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

States? What was their language? "We will not tolerate freedom in our own States, and we cannot bear it in yours!" Forgetting the promises which one of those Sovereigns had made to his People of a free Constituticns—a promise which to this hour was fatally withheld—(Hear) ----forgetting this, and pass ing over the exertions which they had made to infuse a spirit of freedom into theminds of the. People of Germany, when they had to resist a foreign domina tion, they even held this strange and inconsistent lan guage-=" We will not allow you to make any.reform which originates with yourselves. Send, therefore, your King to answer before our tribunal; resume the chains which you have already worn, and when you have done so, be content to receive such relief front them as we will to afford you r' This was the lan guage of what he should ever call the Unholy Alli ance. This was the language which the Government •of this country had treated with their sanction , and favour, but which it was their duty to have marked with their decided disapprobation. The Noble Lord then made some observations upon the secret article of the treaty between Austria and Naples. By that article it was" understood" (to use a courtly phrase) that the King of the Two Sicilies was to admit no al.! teration in his dominions. It was a question, per haps, whether, by any fair construction, that article could be made to apply to Any change which might take place in the re-establishment of the Neapolitan Government. But, at all events, he apprehended that if that article were to be considered as a perpetual guarantee on the part of the King against any change as between him and his own People, it was void eh initio. It had all the features which, according to the Publicists who have written on the laws of na tions, rendered it null and of no force. It was im moral, it was inconsistent with the rights of the Peo ple, and it militated directly against that principle which declared that it was beyond the power of the Sovereign to contract any engagement which would controul the People in the exercise of their rights.— Such a contract as that was one which the Sovereign could not make without forfeiting his most sacred duties. In his opinion of the efficacy of such a treaty he was but the m&re confirmed when he saw that it stipulated that no change should be made in the Neapolitan State which was irreconcileable with the principles of government that were acted upon by Austria in respect to her Italian possessions. What was the character of that Government? It was founded on the rights of conquest, and was sustained by armed force, without any regard to the rights of the People— ( Hear ). The whole actuating principle of that Government, in every part of it, was, that everything should be done for the benefit of Austria, without any regard to the interests of Italy. Science, commerce, agriculture, languished under the bane ful pressure of such a short-sighted policy. Even education was impeded, that no ray of light might be permitted to break in upon the minds of the People ( Hear ).—Was this, then, a principle to be tolerated? Was Naples not to be allowed to reform itself? Was no alteration to be made, no improve ment to be allowed in Naples, because the dominion of Austria might by possibility be rendered less se cure in-that interesting portion of the earth? (Hear). It conli not have been forgotten, that on the first of May, 1815, a Proclamation was issued by the pre sent King of the Two Sicilies, pronouncing to the • two king doms - that he would give them " a stable Constitution—that the Prince should be 'the deposi tary of the laws, which should be dictated by a wise and energetic Constituticia." What efforts were then made to excite the spirit of liberty, that it might act against the enemy ! A similar Proclamation was the last act of Murat's reign—the Proclamation which he had mentioned was the first act of the " legiti mate King. T e whole result then was this, that it was manliest that the Soveieigns of Europe had combined on the principle that no reform should take place which did not emanate from the throne itself— a principle, he maintained, which was inconsistent with the interests of this country, and derogatory from the general rights of nations. He hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would be able to explain on what principle it was that the Revolution in Spain caused no suspension in the relations between this country and Spain, and when the same Constitutioa which was formed in Spain was adopted in Naples. it did cause a suspension in the relations between England and the King of the Two Sicilies. He was unwilling' to trouble their Lordships farther. He conceived that at present