ONE:In the House of Lords the Earl of Aberdeen, Foreign Secretary in the late Government, strongly censured our foreign policy with regard to Northern Italy. He spoke with delight of the brilliant victories and rare generosity of Radetzky, and warmly eulogised the administration of the Austrian dominions in Italy. Lord Brougham spoke strongly on the same side with Lord Aberdeen, indignantly condemning the Italian policy of the Government. On the 20th of July he moved[588] a set of resolutions on the subject, in which he also praised Austria, as being just and moderate, while Sardinia was aggressive and faithless. He spoke of "the terrible tyranny established by those firebrands of revolution, Mazzini and Garibaldi." He considered that an eternal debt of gratitude was due to General Oudinot, for conducting the siege in such a manner as to avoid any waste of blood, and to preserve the treasures of art of which that city was the repository. With reference to Southern Italy he protested against the conduct, not only of our regular diplomatic body, but of "that mongrel sort of monsterhalf nautical, half politicaldiplomatic vice-admirals, speculative ship captains, observers of rebellions, and sympathisers therewith;" the officers alluded to being Lord Napier, Sir William Parker, and Captain Codrington. The Earl of Carlisle, in reply to Lord Brougham, ably defended the conduct of our diplomatists and officers throughout the Sicilian contest, and repelled the sarcasms with which they were assailed. He vindicated the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston, and called upon the House to reject "the illogical and unmeaning" resolutions of Lord Brougham. Lord Minto, also, at length defended the course he had taken. The Marquis of Lansdowne, while willing to rest the defence of the Government upon the able speech of Lord Carlisle, made some remarks in answer to the charge of partiality brought by the Earl of Aberdeen against Lord Minto, after which the House divided, when the resolutions of Lord Brougham were rejected by a majority of 12.But the Committee found itself opposed in these objects in the highest quarter. The king displayed the most firm disposition to protect his late Minister, and was in constant communication with Walpole and his friends for the purpose. Every means were used to protect from the scrutiny of the Committee those who were possessed of the most important information, and to induce them to remain obstinately silent. Mr. Edgecumbe, who had managed the Cornish boroughs for Walpole, and could have revealed things which would have filled the Committee with exultation, was raised to the Upper House, and thus removed from the power of the Commons. Paxton, the Solicitor to the Treasury, a most important witness, remained unshakably silent, and was committed to Newgate; nor was the Committee more successful with Scrope, the Secretary to the Treasury. This officer, who, no doubt, held most desirable knowledge in his bosom, firmly refused to make any disclosures, though he was now a very feeble old man. Other officials declined to make statements whose disclosure might incriminate themselves, and which they were excused from doing by the great principles of our judicature. To remove this obstacle Lord Limerick, the Chairman of the Committee, then moved that a Bill of Indemnity should be passed, to exempt witnesses from all penalties in consequence of their disclosures. This passed the Commons by a majority of twelve, but was rejected in the House of Lords by a large majority.
HKBN is steered by a Board of Directors that intermingles a range of expert abilities for visionary thinking. Our board consists of eight Directors, comprising two Executive Directors, three Non-executive Directors and three Independent Non-executive Directors.
