Star. — London, England, 1821-02-20 00:00:00

NE _.-- . • 7""'" ; ~. _ V'W . • - rer . Ce , t . . • . ... -..--A. 7• -'• • • 1. , • VG i • • ' • . • tt. 1, ' ''s 4:. may' ...,----" ,ze -,.. . ' ' . ' 1. / . 4 it • ..a / s. A 1 .A • . iii : :: ,; 6 :, : 2: , ;7 .1 41.,. . A 3. •OS . .. ~,,,.....e.,.. ' -;-, f's jtr:i' 1 0 606. OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, July 31, 1820. friHE Public are hereby informed, that Thirty .' eves PLATES of the ORDNANCE SURVEY of azgAT BRITAIN, carried on under the superintendence of los Major-General WILLIAM MUDGE, LLD. F.R. 4 1.3, are now complete, and .that Impressions from them w ee Sale at the Ordnance Map Office, in the Tower of Lon a.; oil also at William Paden's, Geographer to his Majesty, i d Mort to the Board of Ordnance, at Charing-Cross. These pop contain the Counties of Kent, Essex, Sussex, Hants, D I ,,, t ,.'Dev on, and Cornwall, and portions of Somerset, , p e rarbroke, Cardigan, Carmarthen, Glamorgan, Wilts, ba h Middlesex, Suffolk, Hertford, and Cambridge.— pat it ontaining nearly the whole of Pembrokeshire, and p ow of the adjacent Country, was published on the Ist fi t Angst; Isti; and u the West is still in progress, ac wain to the original design of giving a complete Map of &s cathe, upon a Scale of One huh to a Nine, the publi mice of the future Parts will follow as fast as the nature of n ag Work will admit, without increasing its Annual expense. Badmen wishing to procure a Map of the Country surround duir own habitations, may, by application to Mr. EMIR, g t c Ovlnance Map Oar, where an Index Map will be * pm , edott any sheets they pleases forthat purpose. All let unea.this subject addressed to Mr. Wass, under a cover to sloe wow! of the Board of Ordnance, Pall-Mall, will be ins audistely attended to. Ityotierd the Board, R. H. CREW, Secretary. day was published, in Three Vols. price 21s. PRECAUTION. -A NOVEL. « I cannot forbear to flatter myself that prudence and be imeimsre will make marriage happy; but what can be expected wept disappointment and repentance from a choice made in my immaturity of youth—without judgment—without foresight —without inquiry after conformity of opinions —rectitude of Orient, or purity of sentiment."--Ra antes. Printed for Henry Colburn and Ce. Conduit-street. --- ANECDOTES OF THE ROYAL FAMILY. • This day was published, The Third Edition, in post Oro. price 6s. 6d. boards, LETTERS from Mrs. DELANY (Widow of Doctor Patrick Delany) to Mrs. FRANCES H AMIL TON, from the year 1779, to the year 1788 ; comprising many 1441:11shed and juteresting Anecdotes of their late Majesties, ad the 'fiord Family. Now first printed from the Original Distncripcs. " little circumstances show the real Men, better than things inviter moment."—Annison. Bred fur Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, London. 711 day was published, in Trio V 01... 12mo. price 10 5 . 6d. UELEN LIE TOURNON.—A Novel.--By Ma ll dame DE SOUZA, Author of " Adele de Senange,"&c. Translated from the French. PAW for Longman, Hurst, Rees. Orme, and Brown, London. • We know but two Works with which this Novel can pro le', be compared, the Princess . de Cleves, of Madame b YON, and the Mademoiselle de Clermont, of Madame de Ger& Without entering into any formal comparison between ilesetwo celebrated Works and the Novel before us, we AA waft say, that in our opinion, it is in every respect worthy to take its station by their aide." —Edinburgh Review, No. 68. C. BELL'S OPERATIONS OF SURGERY. This day was published, Parts I. IL 111. and IV. of ILLUSTRATIONS of the GREAT OPERA TIONS of SURGERY, TREPHINE, HERNIA, AMPUTATION, ANEURISM, and I.ITHOTOMY. By CHARLES BELL. The Work will consist of Five Parts in large 4to. ench Part entailing Four Plates, with Letter-Press, price 15s. plain, or Zs. coloured impressions. Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, London. Of whom may be had, by the same Author, Anatomy of the Human Body, three vols. £2 12s. 6d. *item of Operative Surgery, two vols. £1 18s. Surgical Observations, Parts 1 to 5,6 s. each. The Anatomy of the Brain, 4to. £2 2a. cravings of the Nerves, 4to. £1 Is. Arteries, Royal Bvo. plain, 15s. , coloured £1 Is. Dissertation an Gun-shot Wounds, Bvo. 10s. 6d. DON QUIXOTE, HIGHLY ILLUSTRATED FROM PICTURES BY MR. SMIRKE. sis day was published, handsomely printed in four vols. Svo. rice 81. Rs. in boards; a limited number thereof, with early UpraeWns of the Plates, on royal paper, price 151.155. boards, sad a few Copies, with Proof Impressions on India paper, in 4to. price 461. Ss. in boards , rp 'HIS New Edition of the celebrated WORK of .a. CERV A NTES is a Translation, partly new, and partly heeded on former Versions extensively corrected; it is embel. lihedwith between seventy and eighty Er.gtavings, all of which Isve•been executed by the most distinguished Artists of this gauntry, from Pictures painted. By ROBERT SMIRKE, Esq. ILA. Printed for T. Cadell and W. Davies, in the Strand, Booksel lers to the Royal Academy ; and W. Blackwood, Edinburgh. _ its day were published, neatly printed in 18mo. price SERMONS on INFIDELIM By the Reverend ANDREW THOMSON, M.A. Minister of St. George's, Edinburgh. • Printed for T. Cadell and W. Davies, Strand, London ; and Wiliam Blackwood, Edinburgh. Ofwhom may be had, lately published, by the same Author, 1. Lectures, Espository and Practical, on Select Portions of icripture, 2 vols. 14s. St. A Catechism for Young Persons, limo. 4d. 5. The Sin and Danger of being " Lovers of Pleasures more Sao Lovers of Gorr," stated and illustrated In Two Discourses. The Second F.dition, neatly printed. Him°. 