there were objections to the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers upon this important sub ject. If they could remove those objections, then all would be well—if they could not remove them, he at least would feel the satisfaction in his own , mind, that he had exempted himself from any par ticipation, by his assent, in those measures which had been going on. The Noble Lord then concluded by moving an humble Address to the King, request ing that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct copies of all communications which had passed between this country and foreign Powers, connected with the Neapolitan Revolution, to be laid before the House. - • The Earl of LIVERPOOL, though he was deter mined to oppose the motion of the Noble Earl, yet he should be sorry if any Noble Lord should leave the House that night with any doubt upon his mind as to the propriety of the conduct which Ministers had pursued upon this important question. That conduct he was prepared to explain, and he would also endeavour to answer such observations of the Noble Earl as appeared to him to require attention. The chief ground of his opposition to this motion was, that the paper already on the table contained a clear and distinct view of the conduct of his Majesty's Go vernment with respect to the Allied Sovereigns.— The doctrines contained in that document were fully borne out by the whole conduct of Government, which was entirely founded on the principles of a strict neutrality. That was the course of their policy; that was the principle laid down in the document. If he Should spew that this was the true state of the case, then the fair inference was that their Lordships would not sanction the. production of the papers moved for, unless they admitted that they asked for information upon which they would afterwards do something. If their Lordships were satisfied with the conduct of Minister, then they would think the production • of fbrther papers unnecessary. If they should, on the other hand, be of opinion that the con duct of Ministers was not proper, then they would feel it their duty to support the maim The Noble Earl opposite had,. correethessated what passed on the first darof the Session upon this subject. He was not equally correct - in stating the views with whit') the paper on the table was written. He said that that paper was written with a view to the meet ing of Parliament, and that Government were repre hensible for nothaving stated to the Allied Sovereigns, long before that period, the opinions contained in that paper. It was necessary to inform their Lorirships that it was not untilthe Ist of. December that that paper, or rather project of an intended official commu nicatibn was known to his Majesty's Government.— The Noble Earl was mistaken, if he supposed that there was at first no intention of answering it. For even when it was known to Government as a project, it was stated, through the proper channels, that it was a paper which demanded as early an answer as possible. He admitted that the publication of that paper rendered the answer to it more necessary. But in the answer which they did send, there was not one word of general doctrine which had not been uttered by Government in several papers in the course oflast year: His Noble Friend opposite (Lord Holland) would perhaps recollect that he had put a question to him (Lord Liverpool) as to the paper which had beep issued by the Court of Petersburgh on the sub ject- of Spain, and that in the answer which lie'gave to the Noble Lord's question, he disclaimed the doc trine contained in that Circular, and stated, that Go-. vernment had already explained themselves on the subject, but that he thought that the publication of the paper rather did harm. In this explanation which he had then given, he had stated no new doctrine. The only difference was, that it was more distinctly stated, perhaps, as to the case of N'arles. It was the doctrine that was held during the Treaty of Paris— it was the doctrine held in the whole course of last year, both with regard to the revolutions in Spain and in Naples. On every occasion in which the Go vernment had an opportunity of communicating with other Powers, they distinctly explained their views in the same unvarying manner. The answer, indeed, was dated the 19th of January, but the sentiments and doctrines contained in it were known to the Al lied Sovereigns before that time. If this were false, it might be contradicted. Those doctrines, indeed, were not explained so fully, perhaps, as they had been in the answer, but still the prevailing character of them was fully known. There might have been oc casion since, perhaps, for the publication of the paper signed by the Allied Sovereigns, but he believed it was not intended