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

they would join the Noble Earl in his call for
further information.. That Noble Earl- had
correctly stated what had passed in the first part
of the Session. But he had accompanied that state-
ment with observations which tended to assert
that the Paper before the House, -whether its
contents were right or wrong-, had been produced
with a view to meet the discussions which might
.arise in Parliament. Now he wished to correct
the Misapprehension into which the Noble L'ord.
had fallen. The Circular of the Allied Powers
had first been known to his Majesty's Govon:-
went at the end. of December, not as a Paper
communicated to them, bat as. the Project of
a Papet to be afterwards communicated. It
was, however, erroneous to, suppose that there
had been no intention of answering it. When it
was known to be in preparation, it was distinct-
ly stated
,through the proper channels, that
it was a paper which would require an immediate
answer from his Majesty's Government. Ile was
ready to admit that its publication had rendered
that answer still more necessary. But there was
not one word of general doctrine in that paper
which had not been repeatedly uttered by Go-
vernment during the.- whole year. It might be
recollected that a question had been put to him
" last Session respecting the Declaration issued by
the Court of Petersburgh, in consequence of the
Revolution in 'Spain. In his reply he- had dis-
claimed the principle contained in that Declare-
lion, and stated to -the House that the views of
this Government had been fully explained to
Russia, at the same time that he had expressed
his opinion that the publication of the explana-
tions which had taken place would be improper.
It was no new doctrine, therefore, which had
been uttered in December or January. It was.
the language which had been universally. held.
• from the time of the treaty of Paris ; with re-
spect to the Revolution in Spain and to that of
Naples ; in a word, on every occasion where his
Majesty's Government had had an opportunity
of explaining their sentiments. He believed that
it had not been originally intended that the Cir-
cular of the Allies should have been publisited,at
least without modifications, although no modifi-
cations could have reconciled him to the principle
which it contained. his belief was founded on
the fact, that the paper in question went to pro-
pose a prospective league, and was formed with a
view to decide- oh what ground Governments were
in future to resolve upon interference with fo-
reign States. The Noble,- Earl had allud-
ed to .what he called the Holy Alliance; but
first, this country was no party to that Alliance ;
and secondly, whatever objection might be urged,
_against it, its:object would be found of a very
innocent and harmless nature. As to the. en-
.tmgements of this country,. he bad no difficulty
in stating that this country had no engagements,
with Foreign. Powers but those- which were in
the possession of Parliament. There was- no
mystery in any'of our treaties. The principles of
them might all be seen on the face of the treaties,
themselves. This country
.had no engagement
with Foreign rowers which was not manifest to
all the world,.-and which was not to he found in
, the treaties, such as they were, from time to time,
.submitted to the consideration, and impressed
with-the sanction cf Parliament.. There was
then no difference of opinion between the Noble
Earl opposite and himself, on the general prin-
c'ple, that it, undoubtedlyemust be a strong and
special case which required the interference of
one State with another. Perhaps, he might say,
that, in the general tenour of circumstances, in-
terference Was not necessary,: and that•it should
be considered rather as an exception to,:than-
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, its own security—the necessity
which each State was under of providing fer
its own. defence. In like. manner, the only pos-
sible ground which justified the interference of
one country with another, wus a strong and spe-
cial 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
example, because example must have a more tans
gible object. The Noble Earl had complained,
that in disclaiming that principle, Government
had given it -as .their opinion,. that they disap,
proved of the circumstances under which, the Nea-
politan Revolution had -taken place. He (Lord
Liverpool) had seen no reason, from-any thing
which had passed
,since, ,to . depart from-
.that
opinion. What were the circumstances which
called for that disapprobation ? First,'-that the
mode by which it -had. been operated was a
tary mutiny ; and secondly,. that the_Constitu
tion adopted was that of Spain. These, how-.
