The Sun.
London, England, 1821-02-20 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS, Fan. 19.
Mr. BROGDEN and Mr. STllittl: WORTLEY
hi-ought-up-several- Private Bills from the House
of Commons, which we:e read a first time.
Mr. lITA.m, from the Commissioners for the
Reduction of the Natioaal Debt, presented an
Account of the sums placed in their name during
the Year ending in Jan. 1821. Laid on the table..
The Earl of nossLyst presented a . Petition
from the Royal Burgh of Dysart, praying that
the. Queen's name be replaced in the Liturgy.
Laid on the table.
- Lord FoLcy-pmentec.l Petitions from Kidder-
minster and Croydon, which were understood to
be,: to the'eatne:,etfect. Laid on the tablet,:
MOLY AWANCE.-NAPLES%
Earl GREY rose, pursuant to the notice which
he had given, to move for such additional infor-
mation as appeared to him necessary to put the
House in possession of all the circenastances
which could enable it to form a correct judgment
with respect to the part taken by his Majesty's
Government in the proceedings adopted towards
Naples. The changes which had been effected
in that Government were of the deepest interest
and importance to the rest of Europe ; and from
the time when they appeared to excite the hos-
tility of that Alliance which, though called
Holy, created a well-grounded jealousy for the
liberties of Mankind—from the time they seemed
to excite the hostile feeling of that dangerous
confederacy, a corresponding degree of alarm and.
suspicion had also._been created in this country.
It was with such a feeling that on the first day
of the Session he had drawn the attention of their
Lordships to the proceedings of the Allies to-
wards Naples, and had inquired- of the Noble
Earl opposite whether the Circular published in
their name, correctly stated their intentions • and
those of his Majesty's Government." The answer
returned by the Noble Earl seemed to a great
degree satisfactory. He said that the Paper in
question, though not verbally', wad sub-
stantially correct, and strongly • disclaimed
the interpretation put upon the views of
his Majesty's Government, as well as the right of
interfering in the concerns of other States: The
Noble Earl then added, what he (Lord Grey)
trusted their Lordships would not sanction, that
there were circumstances which would justify
such an interference, and prornieed. to lay before
the House the answer written by.the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, to the Circular of the Allies,
as a'docausent which would satisfactorily explain
the conduct of his-Majesty's Government. • That
Paper was now on their Lordships' Table, and.
he was sorry to say, that it had not afforded him
the satisfaction which he had been led-to expect.
He therefore found himself compelled by a sense
of duty to address his Majesty for more informa-
tion upon the subject, and to preface his motiorrby
some observations upon the affairs of Napl,2s, and
the conduct of other Governments. After what
had already.passed,and the declaration, however
feeble, of the Secretary of State, that the prin-
ciple of interference was one which could not
'be admitted to found a system of international
law, as it would necessarily give a sort of supre-
macy to one Government over another, it might,
perhaps, appear unnecessary that he should en-
large upon that part of the subject. Yet he
could not refrain from expressing his opinion of
the .. enormity of the, principle assumed by the
Allied Powers, that they had a right.to exert a
direct influence over the other States of Europe,
and to resist any internal changes in their Go-
vernments, which they might consider or call
hostile to the interests 'of legitimate Monarchy.
No natter how unanimously those changes had
been effected by the Sovereign and the People—
no matter how inoffensively towards other . na-
tions—no matter how wisely and beneficially to
themselves—still they were not to be suffered
unless they had-received, their sanction ! They
assumed the right of pronouncing judgment upon
them— of calling a Monarch to their tribunal to
answer for the Constitution to which lie had given,
his assent, and prepared to enforce their &cis.
sion by the strength of armies. This was no-
thing less than a pretension to dictate arbitrarily
to all nations ! A more intolerable principle
had never been us!erted. And 'this was not
the first time that it had been put forward.
If their Lordships had attended' to the Revo-
lution in Spain and Portugal, they would find
that it had appeared in the Note written by
Prince Metternich, in the Memorial addressed to
Mr. de Bersten, in the Circular issued by the
Court or Russia, and in two other Notes, pub-
lished by . the Austrian and Russian Govern-
ments. It was also to be found in an .article in-
serted in the Berlin Gazette, which, eoesidering
the state of the press in Prussia, mast be regard-
ed as the expression of an official opinion.. In
that Gazette it was broadly stated that there
could be no communication with the new Govern-
ment of Naples, because it would be to acknow-
ledge the legitimacy of a revolt, effected by an
armed sect, and that the principle of legitimate
Monarchy rejected eVery, change which was not
freely and spontaneously offered and accorded by
the Monarch himself. If this were tree—if this
were the code to be universally adopted, then let
tyranny rejoice and nations mourn, their chains
were rivetted for ever ! If these were the bene-
volent intentions of which the Noble Earl oppo-
site and his Colleagues had found traces in the
Circular ,of the Allied Powers, the condition of
mankind was hopeless indeed. Nations must
bear the chains imposed upon them ; iMprove-
ment was forbidden, and all change denied, un-
less it was freely and spontaneously offered and

accorded by their despots! It was true that his
Majesty's Ministers' had disclaimed any, pat tici-
pation in such principles; but it was remarkable
that their first and 'only opposition had. been de-
ferred until the 19th of January last. Had they
not then perused any of thoie notes to which he
had alluded? Was the Russian Declaration un-
known to them ? Had the article in the Berlin
Gazette escaped their notice ? And in that con-
certof councils which they boasted to have este-
amengst the European Powers were stach
proceedings carried en,whilst they were.kept ig-
nerant of them? They must have known that such
State Papers were, issued, containing the open as-
sertion of such principles; they must then have
remonstrated or not. If they did remonstrate,
what become of that iufluence which they
piot'aitled to have Obtatned -in the Councils of
Europe, if a prineipita was acted upoa, and the.