to be published. He thought so because the paper went to the whole of a prospective league, and was formed with a view to decide on what ground Governments werc in future to resolve upon interference with foreign States. The Noble Earl opposite alluded to the Holy Alliance. The, Noble Earl did not appear to recollect that that was an Alliance to which this country was no party. — There was no mystery in any of our Treaties with foreign Powers. The principles of them might t all be seen oa the face of the Treaties themselves. This country had no engagement with foreign Powers which was not manifest to all the world, and which was not to be found in the Treaties, such as they were, from time to time submitted to the consideration, and impressed with the sanction of Parliament. There was then no difference of opinion between the Noble Earl opposite and himself on the general prin ciple, that it must be a strong and special case which required the interference of one State with another. Perhaps lie might say, that, in the general tenour of circumstances, interference was not necessary, and that it should be considered rather as an exception to, than a part of, a general rule. It was difficult to .define what the cause was which gave a right to one country to make war on another. In general, it might be said, their own credulity—the security which each State was under of providing for its own de fence. In like ..manner„ the only possible ground which justified the interference of one country with another, was a strong and special case growing out of the absolute necessity of its providing for its own security. He admitted that that ground could not arise, for instance, from bad example. If the Go vernment of one people gave a bad example to ano ther people, that, in his opinion, was not enough to justify interference. On the general doctrine, then, he conceived there was no difference between Min and the Noble Earl opposite. Nothing which had occurred since the paper was issued by Government, induced him to depart from the views which it.deve loped. The Noble Lord opposite asked, what was there connected with the Revolution at Naples, which.called for any sentiments of disapprobation on the part of the British Government? In the first place, Minis ters were not to prejudge how far other Govern. ments might think that it was not only proper, but indispensably necessary to their own security, to in terfere with the Government of Naples. Bet his sen timents of disapprobation were grounded on the man ner in which the Revolution of Naples was brought about, by a military mutiny; and, secondly, on the ground of their adoption of the Spanish. Constitution. These, however, were not grounds of conduct which called for the interference of foreign Powers. If a State were managed ever so absurdly, and if its Go vernment were altered by improper instruments, still he submitted these were not the business of foreign States. If the military mutiny of Naples brought about the adoption of the Spanish Constitution, and, in his opinion, that was the real state of the case, still he admitted that that was no ground for foreign in terference—( Hear, hear). He also admitted, that in great national changes the army must take some , share. When the question came to issue, the artily , must take one side or the other; but here was a case • in which the army was the instrument which set on foot the plan of the National Revolution. This was . not the case of a people demanding a redress of grievances, such as existed in this country at the Re , volution in 1688. The case of Naples was one of Military mutiny, secretly fomented by a party.— ; There was one feature in the conduct of the new , Government at Naples, towards the people of Sicily, which he could not pass over. He defied any one to produce anything more outrageous in the history I of the world, than the conduct which that Govern • went, with liberty in their mouth, pursued towards the Sicilians. Everybody was aware that Sicily was, an independent kingdom, governed by its own.laws and usages. Could any one attempt to say, that be-. • cause the artily in Naples-brought about the Revolts. tion,.the people .of Sicily Tare to be excluded from any voice in the formation of the Constitution 2— 1 1 When the event of the chose was made known in May, the strongest sentiment was felt and ex - prase.] against it. It was said that that sentiment of diesa ttsfaction had for its object not the new Constitution, but the Sovereign. But he knew that that was not the case. The dissatisfaction was with reference to the Constitution. What was the consequence ? Na ples sent a military force to overawe the general opi nion, and to compel the Sicilians to submit. What happened when the military force arrived at Paler mo ?