Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

of America was destined, it was highly important that a free and independent British colony should be established in Vancouver's Island. Lord Lincoln then exposed the improvident terms of the charter, and argued that the advantage taken of them by the Company would tend to deter settlers. Finally, he contended that the conditions, of forfeiture at the end of five years if no colony be founded, and that in 1859 the Crown would be at liberty to buy up the Company's rights, afforded no real security, but that the last offered a premium upon bad government.

Mr. Hume seconded the motion, although he considered its terms not sufficiently strong; the acts of the Colonial Office in this matter calling, in his opinion, for direct condemnation. Every one of the conditions in the present case was at variance with the policy which a wise Government would pursue in establishing a colony; and the sacrifice of public interests in this case showed that no Minister should be allowed to make a grant of this kind without the previous sanction of the House. Mr. Hume had proceeded thus far, when it was observed that there were only thirty. seven members present; consequently the House stood adjourned, and Lord Lincoln's motion fell to the ground.

In the House of Lords, however, the subject attracted notice, and on the motion being made on the 29th of June that the Administration of Justice in Vancouver's Island Bill be read a second time, questions were addressed to the Government respecting the policy and effects of the grant of that island to the Hudson's Bay Company. Earl Grey explained that, under the existing law, all serious

offences committed on the northwestern coast of America must be tried in the courts in Canada; the present Bill proposed to repeal that law so far as it regarded Vancouver's Island, and to establish local courts for the administration of justice. Lord Grey took the opportunity of defending the arrangements by which the island had been ceded. No political power was given up to the Company. The Company was chargeable with the expenses of government, settlement, and ordinary defence of the island; was bound to sell lands on reasonable terms, and to devote the proceeds, except a small percentage, to colonization. If the island were not speedily settled it would soon be overrun by irregular squatters; its settlement would occasion expense, so that if it were accomplished at all, it must be accomplished by some public company or private individuals; private individuals did not possess sufficient funds, but the Hudson's Bay Company did so.

Lord Monteagle insisted that the cession would ultimately be regretted as much as that of Prince Edward Island; that the Company's charter had been pronounced by Sir A. Pigot, Mr. Brougham, and Mr. Spankie, to be invalid, and would now receive its first legislative sanction in the present Bill; that a trading company was not qualified to be a colonizing company; and that, nominally complying with the conditions, it would exclude settlers by the trading monopoly which it might enforce. On the other side, the Earl of Selkirk argued for the validity of the charter, and contended that the Hudson's Bay Company had not colonized only because its earlier settlements were founded

in inhospitable regions. Lord Brougham maintained the legal opinion against the validity of the charter. The Earl of Aberdeen applauded the arrangement with the Company, the settlement of Vancouver's Island having been the only subject that occasioned

him, when in office, any anxiety for the preservation of peace. The Duke of Buccleuch expressed similar sentiments. Lord Wharncliffe supported Lord Monteagle's view of the arrangement. The Bill was then read a second time.

CHAPTER VI.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS :-Discussions in Parliament-Affairs of SicilyQuestion addressed by Lord Stanley to the Government respecting the rumoured supply of Arms from this country to the Insurgent party— Answer of the Marquis of Lansdowne-Remarks of Lord Brougham -Mr. Bankes makes a formal Motion on the same subject in the House of Commons-Explanation of Lord Palmerston, who moves an Amendment-After a discussion the Motion, as modified by Lord Palmerston, is carried by 124 to 39. AFFAIRS OF NORTHERN ITALY: -Lord Aberdeen moves for the production of Diplomatic Correspondence on the 22nd of March, and enters at length into the questions affecting Austria and Sardinia-Answer of the Marquis of Lansdowne-Speech of Lord Brougham-The Italian policy of the Government is again brought under the notice of the House of Lords, by Lord Brougham, on the 20th of July-His Speech and the Resolutions proposed-The Earl of Carlisle defends the conduct of the Government-Speeches of Lord Heytesbury, the Earl of Minto, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and Lord StanleyOn a Division, Lord Brougham's Resolutions are negatived by a majority of 12. FRENCH INTERVENTION IN THE AFFAIRS OF ROME:— The subject is mooted by Lord Beaumont-Debate thereupon-Remarks of the Earl of Aberdeen, Earl of Minto, Lord Brougham, and the Marquis of Lansdowne-Further allusions to the French Expedition, in both Houses. THE WAR IN HUNGARY:-In Committee of Supply, on the 21st of July, Mr. Bernal Osborne calls the attention of the House of Commons to the existing posture of Hungarian Affairs— His Speech-He is supported by Mr. Milnes, Colonel Thompson, and Mr. Roebuck, who express strong sympathy with the cause of Hungary -Lord Palmerston enters at length into the merits of the question, and explains the Principles on which the English Government has been actuated in its Foreign Policy-Favourable reception of his Speech. VICTORIES IN BRITISH INDIA:-Thanks to the Officers and Men of the British Army engaged in the late Campaign proposed by the Marquis of Lansdowne in the House of Lords-Remarks of the Duke of Wellington, Lord Stanley, Viscount Hardinge, and other Peers-A similar Motion is made by Sir John Hobhouse in the House of Commons, seconded by the Marquis of Granby-Observations of Sir Robert PeelThe Vote is unanimously agreed to.

