art armistice, both to prevent the bombardment, and for the sake of the delay, as, from the events of the time, peace might
[830
be expected in a few days. And this was the movement of the Genoese. [Hear, hear! from the Ministerial bench.] Yes, what was the movement at last? Why, it was simply to leave the town within an armistice which might have and was expected to have placed it within a peace, and secured it to France, in the very probable case that the possessions of the belligerents should be left as they were at the end of hostilities. What did the Genoese do to expel the French?—nothing. Lord William Bentinck called his taking the city a conquest. There could be no more honourable mean, and he could not have so called it if it was not strictly so. Undoubtedly the people did not fight for the French; undoubtedly they were hostile, but they did nothing for the Allies. They might, of course, have rendered the conquest more difficult by their opposition. So might the people of Martinique; but they were not therefore the deliverers over of their island, nor entitled to obtain any new rights upon that ground. But as to the offer of freedom, the noble marquis said the proclamation offered regeneration: it was not easy to know what he might mean by regeneration, but it was not a common word for a return to an old government. But it was so perfectly known that a British officer could make no permanent political arrangement without a direct instruction, that there was no people in Europe who could be duped by the idea. The British general had no such instruction. The original instructions contemplated a case of insurrection, which did not exist; and even then his instructions only went to giving over Genoa to the king of Sardinia, in case the Genoese were not adverse to it. The case not existing, the instructions had no force; but in the mean time came lord Castlereagh's instructions, which positively directed that no definitive arrangement should be entered into, but for Tuscany, and the king of Sardinia's territory. Those were the only states to be restored to their old governments. The plain proof that restoration was not understood, was that the marquis Campo-Chiaro conceived that it was intended to render Italy independent. A proof, too, that lord Castlereagh's letter was considered to be the direction, was in lord William Bentinck's returning his answer to lord Castlereagh, and not to him (lord Bathurst). He contended, first, that this arrangement was not considered as final by the people of Genoa,

831]
who prayed a confirmation of it from lord Castlereagh. He cited a letter from M. Pareto, from which it appeared that he understood it was not the intention of the British Government to re-establish the republic; and lord Castlereagh, in his instructions to lord William Bentinck, expressly desired him, if it had been understood by any of the Genoese that the proclamation pledged our Government to the re-establishment of the republic, that he should explain our real intentions to them: he desired that it might not be considered as prejudging any future system; and requested lord William to conciliate them, and to avoid alluding to the ancient form of their government in terms which might excite their disappointment, should the future arrangement be different from that form. It therefore became his duty to explain the case to the Genoese, which was thus not to be considered as prejudged: and it would be injustice to him not to suppose that the moment he received this dispatch, he explained what had thus been the subject of misconstruction. The length of time which had elapsed between the establishing of the provisional government, and the declaration of its permanent destination, had been relied upon on the other side; and it had been argued that a reasonable expectation that the provisional government would become permanent had grown out of that length of time, or indeed had made it so: but in answer to this, he recurred to the declarations of the Genoese themselves, that they did not consider it as permanent; and to the meeting of Congress they sent a representative, not merely with a view of remonstrating against their being annexed to Piedmont, but to know on what condition they were to be so annexed. This would indeed be an extraordinary proposition, if they had thought their republic was permanently re-established. They submitted their projet to three ministers, the particulars of which did not appear, except one, in which they proposed the title which the king of Sardinia was to take, upon the annexation of Genoa to his dominions; and they had even gone so far as to propose that he should be called 'king of Liguria.' Upon the whole, he thought there never was a charge more confidently urged, or more weakly supported, than the present one, which endeavoured to throw on the Government of this country the imputation of violating the national faith.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that the noble earl, in his anxiety to justify himself and his colleagues, had misrepresented (unintentionally no doubt) the facts contained in the instructions to lord William Bentinck. The sentence in those instructions was, that if circumstances should occur to encourage a rising of the inhabitants, they were to be employed by that commander: they did so occur, and lord William, therefore, in encouraging them, only acted according to his instructions.
Lord Boringdonthought that the question respecting Genoa could not be adequately gone into without a full knowledge of all the proceedings of Congress; but, at the same time, he approved of the principle of consolidating the different states on the frontiers of France, to prevent a recurrence of those evils from which Europe had so recently been delivered. He vindicated ministers, denied that they had committed any breach of good faith towards the Genoese, and hoped that none of his noble friends for their personal justification would be induced to give any premature information on the subject.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that after an attentive perusal of the documents already before the House, he felt himself bound to concur in the resolutions which had been proposed by his noble friend. The noble earl who had spoken second in the debate had proved the assistance afforded by the inhabitants of Genoa to the British arms under lord William Bentinck, and could give that assistance no other name than that of negative co-operation. He could only say, that if the negative co-operation of any country was to meet with such a reward, in no future contest should we meet with negative co-operation; but instead thereof, with that determined and active resistance which any government threatened with annihilation would make against the arms of those in whom it could place no confidence. But was this co-operation negative? We all knew that the population of a garrisoned town was incapable of operations against the garrison which held its strong places, and which commanded its police: but was not every opposition given to France which the situation of the Genoese admitted? After lord William Bentinck's first proclamation the peasantry rose, and forces were collected; and when the capitulation was negociated, it was done by Genoese representatives in confederacy

