Star.
London, England, 1821-02-20 00:00:00

HOLY ALLIANCE-NAPLES.

Earl GREY said, he rose in pursuance of the notice
he had given on a former day to call on his Majesty's
Ministers for some satisfactory information respecting
the part they had taken in the proceedings that were
carried on by the Allied Sovereigns towards Naples,
ever since the affairs of that country began to excite ,
a hostile feeling in that most dangerous confederacy
called the Holy Alliance. It would be recollected
that, on the first day of the Session, he had endea-
voured to direct the attention of the House to this
Confederacy, and with that view had asked the No-
ble Earl at the head of the Administration as to the
correctness of a document purporting to be the De-
claration of the Allied Powers. The Noble Earl
then answered in a very satisfactory manner that the
document was substantially correct ; but at the same
time disclaimed the general principle of any one Go- ,
vernment having a right of interference in the inter-
nal concerns of another State ; although he then ad-
mitted that there might be certain exceptions to that
general principle; and at the same time the Noble
Earl stated that he would shortly lay a document
before the House which would explain the conducts
of his Majesty's Government with regard to Naples.
That Paper was now before their Lordships, and he
(Earl Grey) was sorry to find it did not afford that
satisfactory__ explanation respecting the prudence and
wisdom of his Majesty's Government in this instance
which he expected ; and it was for that reason be
proposed to move for further information; and he
should, at the same time, make some observations
respecting the affairs of Naples. After noticing the
declaration made in the Circular Note of the Secre-
tary of State, that on general principles it was not
allowable to interfere in ihe internal concerns of
other States, he must advert to the monstrous enor-
mity of that principle which was contained in a
paper coming from the Allied Sovereigns, and first
circulated at Hainburgh, and which asserted the
i right of interference in other Governments in order
to prevent any changes from taking place therein,
in case such changes should be hostile to the notions
those Sovereigns might entertain of Monarchy. It
mattered notirow unanimous the people of the coun-
tries where the changes took place might be in bring-,
ing.them about, or how beneficial they might be to
their general-interests, because upon those Autocrats
devolved the right to sit in judgment on the internal
acts of other States, to pronounce a sentence on any
improvements they might choose to adopt for their
own benefit, and enforce their decisions by the posVer
of the sword. This monstrous principle went to the
extent of dictating to all the Governments of the
world, where any deviations from their notions of
Monarchy might take place. Never *as any doc-.
trine or principle more intolerable than this. But
this was not the first time the doctrine in. question
was asserted ; for at the time when the late Revo-
lution took place in Spain, a similar principle was
asserted in a Note from Prince Metternich, and
also in a Circular from the Court of Russia.—
The principle was still more clearly propounded in
an article published in the Berlin Court Gazette, which
broadly stated that no communication should beheld
with the new Government of Naples, as that would
acknowledge the revolt which bad taken place there,
and that no change should be effected there which
was not conformable to the Monarchical principle, or
rather the notions entertained by the Allied Sovereigns
as to what that principle should be. If such a prin-
ciple as this were generally to prevail, the condition
of mankind would then indeed be hopeless; for no
amelioration could ever take place except through
the will and the favour of a beneficent Monarchy.—
Men must bear every kind of evil, they must put up
with every kind of oppression, and have no change
of condition except that which came through the fa-
vour of absolute Monarchs. If his Majesty's Ministers
disapproved of those principles to which he alluded,
how did it happen that they delayed the promulga-
tion of their sentiments respecting it, until the 19th
of January last? Did the Note of the Emperor of
Russia, and that which appeared at Berlin, as well as
the Declaration of Austria, escape their notice until
that day ? They must have had information upon
the subject before that time : if so, they either did or,
they did not remonstrate: if they did, what was to
be said of the boasted influence of this country, which
appeared to have had no effect in changing the in-
tentions of the Allied Sovereigns, thus acting in defi-
ance of our power? And if they did-not remonstrate,
he wished to know what defence they could make for,
such a baneful dereliction of their duty ? Here was
a paper coming from Ministers on the 19th of Ja-
nuary, only four days before the meeting of Parlia-
ment, and if the principles he alluded to had been
known to them long before that time, it was their
duty to have made that declaration sooner; but, in
fact, it appeared as if the paper had been issued more
for the purpose of answering discussions in Parlia-
ment, than of resisting a principle which they dared
not openly to avow. But he would ask, what had
been the conduct of Ministers before this time? Why
-they appeared as if they were acting in unison with
the Allied Powers ; for their refusal to receive the
Neapolitan Minister in this country, was a conduct
which led to a suspicion that, by their connivance,
they secretly approved of the conduct of these Powers
towards Naples. Another ground of suspicion was
the circumstance of a British squadron being in the
Bay of Naples at the very time when an Austrian
army was assenstilinj on its frontiers. What was the

