4] 
the congress of Vienna, in certain 
acts which he termed disgraceful, 
entered into a full statement of 
all that had publicly appeared re- 
lative to the Genoese transaction. 
At that time, however, nothing 
passed beyond a common conver- 
sation. On the 15th of that month, 
the Marquis of Buckingham rose in 
the House of Lords, and put the 
questions to lord Liverpool, whe- 
ther the proclamation of lord 
William Bentinck had been au- 
thorized by his Majesty’s minis- 
ters ? and whether tie proclama- 
tion by which the Genoese had 
been turned over. to the king of 
Sardinia had been authorized by 
them? Lord Liverpool declining 
any specific answer to these ques- 
tions, the marquis gave notice of 
a future motion for the production 
of the proclamations of lord Wil- 
liam Bentinck and general Dal- 
rymple. This motion was made 
by the marquis on the 24th, in- 
troduced by a speech, in which 
he stigmatized the transaction re- 
lative to Genoa as a violation both 
of policy and good faith, and as 
sacrificing the character and ho- 
nour of the country, by maintain- 
ing those very principles of spo- 
liation against which we had car- 
ried on a twenty years war.— 
Lord Liverpool opposed the pro- 
duction of the papers called for, 
on the ground of the impro- 
ptiety, under the present cir- 
cumstances, of taking into con- 
sideration single or separate to- 
pics, which could not be fairly 
discussed without entering into 
the detail of many others, which 
at present it would be perfectly 
inconsistent to do. He pledged 
himself, however, when the pro- 
per time should arrive, to prove, 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1815. 
that not only with respect to the 
measureof Genoa, but every other 
connected with it, there had not 
been the smallest breach of faith 
on the part of the British govern- 
ment, nor any expectations held 
out that were not eventually rea- 
lized. His lordship then moved 
the previous question on the mar- 
quis’s motion. 
After some other lords on each 
side had spoken to the subject, 
the previous question was carried 
by 37 against 13. 
A similar motion made in the 
House of Commons by Mr. Lamb- 
ton, and supported by Szr James 
Mackintosh and other speakers in 
opposition, was in like manner 
defeated by the previous question, 
moved by the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer, which, on a division, 
was carried by 115 votes against 
66. ; 
In the narrative of the last year, 
notice was taken of the parliamen- 
tary proceedings relative to that 
important subject, the corn laws, 
which terminated in the passing 
of a bill for the free exportation 
of grain; whilst one for regulat- 
ing its importation was voted to 
be deferred for six months, by a 
majority of ten only in the House 
of Commons, obviously in conse- 
quence of the strong and numer- 
ous petitions against it presented 
from all parts of the kingdom.— 
This temporary check byno means 
altered the resolution of the friends 
of the bill, who comprised the 
great body of the landed interest 
in parliament, to use their utmost 
endeavours for carrying such a 
measure on a future occasion, and 
the committees in both Houses on 
the corn laws had employed the 
interval in collecting and consi- 