2s. 4. An Address to Christian Parents on the Religions Education ef their Children. The Second Edit. neatly printed in 18mo. is.6d. I. The Young Warned against the Enticement of Sinners, in Tee Discourses. Second Edition, neatly printed in IBmo . I s . 6d. S. A Coll ec ti on o f H ymns for Children. The Second Edition, ilgro. 9d. In the Press, and speedily will be published, is Two very large Volumes, Octavo, inscribed, by Permission, , to the Lord Bishop of LONDON, THE OLD TESTAMENT, arranged on the basis AL of Lightfoot's Chronicle, in Historical and Chronological Order, in such manner, that the Books, Chapters, Psalms, Pro theckl. &r. may be read as o n e connecte d Hi story, i n the very Vords at the authorized Translation. To the above will be Added, St Indexes—the first containing an Account of the Pe ters, and Seetions into which the Work is divided, tke Passages of Scripture comprised in each;—toe Second, Caltunns, enabling the Reader to discover in what Part of the Arrangement, any Chapter, or Verse of the Bible may be found ; The Third and Fourth of the Psalms and Prophecies in Ta ls, ; spewing in what part o f th e A rrangement, and after what !hratesge of Scripture every Psalm or Prophecy is inserted; sod ew/W . ,. oe what Occ a si on , an d at w h at P er i od, they were pro. NY written —with the Authority for their Place in the Ar ratinuent;—tbe Fifth comaining the Dates of the Events ac "kilogi, to Dr. Hales;—and the Sixth a general Index to the 1 "Its• By the Rev. GEO. TOWNSEND, ALA. Of Trinity College, Cambridge. Lofirion: Printed for F. C. and J. Rivington, No. 62, St. • Church-yard, and No. 3, W ater loo-place, alf-Man ; sold • Y Sivingtons and Cochran, No. 146, Strand; and by the ownorilto at Word, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Dublin, Ste. TOES[ AY, FEBRUARY 20, 1821. • PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. DOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY 19. Mr. litanast brought up certain Accounts from the Com mistionera of the National Dzbt. Some Private Bills were brought up from the Commons. Lord FOLEY presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of the Parish of Kidderminster, praying that measures might be adopted for the relief of the Trade of the Country. His Lord ship presented another Petition from the Inhabitants of Croy don, praying that the Queen's name might be inserted in the Liturgy, and that her Majesty might be reinstated in all her. rights.--Ordered to lie on the table. HOLY ALLIANCE-NAPLES. Earl GREY said, he rose in pursuance of the notice he had given on a former day to call on his Majesty's Ministers for some satisfactory information respecting the part they had taken in the proceedings that were carried on by the Allied Sovereigns towards Naples, ever since the affairs of that country began to excite , a hostile feeling in that most dangerous confederacy called the Holy Alliance. It would be recollected that, on the first day of the Session, he had endea voured to direct the attention of the House to this Confederacy, and with that view had asked the No ble Earl at the head of the Administration as to the correctness of a document purporting to be the De claration of the Allied Powers. The Noble Earl then answered in a very satisfactory manner that the document was substantially correct ; but at the same time disclaimed the general principle of any one Go- , vernment having a right of interference in the inter nal concerns of another State ; although he then ad mitted that there might be certain exceptions to that general principle; and at the same time the Noble Earl stated that he would shortly lay a document before the House which would explain the conduct s of his Majesty's Government with regard to Naples. That Paper was now before their Lordships, and he (Earl Grey) was sorry to find it did not afford that satisfactory__ explanation respecting the prudence and wisdom of his Majesty's Government in this instance which he expected ; and it was for that reason be proposed to move for further information; and he should, at the same time, make some observations respecting the affairs of Naples. After noticing the declaration made in the Circular Note of the Secre tary of State, that on general principles it was not allowable to interfere in i he internal concerns of other States, he must advert to the monstrous enor mity of that principle which was contained in a paper coming from the Allied Sovereigns, and first circulated at Hainburgh, and which asserted the i right of interference in other Governments in order to prevent any changes from taking place therein, in case such changes should be hostile to the notions those Sovereigns might entertain of Monarchy. It mattered notirow unanimous the people of the coun tries where the changes took place might be in bring-, ing . them about, or how beneficial they might be to their general-interests, because upon those Autocrats devolved the right to sit in judgment on the internal acts of other States, to pronounce a sentence on any improvements they might choose to adopt for their own benefit, and enforce their decisions by the posVer of the sword. This monstrous principle went to the extent of dictating to all the Governments of the world, where any deviations from their notions of Monarchy might take place. Never *as any doc-. trine or principle more intolerable than this. But this was not the first time the doctrine in . question was asserted ; for at the time when the late Revo lution took place in Spain, a similar principle was asserted in a Note from Prince Metternich, and also in a Circular from the Court of Russia.