consent of this country assumed as asanattief. of
course, in the face of their Declaration to the con-
trary ? If they Mad not remonstrated, then what
a deep and disgraceful responsibility had. they
not incurred ? The house had therefore
.a right
to call upon them for explanation ; and explana-
tion was rendered the more necessary by the ex-
tremely suspicious, circumstances which attended
the paper now Oh the table. Their Lordships
would perceive that it was dated the.l9th of Ja-
nuary, only fotir days before .the meeting of Par-
liament. It avas true that the Noble Earl had
said that the Circular of the Allied Powers wirs
not intended for publication, and had come upon
Ilian.by surprise. But if the principle which it
asserted was known to him and to his Colleagues,
it was their duty to remonstrate before its publi-
cation. As only four days had elapsed from the
date of the Reply to the opening of the Session
might not a suspicion be entertained, that it had
only been issued to answer the purposes of discus-
sion in Parliament, and for no other end what-
ever ? But the suspicion did not rest there.
What had been the conduct of his Majes-
ty's GoVernment towards the Allied Powers,
whilst they were known to be preparing hos.
tile measures against Naples I It had been
One of perfect concord and amity. But how had
they behaved to Naples? They had suspended
all intercourse with 'the new Government! Ile
saw the Noble Earl giving signs. of dissent;
but he' repeated that the
.functions of the British
Minister at Naples had been suspended, and that
the Atnbassador sent by the Neapolitan Govern-
ment to this country had been refused admittance.
Did it not then appear, that his Majesty's
Government had favoured in secret, that against
which they had made a show of declaring open-
ly.? But thin was not ail.' At the/ vary t;ma-when
Austria sent an army to the Italian frontier, a
British squadron of unusual force, in time of
peace, appeared in the Bay of Naples. For what
purpose had this measure been adopted. :Was it
to assist the Neapolitan Government, and to re-
pel the invasion of Austria.? No : our vessels
were employed in carrying into effect the in-
famous removal of the King of Naples, from
his own capital, to answer before the Allies for
the constitution which he had consented to give
to hi's people. We had been parties iu the exe-
cution of that unjust and disgraceful measure.
he wished to ask whether weahad been parties
HI advising it ?. Whether the British Minister at
,Naples had been admitted at those-councils=
whether he had been present when the communi-
cation had been made, and whether this country
had thus been made to co-operate in a degrada-
tion of the kingly.office,greater than any recorded
in history, with the exception of the summoning
of Ferdinand to. Bayonne, an act which had been
justly, loaded with universal reprobation.? . This
was one of the point's -on which he wished to
procure information, and he trusted that their
Lordships would join in the call. The next con-
sideration would be the nature of the- paper
which had been laid before the House. lf. it
were divested
_of its verbiage, it would be found
to disclaim the prineiple assumed by the Allies,
as inconsistent with a system of international
Law, and the independence of States. Refer-
ring to the events at -Naples, it then stated that
the British Government had:not hesitated., te ex-
' press their strong disapprobation of the mode
and circumstances under which that Revolu-
tion was understood to have been effected.—
Now if his Majesty's 'Government had a right
to express any disapprobation at all, it should
only have been after having been put •in
possession of the amplest information upon
the subject. They however declared that
they had received no such information.—
They acted on what they merely " understood"
to have been the case, and on such grounds
they had not " hesitated" to express their. cen-
sure ! lie wished to ask whether this had been
done without previously receiving through those.
ehanne.ls of official intercourse which existed among
all civilized States, these explanations which the
Neapolitari Government might have been willing
to give, and which might have produced a total
change id their opinion ? If they had not
done so, they had, in the very outset of their pro-
ceedings, shown an undue bias, inconsistent with
ttwir profession's of impartiality.. The paper
then expressly stated that " they should not con-
sider themselves called upon or justified to ad-
vise an, interference on the part of this, country,"
but admitted 46 that other European States,
and especially Austria and the Italian powers,
might feel themselves differently circum-
stanced, and . they professed that. it was
not their, purpose to prejudge the question
as it might affect them, or, to interfere with
the course which such States might, think' fit
to adopt, with a view to their own security, pro-
vided only that they were ready to give every

reasonable assurance that their views
,were not
directed to ptirPoses of aggrandizement,; subver-
sive of . the territorial. system of .Europe, as eStat-,.
blished by the late Treaties." - He must say, that
theconduct of his .Majesty's Government,as ex-
plaiued in this part .of,tbe paper, appeared to..
him most extraorditurry: They professed that:
they would not interfere, and yet had suspended
the diplomatic intercourse of this ,country-with
Naples.: On what grounds bed that intercourse
-been interrupted ? Diplomatic Ministers were the .
legitimate channels of coinutunication between
Sovereigns. If Sovereigns were changed, then,
indeed, the appointment of new Ministers might •
become necessary ; but ;was that the case at -
Naples? A revolution had'taken place, but had,
the King been changed ? No ; he remained the
same ; he was acknowledged by the Army and .
the People, but he. was, no. longer arbitrary. 7—
( lenga hear').. n- what grount.t. o)ereceit'eihad,‘ . •
the British liinister.been changed Or-suspended ?