—When they air ived there, they found that the difficulties with which they had to cnntend were greater than they had been led to suppose, and they entered into a capitulation as reasonable and just in its terms as any that was ever concluded. It recog nized the two parts of the dominion—it recognized the connection between them—it acknowledged the same Sovereign; but it left it to Sicily to determine if she would prefer a distinct Parliament, or an in corporation with the Parliament of Naples. The Neapolitan Government, when the Treaty went back, refused to ratify it, and they annulled it, and insisted on an unconditional submission from the people of Sicily. Now, if the people of Naples had a right to a Constitution, had not the people of Sicily an equal right to act for themselves?—(Hear, hear).—The Noble Earl opposite passed by all this. Everything, he said, was to be allowed he supposed to despots. The supposition might be retorted, and it might be in the same way said that everything was to bc al lowed to the people. But were no complaints allowed to be made of the acts of the people? When they had done wrong still they were to be held up as faultless. The Noble Earl then proceeded to state, that much security could not be hoped for the pre sent state of things in Naples, seeing how generally the opinion in Sicily was against them—that if the Carbonari were a party confined to Naples, it would only be so far a national question ; but that' was not the case, the Carbonari had spread into Swit zerland and parts of Germany, and with much of the French revolutionaryprinciples, they entertained theo ries which were hostile to the established, legitimate, ancient institutions of several Continental States.— If the sect were in Naples only, it would only be a national concern ; but as they were so widely dif fused, it was a question open for the consideration of the other Powers. He would give no opinion that the conduct of the Carbonari justified the interference of Austria. Upon that subject he would give no opi nion, because he would not prejudge the question.— As to the interruption of the communication between Naples and this country, there was none. Sir Wil liam A'Court was still in Naples, and Count Ludolfe was here, and a variety of communications had taken place between both the countries. It was stated some time ago, that no new powers were given to our Mi nister at Naples. The reason for that was in the si tuition of Naples with respect to Sicily, and they could not have given those powers without prejudg ing that question, and deciding against the case of Sicily. He had no difficulty in saying, that this country had not any part in the Revolution: But still the Sovereign, more than silty years of age, was always friendly to this country, and Government would have been ashamed if they had not afforded to that Monarch and his family every degree of per sonal protection. The Noble Earl, after passing an encomium on Sir William A'Court, who, he said, acted in circumstances of great difficulty in the most correct manner, drew a distinction between the modes in which the Revolution in Naples and that in Spain was conducted. He stated, that Ferdinand of Spain, upon his return to his kingdom, was advised by Sir H. Wellesley, at Valencia, to adopt the Constitution of 1812, and re-establish the Cones. Other councils, however, prevailed, upon the King's arrival at Ma drid, which disappointed the hopes of the nation.— He contended, that the Revolution in Spain was per fectly national, and that nothing could be more dif ferent from it than the case of Naples. The Noble Earl then stated, that, in his opinion, the Papers called for by the motion were unnecessary be pro duced; and he concluded with assuring their Lord ships, that the Government had not in any instance whatever taken, nor would it take, any hostile part in the affairs of Naples. Lord HOLLAND rose and said, that if it was possible that he could suppose for a moment that the conduct of this country, with regard to Naples, was justifiable, and that it was in accordance with the true principles of neutrality, still he would support the motion of his Noble Friend; for it had for its object the production of documents which were ren dered necessary by the incompleteness of the informa tion before the House. The Noble Lord had said, that by acceding to the motion for more information, the House would, in effect, be implying the necessity of a thorough Parliamentary investigation, and also that there was a printafacie case against the Govern ment. The argument might be true if this were the only time that information was moved for. The in formation, he thought, was still incomplete, even with respect to points upon which, apparently, the most satisfactory explanation had been given. It was true the papers before the House contained a specific disavowal, on the part of Great Britain, of being a party to any treaty binding it to co-operate against Naples. But it should not be forgotten that, accord ing to the information before the House the Allies had the best of it. What was the conduct of the Allies ? They said to this country, " You are bound by treaties to co-operate with , us, and we now call upon you to fulfil your engagements."