The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-02-20 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 20, 1821.

no matter by what majority approved, uo, matter
with what advantage to the people, and no matter
whether it originated or was sanctioned by the
if it interfered with despotism,they (the holy
Alliance) had a right to declare war •g ‘inst the
'onion who :death' attempt to throw off the yoke of
despotism. This way not the first time that
those rwsitiMettle were promulgated under tlw sits.
pice. of the Holy A Illative; for if they looked to the
changes iii lie Governmeets of Spain and Por-
tugal, they would find at the time they occurred a
Note of ()lance Mettereiclet, another of Ihr
perm' of Russia to tlir same effect. and they cot-
firmed by au article in the Berlin Court Gazette;
and When their Lordships considered the state of
the press of that count they they coult, hare JI•1
doubt. of its smthenticitec It stated, that ev-ry
form of government wit. repuenant to good order
that did ten spring from, the Monercle or was the
spontaneous act of the Soveieiesi. If this doctrine
was true, it was saying, let the reign of tyranny
proceed, and let the subjects orthe Monarchs
of Europe beer their chains of slavery ; and
it must be the ease, if subjects were lint
allowed • yoke in their government. lie would
ask, was the Note of Prince Metternich known
to his Nbujesty's Government ? Was the Emperor
of Russia's Note known to them ? If they were not,
they must Pay they were kept in the dark until the
last moment; for if they had knowledge of them,
out. of two things must have happened : they must
have remonstrated against them, or they did not ;
If they did remonstrate, it must have bete in such
field,- language that it Wart taken fir a tacit assent ; •
but if they did not remonstrate, no colidernua-
min was too great for their conduct. On this
point their Lordships had a right to demaud ex-
plameion from Majesty's Ministers. The
Note had not been pulalislied mail the 19th of
Jeriu try, about the period that Parliament was
about to assesithie. The Noble Earl had assured
the House that the Circular of the Austrian Govern-
ment had not been intended fir publication, but
that having found its way to the public view, Mi-
nioters judged it neceas.ury to make their answer as
conspicuous. But if tee principles of the Allied
Court., continued in that Circolur, were objection-
able, it was the duty of Ministers to have opposed
the d.claration of them at the inninent ; but coine
ing out, as the paper of glue Foreign Secretary did,
just before the meeting of Parliament, it looked
more l.ke au attempt to obviate discussions stud
explanations. which might ustuially have been ex-
pected as soon as die Parlieutent should be re.
assembled. But how had %Miters displayed the r
regard to the principle of nut interfering with the
internal regulations of an independent State?
What had been their coliduct in regard to such
an interference by one of the Miele
Pows•rs and how had they deittuted themselves to
the people of Naples, who-Md'been -subjected to
ties acknowledged injustice of interference ? Why,
by a suspension of all amicable intercourse with the
Niapblinsii Government. He saw that the Noble
Lord differed with him upon that point. He re-
peated it, tit tit then an immediate einipension oil the
part of the English Cabinet of ell tenietthle inter-
course between the Brutish and Neapolitan Courts
had taken place, the functions of the British
Minister at Naples were withdrawn, and the
accredited Minister of the Government of Naples
in Lnialoil was cut off from all commuilivii-
tion with this Government. Austria, meanwhile,
assembles an army on the frontier of Naples; at
the same time a British squadron, of extitioedinary
force for • time of peace, enters the bay of Naples.
Fur what purpose was thus equadron in writing ? To
uphold the independent rights of Naples, or to
assist the aggressive views of Austria ? Or was it
to guard the embarkation of the King of Sicily,
summoned, degradingly cited to appear before
the meeting at Laybach, to answer for the in-
terual transactions of his kingdom ? Had his
Britannic Majesty's Ministers in soy way concur-
red or undertaken to assist in that humiliation of
the kingly office, that coarse outrage to the dignity
of independent Sovereigns, which hail to match,
which was without any parallel except in the invita-
tion, arrest, and forcible conveyance or Ferdiaatel
of Spain to Bayonne, an instance of usurpiug
violeece which none were louder than Ministers to
deprecate, but from which they appeared to thilik
that a profitable example might be derived ? These
were considerations which, as they must occur to
every honest mind engaged vim the *106..0, lie
trusted would be met by 101 l and lethal:teeny ex-
planation. He came next to the consideration of
the Note of the 19th J unitvry, when, chilled with
the frosts, and encumbered with the fogs of winter,
it came forth as an answer to the Austrian Circular.
The Note appeared to advert to two distinct ob-
jects contained in the Circular—a declaration of
the principle of interference, and • claim of assist-
once, founded on some league or treaty for assisting
in that interference in the internal affairs of any
state which might be *apposed to endanger the
interest of any of the Powers so allied. To these
the Note gave a general disclaimer of interference
by the British Government in the internal regula-
tions of indepeudent Seers. S•ripped and dis-
charged from the confusion and verbiage in which
it was enveloped, it amounted 19 nu more than
such • declaration as he had described. His Lord-
ship then quoted parts of the paper, which declared
that the conduct of the British Government with
regard to Naples, would be regulated by the prin-
ciple* of national law and the rights of iticleiten-
derit States—that the British Government did not
pretend to determine how far the interests of the
Austrian Government might or might not render it
necessary for them to interfere with the revolution of
Naples—that the British Cloven) men notwithstend-
ing its indisposition to intertiie its the affiirs of Na-
ples, had not neglected to use the earliest opportu-
nity of expressing to the Neapolitun authorities their
strongest censure of the mode and means by which
the revolution had been effected. He wished to
ask what right of interference or of judging be-
term tie rulers and people of other Wiwi', could