IN

N this chapter we shall present a summary of the more important Parliamentary discussions

on Foreign Affairs which took place in the course of the session of 1849. The disturbed state of

many countries on the Continent, and the warlike operations to which the late revolutionary movements had given rise, afforded matter of lively and constant interest at this time to persons habituated to the study of foreign politics. The north of Italy, the Roman States, Sicily, Austria, and Hungary, were the chief points on which the attention of the public was centred. All of them furnished from time to time matter for Parliamentary discussions, the more prominent of which it will be our duty to notice. The first question which arose in connection with our foreign relations had reference to the insurrection in Sicily, and the conduct of the British Government towards the parties concerned therein. It had been reported that our authorities had concurred in or connived at the transmission of arms from this country for the use of the insurgent party. With a view of ascertaining the truth of this statement Lord Stanley, on the 6th March, addressed a question to the Marquis of Lansdowne in the following terms:—

"Whether a contractor, who was in the habit of supplying arms to the British Government, had been allowed to withdraw such arms from the Government stores for the purpose of supplying them to the insurgents in Sicily.'

The Marquis of Lansdowne was glad of an opportunity of explaining the real state of the case. A gentleman who had been habitually a contractor for arms to the British Government did, in the course of last autumn, before the armistice in Sicily was concluded, or at any rate before it was known to be concluded in this country, make an application to the Board of Ordnance for permission

to take back from the stores some guns which he had manufactured for Her Majesty's service, and that, too, for the avowed purpose of fulfilling another contract, made with the Sicilian Government at that time, for whose use those guns were wanted. The Board of Ordnance refused their assent to that request until an application was made in another quarter, namely, to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. That application was made, and then the Board of Ordnance received permission to give the contractor the facilities which he desired, and they consequently allowed him to take the arms out of store. This permission was afterwards regretted, and our Minister was fully authorized, if called upon, to explain the matter, and to state that it had occurred through inadvertence, and that measures would be taken to prevent its recurrence in future.

Lord Brougham objected to the use of the term " Sicilian Government." He should no more consider the government of the Sicilian insurgents to be the Sicilian Government than he should consider Mr. Smith O'Brien's Committee to be the Irish Government.

Lord Lansdowne explained that the term was not meant as an ac

knowledgment of the authority of the insurgents, but as an expression of the notorious fact that the insurgent power was de facto the provisional government of Sicily.

The same transaction was made a topic of debate in the House of Commons, on a formal motion by Mr. Bankes, "That there be laid before this House an account of all Ordnance stores returned from

that department to any contractor in the year 1848, for the purpose of being sent to the Sicilian insurgents in arms against Her Majesty's ally, the King of the Two Sicilies, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government."

Mr. Bankes availed himself of this motion to review the policy pursued by the British Government towards the King of the Two Sicilies, which he thought compromised our character with foreign nations. He referred to the mission of Lord Minto, and expressed the surprise he had experienced at hearing that Lord Palmerston had authorized the supply of arms from the Ordnance stores to a contractor, to be sent to the insurgents in Sicily, and the pain he had felt at finding statements made in that House contradicted in another assembly.

Lord Palmerston had no objection to the motion, if Mr. Bankes would retrench certain expressions implying an opinion as to the merits of a question respecting which the House had not yet information. There was a fundamental difference of opinion, he observed, between them as to the principles of this question. Mr. Bankes considered all subjects who took up arms in vindication of their rights as insurgents; he was of that school which maintained "the right divine of kings to govern wrong;" and he, therefore, stigmatized the Sicilians as rebels. But the Sicilians had had a constitution for centuries, and their ancient and indisputable rights were confirmed in 1812. Lord Palmerston defended Lord Minto from the charge of fomenting political dissensions, declaring that his progress was one of peace and conciliation, and that his interference in the Sicilian disturb

ce was at the instance of the

The treaty of

King himself. Vienna recognised the title of the King, as King of the Two Sicilies; but the recognition of a title was one thing, the overturning of a constitution another. The wish of Her Majesty's Government, however, had been to continue the union of the two crowns on the same head. Lord Palmerston, then, with reference to the subject of the motion, explained the circumstances under which he had given his sanction to the delivery of some iron guns to the contractor, and stated that the English minister at Naples had been authorized to explain to that Court, if necessary, that it had occurred through inadvertence.

Sir John Walsh condemned the conduct of Lord Palmerston in this matter, which, it appeared, had not been approved by the majority of his colleagues. Such underhand proceedings were calculated to undermine the influence of England.

Mr. M'Gregor vindicated the policy of Lord Palmerston, and Mr. J. O'Connell made an adroit use of his Lordship's qualified admission of the Sicilians' right of resistance.

Mr. Henley noticed that Lord Palmerston, although he had evinced So much sensitiveness about pledging the House to opinions, had used the term "Sicilian Government."

Mr. Hume was gratified to hear that this country stood in so high a position, as it would afford an argument for reducing the army and navy estimates. The honourable Member having noticed what had been said in the House of Lords, implying that the proceedings of Lord Palmerston, with reference to the guns, had not been sanctioned by the Cabinet,

« EdellinenJatka »