—" No," said the Ministers of Great Britain, " we deny the exist ence of any such treaties ;" and then those Ministers referred for a testimony in confirmation of what they 'A salUp top former papers and convetsations, nothing of which appeared before the House. It was therefore highly necessary to have full and explicit informa tion before the House. But, combining the speech of the Noble Earl with the general proceedings of Ministers, he felt that there was strong ground for suspecting that they were partial to, if they did not actually connive at -the proceedings against Naples. But the Noble Earl said that his Noble Friend (Earl Grey) laid great stress on dates. He (Lord Holland) confessed that he saw in the confounding of the date of the paper alluded to, with the date of its publica tion, a • great ground of suspicion, in his opinion tad whatever might be said by the Noble Earl, it diti aNsprar to him that there was strong suspicion at lathed to the circumstance. The date was the 19th of,January, and it was worthy of remark, that the paper so dated was sent in reply to a demand on the part of the three Allied Powers, of the sanction of Great Britain to principles which those Powers had before promulgated and acted Upon. Dor somewhat strange, indeed, that this country -• now more than a year explaining the tie it had been a party ; that it should beco me , our duty to define the principles which ev e ready to support as having been pledged that the representation of our sentiment s monstrances should have so little effect as late as the 19th January, it should be necess4r, ' make a public declaration of our semi: heats :, too at a conjuncture, when it was impossible promulgation of our sentiments could h are Bible influence or weight with the weake r part ,. last time he had the honour of addre ss i ng "" • ships upon this subject, he had suppo s ed a to pass between the Emperor of Austria: tish Government; and he had some p-' suggested that they might borrow it from the Burletta of Ton& 71uratb. R e " however, of opinion, combining recent with the Circular then upon their table, r really adopted a dialogue friim another similar kind. He recollected that Sir Halton, in the Critic, thus addresses heiri g h, 4, Tell me, thou champion of fly cosuary'sfare. For there's a question which I still Mae s s l , A question which I never ask'd before:. What means these mighty armaments, Thy. general muster and this throng of mica! On which Sneer very pertinently says, 44 how Christopher Hatton never to ask that qv fore?" and the Author immediately rep* before the Play began ? how the pl igui Sir Walter Raleigh then goes on to infdrm , topper Hatton of the many things nith which very well acquainted, when M. Sneer aeai n terferes, and asks the Author " Why, a s si r e topper Ilatton knew all that, did Sir W a ft er go on telling it him ?" To whom the plies rather indignantly, " He knows it well, it is true, but the audience, man, don't know it, he must ask the question for the puri;O'si of forming them"—(A laugh). So it was 'he r r ; curtain was going to be drawn up; was about to assemble, and the audience, ple, must be told what you and I :_ Another suspicious circumstance witS'a that Paper, which said, we took the midi' timity of expressing our opinion of the mode cumstances in which that Revoluticin took They were at liberty, as the Noble Lord said, to express their sen.insents whenev e r pleased ; but, if that Noble Eail was peace and neutrality which be professed his Colleagues to be, he would have told meats to the party most concerned to know fore. Did they communicate their sentiments subject to the Neapolitans? No ; it was that Power which was most likely to m a k e gression upon them on the strength of it. Earl talked of his being a friend to neutrality, had often boasted of this Government being great Constables and Keepers of the Peace( To illustrate this he would put a case. _ were acquainted with a little person, weak and timid in di poiticm; and suppose be acquainted s-..ith a great bulky fellow, firm poreal strength, and of a most quarrelsome, bearing, jealous temper, a neighbour of his friend ; suppose thelittle man were !