ever, were not grounds of conduct which called
for the interference of foreign powers. If a State
were managed never so absuadly, and if its. Go-
vernment were altered- by wrong ,instruments,
still he admitted 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 admit-
ted that that was no ground for foreign in-
terferenr.e,—(Hear, hear, hems !)—He also ad-
mitted, that -in great national. choges the
-Army must take some share. Whest the ques-
tion came to issue, tlisy-.A--Hrty—sennst 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 Ka‘tional, Revolution. This
was not the case of a people demanding- a re-
dresa cf grieiances, such as exis!ed in. -this-
Country in_ 1688. The case of Naples was one
of military ritually, secretly fomented by a
gpriaretya.ncerl„.'ere was no previouS complaint of
no call for redress. The .mili-
tary mutiny in the first instance brought
about -the Revolution alone, feithout any previous
steps having been-taken to obtain redress. Again,
he admitted, - that this was no ground for inter-,
ference. He only considered the mode km which
the Revolution- was conducted., as it excited his
disapprobation. ' Nothing could, indeed,, have
heen more different from the case .of Naples. than
the cases of all the great changes. which had taken
place in England. Here, at the time of .the
Great Chaeter, as well as in 16.40 and 1688, the
ground for redress was first laid Iy. a declaration

of specific grievances, anti a tall fora redress
founded on ancient rights or manifest abuse. But
at Naples it was the case of a people adopting a
foreign Constitution, they not knowing at the
time what that Constitution was. He believed it
was a fact, that at the time the cry was raised
for the Spanish Constitution, There was not a
sin le coley of it to be found in Naples-quo per-
son there kneW what it was. But all this Iskirts,
lowed -was-still no-ground for interference; it
was, however, in his view, a ground for mark-
ing it with the strongest disapprobation. He
meant to say, that the facts he had enumerated
formed no• •ground for our interference. But!
there were grounds upon which foreign countries
might think themselves justifiable in inter-
ferhig. He, however, did not rise Up in
this House to vindicate the conduct of
the Allies. But there was one feature ie
the conduct of the new Government at Na-
ples, towards the people of Sicily, which he
could not pass over. He defied any one to pro-
duce any thing more outrageous in the history
of the world, than the conduct whiCh that Go-
vernment, with liberty in their mouths,: pur-
sued towards the Sicilians. Every body was
aware that Sicily was an independent kingdom,
governed by its own laws and usages. Could any
one attempt to say, that because the army in Na-
ples brought about the Revolution, the people of
Sicily were to be excluded from any.voice in the
formation of the Constitution ? When the event
of the change was made known in Sicily, the
strongest sentiment was felt and expressed against
it. It was said that that sentiment of dissatisfac-
tion had for its object not the new Constitution,
but the Sovereign. But he that this was.
not the case. The dissatisfaction was with refe-
rence to the Constitution. What was the conse-
quence? Naples sent a. military force to overawe
the general opinion, and to compel the Sicilians
to submit. What happened when the military
force arrived at Palermo?--When they arrived
there, they found that the difficulties with Which
they had to contend were greater than they had
been led to suppose, and they entered into a ca-
pitulatien as reasonable and just in its terms as
any that was ever concluded. It recognized the
two parts of the dominion7—it recognized•thecon-
nexion 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
(gear, hear!)---The Noble Earl-opposite passed
by all this. Every thing, he said, was to be
supposition
allowed
held
ttddhh ee
utyosup as
:bat,
be
7:dmwnlloiailaego:driplievteesnoo:b:Plf‘e:litte'erlieeitsttit:llalaPreN'ttP•tests°7tdri:o::eldrant'ytitohliodeet cl.ydi°l::7telwsig:Pelll:. it.e::1.81:. 'tots:l°Ni' )\albeililleel7lioeli
d
faultless. He now came to the point of the
Carbonari. The Noble Earl had asserted, that
all great and beneficial revolutions had been
prepared by secret societies. This was a mis-
fortune, but it was tree. He admitted that if
time Carbonari were a sect composed entirely of
Neapolitans, the question would be solely con-
eti ai:ll7:9ao itmaal
Switzerlandftst,
matter
r
o fss:eiroaetnoi,tirh:lep.ey even Italians fined
Germany,'t ey liad
soNpnorley.adNlatyrtstshoaft
and, with much of the French revolutionary
ancientsw ee States;
hostilet ieto Institutionss
ectth e
our.
eersetsa
principles, they entertained theories which
ebliileiiir ashedlNacp
tiittiloiennnalttyae:
les
it would only be a national concern ; but as they
were so widely diffused, it was a nuestion open
for the consideration of the other Powers. He
would give 110 opinion that the conduct of the
Carbonari justified the interference of Austria.
