Star.
London, England, 1821-02-22 00:00:00

t thr-Payaiament..to have a barracb.
lialet,,,sete.cfn • yde. Park, and a camp ofAussians
41'.1.ikheasli to superintend the debates of Podia.'
istitsgete with, and'setife;'ourdomestic
s, 'This was the Stii•thise, shim the reign of,
,yvthat such a proposition had been made;
't lie present attempt was much more atrocious
that was made even nt the reign of Charles
that
d, for the propositions of that day were made
theelsycnly, the present AtiOCiOus attehipt was Made
ind without disguise. Was thee 'a heart, a
heart, whatever political party it might be of,
Am did not boil with indignation at such a -proposi-
L 7 gnot the worst part of the transac-
wwfo-rudit thise
Ministersw at Troppau had declared they
Md~Odoubt this country would accede to the system
hqw aot3t to be adopted by them; and which system
•
oot oaly 'olive up the freedom of Europe, but of
..41,toettsyyy also, and to sanction the introduction
so- ate county of Middlesex of an army of 100,000
iyeas and Cossacks. Such was the proposition for
ishicii the Noble Lord impeached Prince Metternich.
let here it did not tests for Prince Metternich, and
the rest of the Noble Lord's Royal and Princely Al-
j, preferred a counter bill of indictment against the
gable Lord; they eliarged him with having de..eived
gisptgeouraged them to erpect that he would accede
ow, system. He did not say that this assertion
tea • the Noble Lord denied it; but surely the
wain of the thste greatest Sovereigns of Europe
did alford ggrround for inquiry into the conduct of his
osiesty's Ministers, to 'try the truth of the charge.
watt cot preened to gardsat the charge was not
sagessay ; but the bare assertion of a Nlinister was
ad 3 suastieat ground for the House of Commons to
ley upon. The production of papers would skew
whether the British Ministers had committed the
deities, or the Allied Powers had uttered'
the grossest or falsehoods. If the Allied Powers.
ow a cooducttowards Naples on the part of the Bri-
tish Government, similar to their own, they might
slyoully infer a similarity of opinion. The British
4leternment had refused to receive the Ambassador
getatloales; and such had been the conduct of the
ipaa Powers; We were " willing to wound, but
afesideo strike!" But in the commencement of the
Fiends Revolution, M. Cbauvelin was received after
the French King had been brought back to his capital.
A limitation in the power of the King was never sup-
send to be a reason for lot receiving an Ambassador.
la the year 177 g, whets the. King of Sweden had esta-
blished despotism, no objection had been made to the
neeption of his Ambassador; that only was the case
when fhe change had been in favour of liberty. In
Desmark, a despotism had been mildly established;
sod that seemed to be one of the causes of the con-
duct of the Allied Powers towards Denmark. The
disapprobation of the British Government had been
iipified, not to the Allied Powers, but to the Nea-
politans. This disapprobation to the Neapolitans was
wholly uncalled for. The conduct of Naples to Sicily
lad nothing to do with the relation of Naples to Eng.
Inds or to Austria. However bad in itself, this coun-
try had nothing to do with it, and was called upon
togive no opinion. Ferdinand IV. was King of Bi-
el/ as well as Naples ; and though the Neapolitan
Government might be much to blame, yet there was
so ground for interference on our part. A foreign
Government might have blarised our conduct terthe
Catholics of Ireland ; but should we, have tolerated
luck interference ? Many hid blamed the old Con-
sunniest of Poland ; but would they on that occasion
have justified the partition of that country ? He wat
sot an advocate for the Spanish Constitution, but it
livered to the Neapolitans, that the adoptiOn of
fiat Constitution would be a rallying point.--
le 1811, the cry of Sicily was for the Constitution of
Ingland, and continued, till, by the Treaty of Paris,
mlthe abandonment to despots of independent States,
&gland lost the esteem of the world. The English.
Ministers sought the appiobation of despots, and now
they were arraigned by the despots themselves. It
was a singular accusation, that the Revolution had
been brought about by a Secret Society, which had i
been organized against Murat. Murat said, he had
no objection to the Carbonari, if they would only act
openly against him. If there was any Society, that
profaned the name of the Champion of the Protestant
Religion for unhallowed purposes, let them recollect
that the great objection of Ministers to the Neapolitan
Revolution, was because it had been accomplished
partly by a Secret Society. Much had been said of
the interference of the Army ; and he would admit
that, in a regular Government, nothing was more to
be deprecated than the interference of the Army ; but
thee was a wide difference between that case and
that of an interference in the case of a bad and un-
settled Government—lnter pace??t et servitutem pluri-
sum interest. At the time of the French domination,
the Carbonari were encouraged all over Italy. He
believed there were Carbonari in Lombardy and
Venice, but this had not been caused by the Go-
vernment of Naples. I' was the conduct of the Noble
Lord, the abandonment of Lucca and Genoa, and
the surrender of Parga, that had multiplied the race
of the Carbonari; and the consequence had been
firreseen and foretold by the late Mr. Horner.—
lt had been said that no complaint had been made
of grievances to the Sovereign of Naples. But such
an idea arose from a total confusion of a free with
an absolute Government, as under the former alone
could it be expected that grievances could be re-
dressed. The Noble Lord limited the right of inter.
'ference to those Powers that might be affected by
the proposed changes. By that principle Russia WAS
excluded, as Siberia could no more braffected by the
changes in Naples than by an eruption of Vesuvius.
rri the circular of the NOble Lord, a brief had been
pm into the' ands of Russia, and it was admitted
that, in the event of danger' to Austria, she would
be justified in going to war. But Where was the
proof of the danger P—None!---(Hear)—and only a
win of bare'possibilities. But he contended it was
Ibeduty of the British Government' to learn if that
teas a reason or only a pretence fbravar-:-(Hear).—
lii this case no resemblance could be traced to the
'oar against France—

At am ate, satins pi. tc feratilts;.4:lloll
• rage in Aosta fait
Tfie,war against France in 17% was justified the
deers of the French Convention proclaiming frater-
-1
*itnion with all nation:' and. also upon overt acts of
Ntreaion on the part of the French Government.
Jut *you the present occasion the Allied Powers had
"til the same part as the French Conycntion of,
"Pt id' thin? tientorairDecrecof i9th-oiNik