On the ground that there had been a Revolution
But were their Lordships to he told, that a
volutiou effected unanimously by the.army and
the people—a Revolution which maintained
.the .
Kiag on his Throne, and only limited his powers,
justified such conduct on the part of our Govern-,
ment ? Had the case been reversed—had the King`,
of Naples, with the assistance of his army, over,-
turned,a free Government, would -his. Majesty's
Ministers have pursued a similar-line ofconduct ?.
Their Lordships had seen the free Government of
Spain, a Government which this country had. as,,
sisted in ettablishing, overturned by Ferdinand
at his return, but had any suspension of diploma-.
tic intercourse followed that Revolution? Unlese,
different rules should apply to Revolutions when
effected by Kings or the people, ,a similar con,
duct ought in the last instance to have been adopt-,
ed. But in the present, it was the character of
the Neapolitan Revolution which ,made the dif-
ference, because the powers of the King had been
limited, instead of his subjects being chained.
This was still more conspicuous in the case of-
where the very Government which we laad.
been instrumental in giving to the people had, '
been overthrown by the King of Naples, and yet
no suspension of diplomatic intercourse had on.
curred. Did not the assembling of an army ou
the Italian frontier, the summoning of the King
to Laybach, the suspension of the British Mini;.
ster at Naples, coupled with the Declaration•
contained in the paper on the table, amount .to
this :—that although we asserted the dela of an
independent nation to regulate its own govern,
ment, we admitted that Naples must be an ex-,
cepted case ? This was one branch of the
sistom of policy long since adopted by his. Mae.
jesty's MinisterS ; a systein founded on the
principle of convenience, and in whiCh the bae
lance of power was tried to be carried into effect
by territorial arrangements, instead of due ree
sired for national rights. It was in execue
Lion of that -system that the independence of
-Genoa had been sacrificed to Sardinia; that of
Venice to Austria ; of Saxony to Prussia ; and of
Norway to Sweden !--From the'tnoment that the •
principle of national rights was abandoned for
that of convenience, a loose was given to all pree
texts, which would not fail to serve -the purposes
-of ambition. His Majesty's Ministers admitted
that Naples was an excepted case, provided the
Allied Powers gave reasonable security that their
views were not directed to territorial aggrandize-
ment. But the only real security was the main-
tenance of the. principle of right and justice.
What other,assurapce could be had ? Austria, in
violation of right and justice, proceeded to occupy
Naples :.that done, -what might be the conse-
quence ? lie was not one of those, who, cottsj,-
'tiering the, relati re means and resources .of -the
two nations, could think that in the first instance
any effectUal resistance could be made to Aus.7.
tria. _ .She would occupy Naples. But -.thenx
what security was there that having once occti,
she could ever relinquish. Naples.. Could
she give it up to the hostile spirit which she
would have created ? Must she not heap' her
armies in garrison amidst a justly exasperated
people, to repress the continual efforts,at eman-
cipation which would he made, till they became
irresistible ? Or, at best, must not Naples re.;-
main dependant on Austria, and would not that
create jealousy and apprehension amongst the
other States of Europe. It might prOduce the
most unfortunate consequences. With some ex-
perience in,the conduct of Austria, he, did not
place more confidence in her assurances, than he
would in the credit of the Bank of Vienna. Was
it possible to.imagine that Naples, once ill her
power, she Would relinquish her views on the
whole of Italy ?, liehelieved she had other views
than those which were now openly avowed. And
what w ere those of the other Continental Powe'.is
who, even in peace, seemed to be preparing for
war, and the greatest of whorn,llussia, had been
denounced to the Congress of Vienna by a Bri-
tish Minister as entertaining dangerous plans ?
Would they not, say to Austria, you, have ob-
tained an accession of power, we must have: a
compensation ? They- would, look for that com-
pensation, and he was not certain that Russia had
not already marked hers out. But to revert -to
the paper on the table; after disclaiming the idea
that the course adopted by the Allied Powers
would have the sanction of his Majesty's Gover&
ment, it stated, that they had never understood
those treaties to itnn'Ose, such obligatiOns
they had, on various occasions, both in Parlia,
ment and in their intercourse with the A llicd Go-
vernments, distinctly, maintained, the negative .c e
•such a proposition. , That they had acted with
,„
all possible explicitness upon this subject,
would at once appear from reference to the deli-
berations at Paris ha
.1815 ; previous to the cqn-