833]
with French officers; and a messenger was subsequently dispatched by a French officer to lord William Bentinck, urging him to hasten to take immediate possession, for the French officers and army were in danger from the feeling of the inhabitants—those negative co-operators!—and the force in which they had collected. It was needless to dwell upon the co-operation of the inhabitants with respect to the operations against that city. Every one knew the strength of its fortifications, and the sieges it had undergone, when the garrison under Massena resisted for seven months the efforts of the whole Austrian army, aided by the British fleet. And what was the strength of lord William Bentinck's force? Against one of the strongest places in Europe he brought 8,000 men to bear. What could he do, but what, instructed or not, he had done judiciously—appeal to the patriotic sentiments of the country which he was called upon to liberate, and bring into action the most powerful means which a nation afforded, and the most legitimate and lasting by which it could be influenced. In lord William Bentinck's letter, giving an account of his proclamation, one of his reasons for it is stated to be, that he felt the extreme importance of establishing a government in Genoa favourable to public feeling, in order that he might otherwise dispose of the forces entrusted to his command, and that he thus was able to dispatch the greater part of that force to the north of Italy. It could not be contended by any Englishman, that he had a right so to liberate his force by a feigned pretence to the people of Genoa, and to hold out to them a government so popular that he was enabled to employ his army elsewhere, and that now we could compel the Genoese to submit to any other government we might choose to impose upon them, and to silence all their complaints, by saying, "We have referred your case to a congress, and they have determined that you shall be no longer a republic, but shall be annexed to a government which you have always avowedly held in abhorrence and detestation." The House had been induced some time ago to delay its proceedings on this subject because evidence was not on their table; that reason no longer operated, and the question now was, whether the evidence was satisfactory? If any noble lord could read it, and be satisfied on the one hand that it held out to the Genoese no just and rea-
[834
sonable expectation of being restored to their ancient government, or, on the other, that there was an over-ruling necessity for transferring them to another country, he would be justified in negativing the motion. But those who had not read the evidence would hardly believe, that in the whole of it there were no more than two or three sentences containing any reasons for transferring Genoa to Sardinia. It spoke of some arrangement in contemplation in Italy, to which the extinction of a state 800 years old would contribute; and alluded to the Treaty of Paris as having reduced the territory of the King of Sardinia: and thus was imposed the necessity of repairing that error, by robbing the Genoese. It appeared from the papers, that lord Castlereagh had urged the necessity of thus strengthening the dominions of the King of Sardinia as the guardian of Italy; and thus he had confessed the error of giving away that king's territory by the Treaty of Paris. And the King of Sardinia's territory was to be made strong by making over to him the unwilling population of Genoa, which would only weaken him; for they would never assist him, but, on the contrary, require a constant Sardinian force to keep them in subjection. He contended that lord William Bentinck's proclamation raised the Genoese expectation of being restored to their republic, as far as it was possible to raise it; and he vindicated the prudence and discretion of his lordship in making that proclamation, which he must have felt persuaded his instructions authorized him to make, as essential to the success of his Majesty's arms. It was said, that the addresses of the inhabitants of Genoa were not to be found in our offices. And thus the state of Genoa was here disposed of without our condescending to know what were the wishes of the people. There was enough to interest the feelings in this unfortunate republic, whose fate was now sealed: when first the imposing scene of the Congress at Vienna presented itself, Providence had brightened the atmosphere which had been darkened by the disturber of the repose of Europe; and it was believed that that element of evil was for ever chained down to a rock in the Mediterranean, where he was condemned to spend his mischievous strength for nought. At Vienna was erected a great stage of justice, not less awful from its power, than venerable for its beneficence—a stage not of penal but of retri-