be fairly assumed by lkituisters, accn..lurg to the
principle first admitted ? Hut if that right Isad
existed. their first duty would hare been to have
secured full esplanatiou of all the particulars re-
garding the causes and Cummesseefurett of the it vs-
lution. Why were they au ready to censure that
proceedinc before there could have been any thug
like a sutlicicut lapse of Lime to gnu 1 th it isiforussi--
bon from the Allied Powers, as ..ell as to
which their amity with foreign Stares cleattleten-
titled them. and which were so tstemoiel to the
fortnatiois of a just judgment ow, and eels:tun.
erne Neapolitan Revoluiiim 1 Here they wanted
maenad-too, to prove the existence of that mia-
tiality iu determination which Ike ipterests of grtm

JP,
to tfaal:ext passage in the paper, slier that in.
which t probable right of Austria to interfere was
admitted, in which it was asserted, shut iii I list twee
the only security required by the Binds!' Gorcro-
mesa would be some security that the right of
interference should not be perverted to the pur-
pose of territorial aggro iiel isemen Ile ittio4
say, that the conduct of Minister's in the whole
of this proceeding appeared to be very extraor-
dinary. According to the principle which was
first set forth, the least they could lisve done
would have been to propose a censure on the con-
duct of the A flies, and to declare with firmness
against any interference, without due explanation
having been first given, with the internal affairs of
Naples, instead of putting an end to ill amicable
intercourse with Naples in the hest instance. %That
were the grounds on which they [Hoke off their
amity with Naples ? What prete:.ce could be
offered for such a measure? There were accredited
agents of the respective Sovereigns employed at
the separate Coats. The King of Naples was
oil his throne; his right of sovereignty fully ad-
milted; some changes were deemed necessary;
his authority, which before was arbitrary, was
now to be limited, amid tree principles were to
supersede the unlimited power and despotism
which before prevailed. 'file only plea for the
necessity of interference, or for the Cenbllre adverted
to in the Note of the Foreign Secretary, must lie
sougsit for in the character of the revolution. Should
he be told that because a change of policy avid legic-
Moan had been comme,ced by the military, though
subs elatedly adopted by the people without a di—
setoient voice, and fluidly had (wen sanctioned and
med by the Sotereiget, it was, therefore, ill-
adfinsoble in its principle, and all it. proceeding. ?
But what if the case were otherwise ? Suppose a
Monvich to succeed, by :he help of au Willy, in
reducing the constitunon and laws of a free State,
ought not the principle, if correct, of objection to
revolutions commenced by the military, equally to
stptrty 1 Yet what had been the conducted (*holsters
with resitectaio Spainundeicircuaisiaisees similar to
the-ater; A free Government, essablisliedsrsth for
coucurrence not only of the people of that country,
but with that -el England also, had been overturned
by the army of the Kiiig; yet LIU suspension of ami-
cable relations had taken place—slot the slightest
remonstrance or censure had passed from the Bd.
fish Government on the ocean in, mares it were to
be maintained that there was one rule fur arbitrary
Governments contending against free Constitutions,
and another rule for the people contending against
the unlimited and itnplacable authority of arbi-
trary Gorernments, under the same or similar
circumstances in other respects, it would he difficult
to defend the obvious partiality of Ministers iu
the application of their measures to the two in-
k:owes which he had mentioned. It must be the
character of freedom in tile revolution of Naples
which had attracted the resentment and centime
under which that people labouren, stsd had in-
duced Ministers to take those hostile liens against
them. lit this very case of Sicily, the bee rotten-
lotion which had been elllahllbilt(i there under the
influence and plowed tttt of Great Britain, bud
been overturned by the Sicilian Court, and 110 hos-
tile iuterference ou the part of the British Govern-
ment had occurred. These proceedings, togethe r
with those of Laybsch,. the suspension of amicable
intercourse with Naples, and the censure at the
changes in that Government passed upon them,
without waiting fur explanation, Irel his Loidship
to an inferetice of the mustiness emit pas tiality with
which Ministers had prejudged the latter case. lie
called their Lordships' &dewiest* to the strong ex-
emplification of the effect* of the conduct oh Go-
vernment, especially as it regarded the department
of the Foreign Secretary. There were securities
asked front the Austriati Goveriiment against the
right of intertercuee lug used against Naples,
for purposes of territorial aggrandisement. Herr
was a proof of die effect of at:erupting to re-
gulate the balance of poser by terdiortal di.
vision, instead of establishing it on the basis
of stational right mid indepeedeocc. This was
• very clear exemplification of the nature and
tendency of that policy for which Genoa was
sacrificed to Sardinia, Venice to Austria, Saxony
to Prussia, and Norway to Sweden. This was the
natural result of substitutiog force and domination
to settle the balance of power (the tiecessity for
which he might be disposed to admit as a principle),
instead of securing it on the wily true foundation
of right and justice, the defence of the • weak
against the strong. Ilavitig rejected right and jug=
trace, they might now behold the comoqiiences of
substituting force and expediency. Obey de-
clared generally against the right of interference ;
then they admitted that with respect to A mtria
interference with Naples might he a necessary ex-
ception. But then they required security against
territorial aggrandizement. lit this lay all the de-
fence against the invasion of tuitional rights and the
aggressions of foreign States. What was there be-
sides this undefiued request for the peace and veen-
rity of States ? Austria, ii, violation of justice
and national right, would occupy Naples. What
would be the probable consequence? He knew
not what the spirit of liberty might be able
to achieve in favour of the Nespolians, hut
i the superior power of Au.:iria would be moot