Upon that subject he would give no opinion, be-
cause he would not prejudge the question. As
to the interruption of the communication between.
Naples and this country, 'there .was. none: Sir
A'Court was still in Naples, and Count
Ludolph was here, and a variety of communi-
cations had taken place between the two cows
tries. It was stated some time ago, that no new
powers were given to our Minister at Naples.
The reason for that was in the situation of
Naples with respect to Sicily, and they could
not have given those powers without prejudging
`that question;-and deciding against the case of
Sicily. He had no difficulty in saying that -this
country had not any part in the removal of the King
of Naples to LitylfaCh With respect to the ob-
servation of•the Noble Lord, on the circumstance
of the King of Naples heif'r embarked on board a
British. ship of war, so far from that being a
proOf of thiS GovernMent having taken any part
in the proceedings •in question, he should have.
been. ashamed if that. Monarch, had not been af-
forded such insignificant accommodation when he"
asked for it. However they might not choose to
take part one way or, the other in the Revolution,
he did think, with respect to a Monarch who
had , been one of the most ancient friends and
Allies of this country, it would have been unbe-
coming in this Government to, have refused that
.Monarch and his family any degree of personal
protection is its power. The Noble Earl next
alluded to the parallel which the. Noble Earl
(Grey) had attempted to draw betwixt the pre-
sent Revolution- in :Naples and the for Mer revolt
of the Spanish nation against Joseph Buona-
parte. He could not, he said, conceive two cases
more different from -each other. In the case of
-Spain, their King had been withdrawn from them.
by one of the most- treacherous acts that ever
stained the• page of history. The Spanish peo-
ple, thrown then upon themselves, took up arms
in their own defence, drove, their oppressors
from the country, and
themselves.
a Govern-
mt for Whether that form of
Government was good or bad was a question
which he did not intend to enter upon. It was
established by the Legitimate Auithority of
the Country, end was brought about by the
efforts of the Spanish nation, aided by a Noble
and Gallant Friend him (the Di k&

of Wellington). It Was with satisfaction that
he stated that the Ambassador from this country
at that time, wherabe saw the King of Spain at
Valencia, before he entered Madrid; advised him,
under certain modifications, to accept the.Cou-
stitution then tendered to him.
ever, adopted different Counstais- _lse determined. ußon dissolving the Ct • 1 • • •
•Al sire, , that tt•e •• ti •
should betfOrib&ik
•• nodyilt
or es, sAwhoulaat was de-
Tl,te King, how-
with regard to Spain boraesea:
in this material The
cioicil 1,41 eceCsotherefore,
Was there any sect concerne
different itNhe "Ist"
what was there in it .1
were differ
any which existed in other odf andt;
rarna.. itfffelrr:enndri
Point—that all that was done
h. national
l
in
tFhoeirvei,gitrii). short,e anycon
lt(hi i
be justified
usi•elseih
ti rci
dtaonloillninatorftilie•iiisittrialtri time
complete.character of a national transaction ? Nee
gitrtetahtaqt
tcleassetiounpsonwhaincvh
art)
of one Power ground. There were two
ier The irst was., a
moral questions—Wl,
.ether the party interfering
had a cause to •• •f in every interference:
Just! y that interference ? The
was a prudential on---Whether, if
there were a aa„se •••`• ono —Whether, -
would be wisdom
or folly to
he did not feel
pursue it ? He must say that
in-
terference ou the there was any ground for
part of this country. Ile did not feel, neither, that these
was ani ground
whatever for the aid of this
country being given
to either side. The N
oble Lord had alluded to*
the manner in which the K • ing of Naples had bea
come Possessed of his domi • Id tell
mons. e ems the Noble Lord that lie
had lecome possessed of
them by the invasion- of -
an Austrian army ! Ha
was placed there by an Austrian army, and with the express stipulation that '
that army was to re-. main for some time after
t accession of the
King to power. It was .due, in • •
justice to that
much-calumniated- Governm. •
eta Of Austria, to
state, 'that the army was •,a r , d'" `ill from that
country as soon as the prospect -of, t
pe man en t
tranquillity 'appeared, and a considerable time,
before the termination of the period stipulated. With respect to the pratiamation to which the.