_ to his garden, or tei some part of his abode, he (Lord Holland) knew would call forth du and disapprobation of his great bulky friend, werel:togo to this great bulky friend and r what this fellow has being doing! I ,as much haste as I could make, to tell highly disapprove of it, and that no . more than I do;" at the same time, that give orders to his porter not to admit the to the house, and make a resolution F would never go near him, lest he gave a tory explanation of his conduct. What thought of his impartiality he should like, under such circumstances? ( Laughter).--SJ so, when having heard that the bulky man. the weaker one with a great cudgel, he should an early opportunity to declare his anxiety prejudge the case, at the same time speech, in which he should tell all the discredit of his little friend, ment of their thcquaintanceship--( He maintained that these were stances. What occasion was there ,in that House to get up and talk a' vernment ? Why did he take tir benefit of Austria? The Emperor pretty plainly told them, that he ing nor learned men. " I want,' " good subjects, not learned men. concocted at the Foreign Secretar up with all its learning, with beauty of language, with all its . sion, for the sole purpose of please this ! The Noble Earl opposite not disapprove of a Revolution had taken part in it. But he said of it if it originated with an arm' that he was ready to admit it, petent authority ; provided the griev. died be complained of, and reined' petent Authorities. This doctrine he must confess, appeared somew ) to him. What was the object of . lutions ? To purify the Government. the grievance complained of its • was not the Goveridnent, or the ties, as they were called? Did mean to say. that :the competent . put themselves forth as a grievance,. themselves? He hoped that would operate as a warning to did not, be hoped they would operate Lto their soldiers and subjects I That which every man who cherished must participate in. He could on the delicacy of the Noble Lord so anxious not to prejudge the car that he threw away the reasons assigned for its conduct, and Ulf .He referred to that part of the which alluded to Sicily. What Sicily when the House of Bourbon Naples? The King came from tution which he had sworn to and which he had derived all the and out: of his first acts was to break . 1 111u p ilt it ! P° : m beco n t e n. w Ili c en es a h ttr :me ur i c 8 : 2144 :: : 414 : ith illi t tt een pledged to, mtiment s Limn* • tae effe ct tit; as • to r senti:hent s , ald th .v r as impossible dna L s could h are a* le weak er part ; g: l l siddreson theg lob 111 I supposed a . f Austriaaod th e W ome what i I IN vow the outeriadz. , kotob. He 1, 34 i"1 recent ocatai tr table, that* jiu m another *ori e l that Sir Chrd ii i,' , . 11 esses ("" by country's*. t 'rk s this k lasribet tl iingsl :a r t fh q emers° l lski s w iesii tla caiii; e g h lifgi sv i u ch % ls e k iatrintainenisyyreptis,th lee M pl 'gut mold be i d to infarm Sir Chio li M.. /eel agaja " Why, as gi,. 04. d Sir IVA & E r knows it well est ir b a, don't know it, r So it was .he n; dr : c eh e tnhlanleu w uckd a pnP l eot I; :lr a ci c 41:4 e d p C a p ill 61 of k tjb:te i n Nk volutionot Noble l e e L ; e jk p ut plea„ p 1.11 0 n of the mod a* • po e op p tents whenev er t i q C E.ail was the lo* ti professed himself* p have told these v 4 •ned to know dusk % ti their sentiments of No ;it was valy d of kely to mak e a<v . al ngth of it. Th e NA nd to neutrality,* w anent being tried* Isl f the Peace of Leto Si t a case. Supfoseie H erson, weak in body suppose he mei st fettow, of greet oat L st quarrelsome, oats •su eighbnur of his little were to do soared' , tof his abode, •'.* : t,l I call forth the asltr ci bulky frieid, andbe tl friend and say= - ig . ! lam cow vie ft ke, to tell you At I Ii that no man can time, that he • I admit the little 0 ution himself rake w the gave a satin- b Let. What woel.lie a should like to kw, n inkier . it e bulky manludhat 'Agri, he should tie al re his anxiety aotP titre time maliti . s 1 II all that he rieip__sins:ep(thiLacieien: tl citrat there for the Mile t 1 elk about about.' . 11 that trouble fit is IA peror of Austria Ili • he did not vraetkie it," said his 740 • 0 en." And this pia e ary's Office, was el all its thalami is cleat nest and FP Teasing such Ms 11 to said, that he c don because an , ai said he did diva. . !I army. He said , if achieved by ' grievance to be unedied by the.' rine of the Zol*.* Ih mewhat • 111 of all political anent. Add whet n all !imolai°, 1,. se competent A " I the Noble Faris . nt Authorities ince,and revok . the late R ' Monarchs —an d -; operate as an • That was a led liberty in his I not help ; ,ord opposite's's ° . case, at the same' as which Atunis 0 :t-.1 suggested a De w Noble Lords it was the sit ' • irbon was re aw • lg ' n SiCily with . and sanctwoe d, advantage he • ircak that CO' •