•
objeFt of having *the atpradratt 'there? This must ap-
pear from what did actually take place; for one of
the British 'vessels was employed iu Fhe degrading
office of carrying away the Stivereign of the country,
in order that, in'obedience to. the summons of the
Holy Allies, he might appear befirre %their Tribunal
at Laybach. This was an act of unjustifiable violence
which perhaps had never been exceeded by any other
Of a similar kind, except that committed by Bona-
parte; when he.degraded the King of Spain by sum-
moning him before him at Bayonne—( Hear, kear).—
Now, with respect to the paper issued by Ministers
on the 19th ult. it purported to have had two objects
in view—the first was, to declare generally that an
interference in the concerns of Naples would be in-
consistent with the fundamental laws of this country,
and with the principles of international htsv. In the.
next place, this State Paper declared that, with re-
spect to the particular case of Naples, the British
Government expressed disapprobation as to the mode
and circumstances under which the Neapolitan, Re-
volution was supposed to have been effected. Now
he would ask, what right had Ministers to form such
a iiidgrhent as to the manner in which that Revolu-
tion had been brought about? If they had that
right, they ought not to have exercised it except
upon the fullest and clearest information ; and why
did they take tipon themselves to judge without
such information? Had they any information
through the channels of independent Governments?.
No, but in the very outset of their circular dispatch
they evinced an undue partiality towards the- Allied
Sovereigns, in regard to the steps they were taking
against Naples. Then the Ministers admitted that,
other States might•have a right to interfere for their
own security, provided their views were not directed
to the purposes of aggrandizement, subversive of the
territorial system of Europe as established by the
late Treaties. The conduct of Ministers in all these
proceedings' was. most extraordinary. First, they
refused to acknowledge the Neapolitan Minister, •
and then, admitted a right of interference on the part
of other Powers. On what ground, he would ask,
could they think of breaking off all intercourse with.
the new Government of Naples? No new Sovereign
was there to warrant such a change of conduct ; the
King of Naples was still upon his Throne, with the
exception that he did not exercise arbitrary power.
Was there anything in the character of the Revolu-
tion that could warrant such a change of conduct ?
Was a Revolution conducted without violence, and
lwhich acknowledged the King, to be considered as
one which should put an end to all amicable nego-
ciation and intercourse? This country had. some
years ago, assisted in the establishment of a free Go-
vernment in Spain ; we had afterwards seen that Go-
vernment overturned by the present King of Spain ;
and yet that event produced no suspension of inter-
course between this country and the Government so
revolutionized. Why, then, should a political change
break off the intercourse between one nation and
another ? unless it should be contended that there
was one rule for a Government overturned by a
King, and another for a Government new modelled
and improved by the People. However; .when he
considered the hostile measures going forward against
Naples, and coupled them with the declaration of
our own Ministers, the result was, that they ad-
mitted Naples to be an excepted case, and were not
hostile to the interference of the Allied Sovereigns,
provided no territorial aggrandizement took place.
This doctrine he opposed, as one leading to a system
founded on the conveniences by which a certain ba-
lance of power might be carried into effect, instead
of the establishment of principles of justice. And
this convenient balance of power was talked of by
men who, to their eternal disgrace, allowed the
greater part of Saxony to be seized upon by Prussia
—who consented to give up Norway to Sweden, and
who made no opposition to the seizure of the greater
part of Italy by Austria. •The true principle upon
• which, in his opinion, the balance of power ought to
be maintained, was that of preventing powerful from
oppressing weaker States, and not that of promoting
the convenience of countries already aggrandized.—
It appeared. then that Ministers admitted Naples to
be an exception, and that the attack against that
country had not any territorial aggrandizement for
its object. The only security that could exist against
the danger of such aggrandizement was a strict ad-
herence to justice and to the laws of nations. Austria
was proceeding to attack.that country in violation of
all those laws, and after occupying it with her troops,
what must be the consequence? He was not inclined
to hope that the Neapolitans would be able to make
any effectual resistance against the superior power
of their enemies: the occupation of Naples then must
follow ; and what security then could we have against
territorial aggrandizement on the part of Austria, on
whose power Naples must be entirely dependent.—
Who could tell how far this principle of injustice
might extend, and what misfortunes it might lead to
throughout Europe? Heswould place no more re-
liance on any assertion or declaration of the Austrian
Cabinet, than he would upon a promise made by the
Bank of Vienna. Was it to be supposed that Austria,
after getting possession of Naples, would all of a
sudden become moderate and just? No; they had
all seen considerable jealousies prevailing in the early
period of the Confederacy; and, after the seizure of
Naples, might. not the next step be, a demand for
compensation on the part of Russia for the counte-
nance given by the Russian Cabinet to this act of in-
justice? All the security, then contemplated by Mi-
nisters would be good for nothing. The State Paper,
to which he had already alluded, declared that his
Majesty's Ministers had acted with all possible expli-
citness on this subject, as would appear from the
Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. Here their Lordships had
an instance of . the soundness of principle by which
peace was to be preserved; for, after all the con-
ferences that had been held, the business at last came
to this, that in the month of December, 1820, the
Allied Sovereigns put one construction on the Trea-
ties, and the British Government another. Not-