PRICE 7d. •

•
likely to overcome Naples. Having *liken polars-
soot, how amid she be lead to etrartems Neplee ?
Would not the irriia'rd feelings of the 4.o.ipinoot-
ed population be likely to teed to outrages white,
would only be terininetid by alseolute conqurst ?
F.xposed to all the artaeka of an enraged and i•i-
jurell people, she would he Compelled to subjti-
ease. and gareillson Teeple% with Austrian !woes.
At all events, Neptes *yule become a dependaiice
of the Aus'rien Geveiemetit. The exauip'e must
be productive of tie worst cosisequences. Astute(
is asked for assurances as a security for not tiontrig
her interference with Naples to the accoute of
territorial acquisition. With his experience of
the pear, he professed his inability to trust
kernels to The salrltuCes of Au•ttnk oil such
a auhivet. Could nil one believe that Austlie
had given up all her former desigin ;yea
Italy ? or, that having got bold of the terve%
trey mild rrsotitellis'of Naples, she was all at once
disposed to throw tip her former ambitious Pee-
jects ? Hut this being incredible, what sight net
be the projects of ether Power* in referent-else or
in consequence of the same trausactioe? They
had seen in times of peace, sad a meeting of'
Potentates professedly in friendship with each
other, considerable jealousy and agitations An
Enelisli elirrister. at the Cortgrees of *Vining,
hail &teetered Russia as having a disposition to
nolest the balance of power for purposes of leiri-
tolial requirement. Might not Russia be already
pledged to assist Austria iu the invasion of Naples ?
Had she not already shavis her disposition to en-
courege the interference of Austria with the affairs
' of Naples ? Would not other Powers as well as
feseesta lie disposed to demand a compensation to
' set off' this iiew advantage on the part of Austria ?
Prussia and France Wight urge the neceseity ef
compeasations. If so, a more singuirte view of the
peaeeful and unambitious purposes of Austria thee
lie cueld entertain must he taken by those who
could imagine that the aggression of the Neapoli-
tan territory was not big- with the most fatal cones-
rptettets to the repose of Europe. After a reference
to certain allegations contained in soene former trea-
ties, the paper cattail:v(l a declaration, which appear.
ed to he the most explicit part of its compaelid.
and which declaration purporeeti, that the papers re-
ferred to had never been understood as tending to
impose c eiditieris on the British Government
which disagreed with the nature of the Constitue
tints ; and the 13thish Government disclaimed any
comernetion cootraly thereto, which might be put .
upon their agreements, in any appeal which Duet
be rustle to their assiatance or interference. Here
again was • strung exemplification of the soundness of
thet system of union eneonz the Governments of
Europe, which had, instead of justice sod good faith
fur its foundation, the hare strength of confederated
power. Treatise had beet, MA le to' numbers;•everf
explanation had been sought and given by the' Pe-
tentatert one to member, so its to combine their
views mid policy in the one ohj t of securing
the peace and tranquillity of Euro ; conferences
had been held, congresses had been called, treaties.
manifestoes, protocols, documents of all soils hue