835]
butive justice,—not wielding a sword to destroy, but holding out a staff to restore, its great object being to secure and protect the peace, the independence, and the happiness of all nations, whether great or small, weak, or strong. When it was understood that this Congress proposed to take into their early consideration the state of Genoa, it was felt that there could be no doubt that they would, as a pledge of the sincerity of those professions which had preceded their conquests, and in the name of which they had triumphed, re-establish a government, in the re-establishment of which suspicion could not hint that they were actuated by interested motives or views of self-aggrandizement. How different their conduct had turned out to be! Genoa had received promises of re-establishment; therefore was it not to be re-established. She had conceived hopes of being so, and had assisted the arms of the Allies; therefore were those hopes to be disappointed; and therefore was England, who had held out those promises and those hopes to her, to be selected as the instrument of executing upon her people the unjust sentence of annihilation. The position which the noble earl opposite must contend for was, that any weak state might, in defiance of promises, be at any moment sacrificed to the wishes of a more powerful one, and be used as a make-weight, in any political arrangement to which an assembly of those powerful States might be parties. Genoa was to have a senate without power, like Turin. He would not insult the understanding of noble lords by referring to the stipulations as any guaranty for the people of Genoa. The whole business stood only on the right of conquest. He could not admit that any over-ruling necessity existed for our proceedings, while, on the contrary, he considered that there was a strong moral duty which this country ought to have discharged in acting up to the promises and assurances held out by lord William Bentinck in his proclamations. Upon these grounds he should vote for the motion of his noble friend.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that none of the arguments which had been used by the noble marquis went to maintain the resolutions then before their lordships, in the tone and spirit with which they were proposed. He denied that any effectual and active co-operation had taken place on the part of the Genoese, and contended
[836
that lord William Bentinck's capture of the city was in fact a conquest, according to all the principles laid down in the writings of the most eminent publicists. With regard to the annexation of Genoa to the Crown of Sardinia, he had no hesitation in saying, that it ought to be united to the natural guardian of the Alps, namely, to the King of Sardinia. It had been said, however, that while the Allied Powers gave Genoa to Sardinia on one side, they weakened her on the other; but, in the opinion of military men, the territories which had been given to France, though they might slightly diminish the revenues of the King of Sardinia, did not at all enfeeble him as a military power. The noble earl then entered into a defence of the conduct of Congress in its disposal of Genoa. It should be recollected, that in the year 1797, the Genoese placed themselves under the protection of France; and that in 1805, they sent a formal deputation, petitioning that their country might become a part of the French territory. There never, perhaps, was a case in the annals of history, in which all the prerogatives belonging to the jus dominii were more strictly applicable. Genoa was neither able nor willing to defend the passess from France to Italy, and nothing could therefore be more natural, under the circumstances in which she stood, than to consign her to a power which had for ages been considered as the natural guardian of the Alps. The noble earl then read an extract from a paper addressed by Mr. Pitt, in January 1805, to count Woronzow the Russian minister, in which, after taking a view of the relative situation of the different states of Europe, he considers it desirable that Genoa should be annexed to Piedmont, as constituting by their union the best bulwark that could be established for the defence of the Italian frontier. The noble earl also maintained, that these principles were exactly the same as those recognized in the Treaty of Westphalia—a treaty always referred to for the wisdom and policy of its provisions.
Lord St. Johncontrasted the arrangement relative to Genoa with the language of the Declaration of the Allies when at Frankfort, and said he never gave a vote more firmly convinced of its justice, than that by which he should support the motion of his noble friend.
Lord Grenvilleprofessed his wish to state

