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

forbid they should, from imbibing the sentiments
of citizens. In all revolutions armies must take
part, either with the Sovereign or M ith the Peo-
ple ; and God forbid; whatever depth of tyranny
might exist, they should always take part with
the tyrant. Ile halted this instance Of patriotism
in the Neapolitan army, as a -proof that soldiers
could not be mado to lose the feelings of men.—
He hailed it, too, as a salutary and important
lesson to all Sovereigns, if they had but the wis-
dom to profit by it, how much safer it was to
found Governments in right and justice, and to
take for guards tbe•love and-gratitude of their
people, than to rely for support on standing ar-
mies.--(Hear, hear !)—But it was said, that w he-
titer the change at !Naples- was necessary or not,
it could not be acknowledged, but must be pun-
ished, and that till it Was done there would be
uo 'security for legitimate Sovereigns. What
would have become of our religion and-our liber-
ties, if the army which James 11. kept, however
small iu comparison with those of the present
'day,, had taken part with that despot? But no
seseSations were to tak4lace, because what bet-
tered the condition of one people, would make
another discontented with tyranny. The liber-
ties of Naples menaced the paternal Governments
of Austria. They inspired the people of Breslau
and of Silesia to long for those Constitutions
which had been promised them, and which had
been so fatally withholders. Even the wilds of
Russia, which had repelled the invasion of
France, might be penetrable by the spirit of li-
berty. Send, therefore, Neapolitans, your King
to our Congress, or prepare to receive the full
discharge of our wrath! This was the language
held out to Naples, which his Majesty's Govern-
ment abetted and encouraged ! But something
still remained worse than ell the rest. It was
the secret article concluded between Austria
and Naples. lie was really astonished that
any power should produce such an article as a
justification for its conduct. By it, it was stipu-
lated, or rather understood, a favourite term with
modern negotiators, that his Neapolitan Majesty
in re-establishing the Government of his Kingdom
should not make any alteration which might inter-
fere with the principle adopted by his Imperial
Majesty for the government of his Italian provin-
ces. As this article had been concluded previ-
ous to the re-establishment of the Neapolitan
Government, it only related to that, and could
not be turned into a perpetual arrangement which
would apply to any future changes. It was,
therefore, void, ab initio. It had all the features
which made a stipulation null. It was imposa
sible in execution, immoral and unjust in the par-
ticular case, and inconsistent with the rights of
the Neapolitan .people. The King could not
contract it, because it made him a party against
his own subjects, and bound him to withhold
from them the most important rights. It was
an article which he could not sign without forfeit-
ing his throne. And what was that principle of
Government adopted by his Imperial Majesty in
his Italian provinces, which was to be kept so in-
violate ? It was a system of arbitrary Governs
ment—of Government founded on a- principle of
conquest, in which every thing was to be dona..
for the benefit of Austria, without any regard for
,ery tax—in every
Use_ uiLafara, of
regulation—in every law, every thing was governs
ed by the interest of Austria. The commerce of
Italy was sacrificed, and under that baleful and
wretched- System of policy, even education was
. impeded, that no ray of light should break on
that night of total darkness. Was it to be tole-
rated that Naples should not be allowed to rise
above such a condition, because it might endanger
the foreign dominions of Awtria and the safety of
so unjust and oppressive a system ! At the
time when the King of Naples had prepared
to re-establish his Government, he had promised
a free Constitution to his people. This promise
was contained in his Proclamation of the Ist of
May, 1815. The last act of Murat had been
to give assurances of a free Constitution ; the
first act of that Monarch who was called legiti-
mate, was to offer one. Yet when the promise
was realized and the Constitution established,
the only result :was to be a combination on the
part of the Sovereigns ofsEurope to declare that
no change should be -tolerated in a neighbouring
State! The principles on which such a Decla-
ration was tolerated, were incompatible with the
interests of this Country, and derogatory from
the general rights of nations. He wished his
Majesty's Government would explain why a si-
milar revolution in Spain had net produced simi-
lar results, and induced them 'to suspend all di-
plomatic intercourse with that Country.. Much
-might be said on that subject in the course of the
debate, but he was unwilling to detain the House
longer. If his Majesty's Ministers could remove
the imputation on their conduct by satisfactory
reasons, he should most sincerely rejoice. If they
failed, he should at least have the satisfaction of
having exonerated, himself front any participation
'in principles which he detestad from the bottom
of his he'art. He should conclude by moving,
though without much hope of succeeding by a
vote of the House, " That an humble Address
"- be presented to his Majesty, for copies or ex-
" tracts of such communications as had passed
" between his Majesty's Government and the
" British Ministers abroad, respecting the pro-
ceedings at Naples.
The Earl of Livertpooa assured the Noble
Earl, that althongh he should oppose his motion,
he rejoiced at the opportunity- which it offered
him of explaining what had been the conduct of his
Majesty's Government more folly titan the com-
munication of any official document could have
done. lie contended that the Paper on the
table contained -a clear and distinct view of the
conduct of his Majesty's Government towards
the Allied Sovereigns. We had acted, and he
maintained we ought still to act, on a principle of
strict neutrality, which was also a principle of
justice and of policy. He therefore anticipated
that their Lordships wopld not support a mo-
tion for fuither, information, as it would imply
that-something else should be done. I f their
Lordships were satisfied that the line adopted by
his Majesty's Government was that which it be-
came them to pursue, they would vote against the
motion. lf,-on the contrary, they thought that
a different poicy ought to have been followed,