— The principle was still more clearly propounded in an article published in the Berlin Court Gazette, which broadly stated that no communication should beheld with the new Government of Naples, as that would acknowledge the revolt which bad taken place there, and that no change should be effected there which was not conformable to the Monarchical principle, or rather the notions entertained by the Allied Sovereigns as to what that principle should be. If such a prin ciple as this were generally t o p reva il, th e con di t i on of mankind would then indeed be hopeless; for no amelioration could ever take place except through the will and the favour of a beneficent Monarchy.— Men must bear every kind of evil, they must put up with every kind of oppression, and have no change of condition except that which came through the fa vour of absolute Monarchs. If his Majesty's Ministers disapproved of those principles to which he alluded, how did it happen that they delayed the promulga tion of their sentiments respecting it, until the 19th of January last? Did the Note of the Emperor of Russia, and that which appeared at Berlin, as well as the Declaration of Austria, escape their notice until that day ? They must have had information upon the subject before that time : if so, they either did or , they did not remonstrate: if they did, what was to be said of the boasted influence of this country, which appeared to have had no effect in changing the in tentions of the Allied Sovereigns, thus acting in defi ance of our power? And if they did - not remonstrate, he wished to know what defence they could make for, such a baneful dereliction of their duty ? Here was a paper coming from Ministers on the 19th of Ja nuary, only four days before the meeting of Parlia ment, and if the principles he alluded to had been known to them long before that time, it was their duty to have made that declaration sooner; but, in fact, it appeared as if the paper had been issued more for the purpose of answering discussions in Parlia ment, than of resisting a principle which they dared not openly to avow. But he would ask, what had been the conduct of Ministers before this time? Why -they appeared as if they were acting in unison with the Allied Powers ; for their refusal to receive the Neapolitan Minister in this country, was a conduct which led to a suspicion that, by their connivance, they secretly approved of the conduct of these Powers towards Naples. Another ground of suspicion was the circumstance of a British squadron being in the Bay of Naples at the very time when an Austrian army was assenstilinj on its frontiers. What was the • objeFt of having * the atpradratt 'there? This must ap pear from what did actually take place; for one of the British 'vessels was employed iu Fhe degrading office of carrying away the Stivereign of the country, in order that, in'obedience to . the summons of the Holy Allies, he might appear befirre %their Tribunal at Laybach. This was an act of unjustifiable violence which perhaps had never been exceeded by any other Of a similar kind, except that committed by Bona parte; when he . degraded the King of Spain by sum moning him before him at Bayonne—( Hear, kear).— Now, with respect to the paper issued by Ministers on the 19th ult. it purported to have had two objects in view—the first was, to declare generally that an interference in the concerns of Naples would be in consistent with the fundamental laws of this country, and with the principles of international htsv. In the. next place, this State Paper declared that, with re spect to the particular case of Naples, the British Government expressed disapprobation as to the mode and circumstances under which the Neapolitan , Re volution was supposed to have been effected. Now he would ask, what right had Ministers to form such a iiidgrhent as to the manner in which that Revolu tion had been brought about? If they had that right, they ought not to have exercised it except upon the fullest and clearest information ; and why did they take tipon themselves to judge without such information? Had they any information through the channels of independent Governments?. No, but in the very outset of their circular dispatch they evinced an undue partiality towards the- Allied Sovereigns, in regard to the steps they were taking against Naples. Then the Ministers admitted that , other States might•have a right to interfere for their own security, provided their views were not directed to the purposes of aggrandizement, subversive of the territorial system of Europe as established by the late Treaties. The conduct of Ministers in all these proceedings' was. most extraordinary. First, they refused to acknowledge the Neapolitan Minister, • and then, admitted