837]
shortly the grounds on which he felt it his duty to support the resolutions of his noble relation. In the first place he considered lord William Bentinck to have been specially authorized to issue the Proclamations in question, because, as had been shown by his noble relative, his instructions were not limited to the encouragement of actual insurrection, but extended to any circumstances which might favour an insurrection. The noble earl had treated very lightly the fact of raising an expectation amongst the Genoese; but could any form of words or lightness of expression alter the character of a proceeding, by which the expectation raised upon the promises of a British general and plenipotentiary, speaking in the name of the Prince Regent, and pledging the honour of his country to their fulfilment, had been completely disappointed? The promises we had made had had the effect of inducing the Genoese to change their conduct; and we had thus not only broken our plighted faith, but had refused to pay the stipulated price for an actual benefit received. He did not know what was meant by negative co-operation; but it was obvious that one of the strongest places in Europe, with a garrison of 5000 men, never would have capitulated to an enemy, whose force did not exceed 8000, without a strong disposition manifested on the part of the inhabitants. True it was, Genoa had been conquered, but it had been conquered from the French garrison, not from the Genoese people. Even if lord William Bentinck had exceeded his instructions, still it would have been wise, in his opinion, to have ratified his proceedings; but at all events a British Cabinet sitting in London, would either have done so, or have solemnly and publicly disavowed the act of their minister. This, however, was not the course pursued under the counsels of our minister at Vienna, and this was one of the many practical evils resulting from the union in one person, of two such offices as those of secretary of state, and of diplomatic agent at a foreign court. How so extravagant a conception could enter into any man's mind, it was difficult to conceive. It was, in truth, nothing short of that crime described in our statute-book, under the name of encroaching upon the Royal power; it was to escape from the control of the Sovereign, and, in his judgment, to commit a high breach of the constitution. He was
[838
astonished that any man could suppose that the office of secretary of state could be removed to another country for any length of time. Acting on this idea, they had seen a foreign secretary, converted into a sort of travelling officer all over Europe; and by this means lord William Bentinck received at times contradictory instructions from the office at home and the office abroad. The Resolutions of his noble relation should have his cordial support.
The Earl of Westmorelandentered into a justification of lord Castlereagh, and contended that there was not the slightest reason for charging the Government of this country with breach of faith to the Genoese.
Earl Greysaid, it was demonstrative of itself, that if lord William Bentinck had not been assisted by the Genoese, he never could have got possession of Genoa. So far was the indifference with which they had been charged from being true, that even the peasants scaled the walls before the British troops. If the Genoese did not rise on the 6000 men who garrisoned their town, they knew that there was not only these 6000 men, but an army of 80,000 men, under the Viceroy, at hand; and they had seen sufficient examples of French force and French vengeance. There was not the smallest reason to charge them with indisposition towards England. In addition to the instructions sent to lord William Bentinck, by which he was authorized to hold out to the Genoese the establishment of their government, there was the Declaration of the Allies, and the Treaty of Chaumont, in which their object was declared to be to secure a general peace, under which all nations might enjoy their rights, and the peace and security of the world be established. The noble earl then proceeded to his second point, namely the policy of the annexation of Genoa to Piedmont. He went into an examination of the various relations of the surrounding Powers, and argued that in giving Genoa to the King of Sardinia, lord Castlereagh had accomplished a French and not an English object. The true principle on which the Allies, in this, and other cases, should have proceeded, was to show that governments were made for the people, and not the people for the governments. Had they acted upon this system, many of the calamities we now had to lament would never have occurred.
The Earl of Liverpoolthought it hardly necessary, after the luminous speech of his noble friend (earl Bathurst) to detain the House with many observations. The original instructions were sent to lord W. Bentinck under special circumstances, and when particular information was received as to the disposition of the people of Italy, a large discretion was necessarily entrusted to him. The information, however, had proved erroneous, and lord William Bentinck's force was then diverted to the south-east coast of Spain, in order to co-operate with the duke of Wellington. He thought it quite clear that there was not a single word in the instructions to warrant lord William in establishing the ancient government of Genoa; and lord William himself never meant to preclude his own Government from determining the question of independency. All he could do was to establish a provisional government; and Great Britain could not do more, as it was a combined conceit between her and her allies, and we could not make conquests, except in the name of the Allies. A noble lord had said, that lord Wiliam Bentinck was not only a military officer, but also a minister plenipotentiary; but he had no general discretion at that time, and the Allies alone could decide the fate of Genoa. If lord William had entered into a treaty with the Genoese, it would not have been valid, till ratified by his own Government. The noble earl contended, that there had been no breach of faith on the part of this country. Expectations were never held out by this Government that were not fulfilled; while, on the other hand, the Italians, and the Genoese in particular, had led this Government to believe that there was a disposition to rise against the authority of Buonaparté. This disposition, supposing it had ever existed, had never in the slightest degree been carried into effect. The noble earl then went into the point of policy, arguing, that in consequence of the weakness of the king of Sardinia, Buonaparté had been able to over-run and conquer Italy. The object was, to place a barrier between France and Italy, that would prevent such a consequence in future. And if the passage of the Alps was to be protected, it was only to be done by making the Power which was the natural guardian of the Alps strong enough to defend the passages, which was impracticable, unless the possession was given of some part of
[840
the maritime territory of Genoa. This transfer, he said, was not at all to be regretted on the score of the people of that country, because, from the aristocratical nature of the government, the interest of the state had always been sacrificed to that of the city. He therefore thought it was evident, that the course which the Government had taken was not repugnant either to honour or policy.
The Marquis of Buckinghambriefly replied. He observed, by whatever means Genoa fell into our possession, a proclamation had been issued, in which lord William Bentinck, in the name of the British Government, had promised independence to the people of that state. The question then was, whether the British Government had recalled lord William Bentinck, and disavowed his proclamation, or abided by it. They had done neither; they had not disavowed the proclamation, but they had broken the promises which it held out. It was said, too, that the king of Sardinia was the natural guardian of the Alps. What had the British Government done? they had taken from him Chambery and the two natural passes of the Alps, and had given them to the French, on which territory Buonaparté was now collecting an army. Such was the conduct of the Government, and upon principles of honour and policy the House was bound to reprobate it.
Their lordships then divided:

Contents

25

Proxies

14

—

39

Non-Contents

40

Proxies

71

—

111

Majority against the motion

72