been written and signed in abundance—yet, after all
these curious and variegated ttents, after all the
assiduous endeavours of our clear and explicit
I Secretary of State for Foreign Aliens, explana-
tion and detail enough to fix the repose of Eurepe
—after all that had passed at Aix-le-Cha-
pelle, at Paris, and then at Vienna, then again
at Aix-la-Chapelle, at last it came to this, that in
December 1820, it was found necessary to ex•
pound by an official Note, the terms of relatiee
andelliance conteined in the former treaties, the Al-
' lied Powers declaring that they understood those
terms in one sense, the British Minister declaring
against the interpretation assumed, and setting up
miother meaning. Were he to be called to elem. •
pltfy by one circumstance the nature, tender:et?, eye
effect of all the labour of negociations and treaties
through which his Majesty's Ministers bud tra-
velled, and to chew at one simple view the advan-
tage, and propriety of their policy, he *oriel
only have to point to the paper on the table.
lie came at last to consider the case of exception,
the probability of which was admitted by the paper.
iii declaring &spent the general principle of inter-
ference with the lutenist arrengentents of Govern.
merits. Ilecould trot help remarking on the extra.
ordinary terangemeet of the subject in the paper
befwe the House. The exception ought properly
to have followed the general declaration of the right
of indeeeuderit states to alter the regulations of
their civil government. But the ;raper on the
table first stated a disclaimer of the British Govern..
meet to the general. principle of interference ;
secondly, a disclaimer of the explanation put
upon the terms of certain treaties by the Al-
lied Powers; thirdly. came the ca e of probable
exception against the right of independent States
as to interred alterations ; 4thly, the admission oil
behalf of Austria th it Naples might be with re-
'peen to the former Power a primer case of excep-
tion. So far, however, was the paper itself from
yielding proof. of a dispaition nut to prejudge et
treat any of the parties with partiality, that the re.
verse was proved oat of the very declaration itself..
No objection was stated by the Foreign Secretary,
even in supposition, to the interference of Austria.
What COliCillelOil tern could be drawn btit that in
asserting the general print iple with which the
paper commenced, it hid been done without any '
view or intention to real application ? . To what .
purpose was it to state useless end childish defiant-.
testis, upon abstract principles, tit only fort he dials-
sem of *cholas, which statements could be of no
use:to menkind at large? But admitting the pis- *s.`‘
sibeetY otexception, and especially sole reference
to the case ,of Napier, it would be admitted that . *
the case ought to prove the strongest orerisety for
interference. ' eette danger proposed sliduhl be real
and not itnagiborys-sone that in calif. ef •the dread:. '
ed alterationevieng place, rendered the security of
nagehouring States obviously hazardous_olie that
threatened ennovatoun and overthrow to coettgentel
Governments—auee as where inducements were

.

- p

„r,, •ruwcr UI auz:ria %Quit! Ur moat "U":"IlDtH"..".”" as flt'Et 113UUCCUICUte Were