a right of interference on the part of other Powers. On what ground, he would ask, could they think of breaking off all intercourse with . the new Government of Naples? No new Sovereign was there to warrant such a change of conduct ; the King of Naples was still upon his Throne, with the exception that he did not exercise arbitrary power. Was there anything in the character of the Revolu tion that could warrant such a change of conduct ? Was a Revolution conducted without violence, and lwhich acknowledged the King, to be considered as one which should put an end to all amicable nego ciation and intercourse? This country had. some years ago, assisted in the establishment of a free Go vernment in Spain ; we had afterwards seen that Go vernment overturned by the present King of Spain ; and yet that event produced no suspension of inter course between this country and the Government so revolutionized. Why, then, should a political change break off the intercourse between one nation and another ? unless it should be contended that there was one rule for a Government overturned by a King, and another for a Government new modelled and improved by the People. However; . when he considered the hostile measures going forward against Naples, and coupled them with the declaration of our own Ministers, the result was, that they ad mitted Naples to be an excepted case, and were not hostile to the interference of the Allied Sovereigns, provided no territorial aggrandizement took place. This doctrine he opposed, as one leading to a system founded on the conveniences by which a certain ba lance of power might be carried into effect, instead of the establishment of principles of justice. And this convenient balance of power was talked of by men who, to their eternal disgrace, allowed the greater part of Saxony to be seized upon by Prussia —who consented to give up Norway to Sweden, and who made no opposition to the seizure of the greater part of Italy by Austria. •The true principle upon • which, in his opinion, the balance of power ought to be maintained, was that of preventing powerful from oppressing weaker States, and not that of promoting the convenience of countries already aggrandized.— It appeared. then that Ministers admitted Naples to be an exception, and that the attack against that country had not any territorial aggrandizement for its object. The only security that could exist against the danger of such aggrandizement was a strict ad herence to justice and to the laws of nations. Austria was proceeding to attack.that country in violation of all those laws, and after occupying it with her troops, what must be the consequence? He was not inclined to hope that the Neapolitans would be able to make any effectual resistance against the superior power of their enemies: the occupation of Naples then must follow ; and what security then could we have against territorial aggrandizement on the part of Austria, on whose power Naples must be entirely dependent.— Who could tell how far this principle of injustice might extend, and what misfortunes it might lead to throughout Europe? Heswould place no more re liance on any assertion or declaration of the Austrian Cabinet, than he would upon a promise made by the Bank of Vienna. Was it to be supposed that Austria, after getting possession of Naples, would all of a sudden become moderate and just? No; they had all seen considerable jealousies prevailing in the early period of the Confederacy; and, after the seizure of Naples, might. not the next step be, a demand for compensation on the part of Russia for the counte nance given by the Russian Cabinet to this act of in justice? All the security, then contemplated by Mi nisters would be good for nothing. The State Paper, to which he had already alluded, declared that his Majesty's Ministers had acted with all possible expli citness on this subject, as would appear from the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. Here their Lordships had an instance of . the soundness of principle by which peace was to be preserved; for, after all the con ferences that had been held, the business at last came to this, that in the month of December, 1820, the Allied Sovereigns put one construction on the Trea ties, and the British Government another. Not- g. withstanding all the explanations that had taken place, the Allies declared the interpretation of them to be such, as to imply an assent on the part of Great Britain to the projected interference in the business of Naples. He denied that, in the case of Naples, there was any exception to the general principle laid down by Ministers. There was none on the ground of necessity, for before there could be any right of in terference, there must be a real, and not a remote and visionary danger. There must be one that should tUrnish a just ground for complaint ; such, for in stance, as that of promulgating an intention to assist the disaffected people of other countries to overturn their Governments, similar to the celebrated Decree passed by the French Convention on the 19th of No 'ember, 1792. An act of this kind would be a just cause of war, if remonstrances. and negociations failed. The right of interference then, he contended, must arise out of facts; brit the unjust and monstrous principle was never before admitted, that a people making improvements within their own Country, and for their own benefit, were to be attacked and sup pressed by the force of arms. So monstrous and in famous a doctrine was never before admitted by any writer on national law. The Neapolitans had com mitted no injury, nor evinced any hostility to other States. All they had done was to limit the power of their King ; and that they did in a way the most inoffensive to other nations. No Revolution .was ever conducted in a manner so peaceable and inof fensive: not a drop of blood was shed; the King assented to what had been done, and that was what excited the vengeance of the Allied Powers; and England must withdraw herself from the duty of remonstrating-against such conduct !