Noble Earl had referred, an
read, lie
must
• •
express his opinion that it was a spurious (hien-
ment. did not mean to vouch' for it, but-
he felt pretty certain that it was as he had stated.
With respect to the conduct which had been
adopted towards Austria, he believed it was
Wholly consistent with the honour of his Ma".
jesty's Government, and he could not Thirvis. That
it called for any interference Ott the part of Par-
liament. That could not he required, if it were
thought that that- conduct had been perfectly
justifiable, and according to the principles of a
fair neutrality. There had heen noecoivocation.
on the part of his Majesty's Government in thia
affair. They had stated from the beginning.,
• ded to take-. This Revolu-
what part they intended
Lion was in character entirely different froth that
Of Spain. Under all the circumstances,_ he
that this Government:
would re-
peated,he did not feel
would be justified in taking a part. This Go-
vernment had not taken any part, and they would
not take any part. If the House conceived that
they were not justified in the course they had
already pursued towards Austria, they would.
vote forAtte production of these papers:-
Lord floLLAsn declared, that even if he.coUitl
for a moment suppose that -Government vas jus-
tifiedin•all they had done,' and had acted ac-
'cording to the strict rules of neutrality, even
then he should vote in favour of the Motion be-s
fore the House. Before he proCeeded to' notice
any of the topics which had been introduced ilk.
twhiatth aUser
the course of the debate, he must say that it ap-
peared to him, from the view which the. Noble
Lord opposite (Earl Liverpool) had called upo!t•
him to take, that the information before did
House was insufficient. The Noble Lord said,
that if they voted for the production of more
papers, they expressed an opinion that this Go-
vernment would be justified in interfering with
respect to Austria. He. denied this position of
the Noble Lord's, inasmuch as the information
they had on the subjec't was incompkte and ima
perfect, and required now there th. 43 ever
to be iOustratad papers that could
be produced for that purpose. He might event
acknowledge that the papers they had weresi,
a-
tisfactory ; but still they were incomplete. r
Foreign Courts as far as the controversy appear-
ed by the papers on the table, had certainly the
better of it. What were the proceedings of the
three Allied Courts ? They told us that
we had
signed treaties, by which we were holed to sup-
port and go along with them in the course they
were at this moment. pursuing with regard Co
Naples. The answer to this was, that we re-
cognised the said treaties; but denied we were
bound by them. This was very wet! as farais
pant by .
flat denial went; but this answer also referred to.:
other treaties, which
those insisted u modified and exl4illett
which .we inferred. that- we *ere not boundna the t!"
•do their bidd; in . present instance. It was
Courts, and from
evident, therefore, that in order to make the',
matter clear and explicit to that House, thef
Were bound to produce other papers. These,
however, were not the chief reasons upon which
he intended to vote for the production of the said
papers. lie must coufess, that after the con—
sideration he had given the subject from the
paper they possessed, and after listening to the
speech of the Noble Lord (Lard Liverpool), and
combining the two, he thought there wage great;
grounds for thinking that there was partiality'
on the part of Ministers in their proceedings with
the Allied Powers. .The Noble Lord opposite
began his speech by chiding his Noble Friend
(Earl Grey), for laying great stress on the date of
'The declaration of the Secretary for Foreign Af-
fairs on this subject. In reply to all that was
urged against this part of The proceeding, he said
that they had been holding this language for a Long
tine. the Austrian Court, and he also said that
they could not publish the paper in question
sooner.. Put the time at which this paper was
published gave him (Lord Holland) , strong
gromids fur suspecting the inclination of this
Government in the affair. The Noble Lord said,
he was aware that-The insinuation was, that the "
p;11;er was got up for The meeting of Parliament;
and he must confess that for his own part tie
thaaglit it had very intich that appearance.. True