—(Hear.)—TLe character of the revolution was given in the note of the Marquis Campo Chiaro ; hut the Allied Sovereigns . used no pretence on the ground of misconduct for their proceeding ; and so far they had the merit of acting openly, and of not adding meanness and fraud -to their injustice. It had been said that there was a certain sect or party in Naples who were mainly in strumental in bringing about the Revolution. If there was anything in this objection, it was an objection which might be advanced against every Revolution that had ever taken place in the world. All the Re volutions which took place in the world were owing to previous misgovernment, and were brought about by parties and factions. Our own Revolution, which took place in 1688, arose from the misgovernment of a tyrant, and it never would have been carried without a secret combination of those great, good, and illustrious characters, whose memories every En glishman of the present day ought to revere ; for it was to them we were all indebted for the liberties we now enjoyed. This argument then, was most futile. With respect to the sect called Carlronari, he should not enter into any justification of them. He understood that they began in the year 1812, and that they were chiefly encouraged with a view of opposing the uoirpation of the French. But, sup posing the Revolution to have been begun by those, 'Sr by any small party of men, it could not be vitiated on that account; for if the people concurred in favour of such a change, it mattered not by whom, or by how many persons it had been* brought about.— There never was a Revolution effected in a more peaceable manner. No animosities, no broils accom panied it in its progress, or flowed from it after it WAS consummated. Such also was the character of the Revolution in Spain, and yet the circumstance of that country's adopting a new Constitution did not induce us to suspind our connection with it. In that country too, a harmony subsisted between the Prince and the people, such as, under similar circumstances of change, had no example in the history of the world. It is true that Revolution was effected by a standing army. Whether that circumstance would have the good consequence of lessening a desire for keeping up a standing military force in other coun tries, he knew not, but this conviction at least it must force upon them, that the mere incident of soldiers being formed into standing armies, did not and could not prevent them from having the feelings of Men-- (Hear, hear)—that it could not (and GOD f o rbid it should) prevent the soldier from participating in the - sentiments of his fellow-subjects, when those senti ments were universal. GOD forbid that it ever should beam character of standing armies, in whatever part of the world they were kept up, that whatever was the extent of oppression under which the people suffered, whatever the length to which despotism was desirous to go, that they should be found the certain instru ments of that oppression, and the constant defenders of that tyranny—(Hear).—He hailed the part which the at mien acted on those occasions, as the proof that when they became soldiers, they did not cease to be men. It would afford a useful lesson to States, and spew them how much safer it was to found Governments in the affections of the people, than in the strength of military force— ( Hear, hear). Those beneficent dispensers of good, the Allied Powers of the Continent- (hear)—said, indeed, that thele might be a certain degree of reform allowable in' States, provided it was not accomplished by a mili tary instrument. They asserted, that if the military had any share, no matter how small, in any such re form, if they had any participation in effecting a change, no matter how meritorious it might be, still on that account alone, it was a change Wlech was not to be enforced, which must be reprobated, and until it was so reprobated, it should be considered that le gitimate Monarchy everywhere was insecure. Such was the language of those Powers. But he would ask those who supported, or who countenanced such doctrines as those, what would have become of the religion and the liberties of this country, if the army of James the Second had adhered to his fortunes? If ever the principle of our Revolution was appli cable at all, the case of Naples came decidedly within its influente. What was the doctrine of the Allied Sovereigns ? What did'it amount to, when divested of all its pretexts, but this, that no revolution should take place, which bettered the condition of ene State, if by so doing it had any effect whatever upon cteei PRI( Snk•Ey