g.

withstanding all the explanations that had taken
place, the Allies declared the interpretation of them
to be such, as to imply an assent on the part of Great
Britain to the projected interference in the business
of Naples. He denied that, in the case of Naples,
there was any exception to the general principle laid
down by Ministers. There was none on the ground
of necessity, for before there could be any right of in-
terference, there must be a real, and not a remote
and visionary danger. There must be one that should
tUrnish a just ground for complaint ; such, for in-
stance, as that of promulgating an intention to assist
the disaffected people of other countries to overturn
their Governments, similar to the celebrated Decree
passed by the French Convention on the 19th of No-
'ember, 1792. An act of this kind would be a just
cause of war, if remonstrances. and negociations
failed. The right of interference then, he contended,
must arise out of facts; brit the unjust and monstrous
principle was never before admitted, that a people
making improvements within their own Country, and
for their own benefit, were to be attacked and sup-
pressed by the force of arms. So monstrous and in-
famous a doctrine was never before admitted by any
writer on national law. The Neapolitans had com-
mitted no injury, nor evinced any hostility to other
States. All they had done was to limit the power
of their King ; and that they did in a way the most
inoffensive to other nations. No Revolution .was
ever conducted in a manner so peaceable and inof-
fensive: not a drop of blood was shed; the King
assented to what had been done, and that was what
excited the vengeance of the Allied Powers; and
England must withdraw herself from the duty of
remonstrating-against such conduct !—(Hear.)—TLe
character of the revolution was given in the note of the
Marquis Campo Chiaro ; hut the Allied Sovereigns.
used no pretence on the ground of misconduct for
their proceeding ; and so far they had the merit of
acting openly, and of not adding meanness and fraud
-to their injustice. It had been said that there was a
certain sect or party in Naples who were mainly in-
strumental in bringing about the Revolution. If there
was anything in this objection, it was an objection
which might be advanced against every Revolution
that had ever taken place in the world. All the Re-
volutions which took place in the world were owing
to previous misgovernment, and were brought about
by parties and factions. Our own Revolution, which
took place in 1688, arose from the misgovernment
of a tyrant, and it never would have been carried
without a secret combination of those great, good,
and illustrious characters, whose memories every En-
glishman of the present day ought to revere ; for it
was to them we were all indebted for the liberties
we now enjoyed. This argument then, was most
futile. With respect to the sect called Carlronari,
he should not enter into any justification of them.
He understood that they began in the year 1812, and
that they were chiefly encouraged with a view of
opposing the uoirpation of the French. But, sup-
posing the Revolution to have been begun by those,
'Sr by any small party of men, it could not be vitiated
on that account; for if the people concurred in favour
of such a change, it mattered not by whom, or by
how many persons it had been* brought about.—
There never was a Revolution effected in a more
peaceable manner. No animosities, no broils accom-
panied it in its progress, or flowed from it after it
WAS consummated. Such also was the character of
the Revolution in Spain, and yet the circumstance of
that country's adopting a new Constitution did not
induce us to suspind our connection with it. In that
country too, a harmony subsisted between the Prince
and the people, such as, under similar circumstances
of change, had no example in the history of the
world. It is true that Revolution was effected by a
standing army. Whether that circumstance would
have the good consequence of lessening a desire for
keeping up a standing military force in other coun-
tries, he knew not, but this conviction at least it must
force upon them, that the mere incident of soldiers
being formed into standing armies, did not and could
not prevent them from having the feelings of Men--
(Hear, hear)—that it could not (and GOD forbid it
should) prevent the soldier from participating in the
-sentiments of his fellow-subjects, when those senti-
ments were universal. GOD forbid that it ever should
beam character of standing armies, in whatever part of
the world they were kept up, that whatever was the
extent of oppression under which the people suffered,
whatever the length to which despotism was desirous
to go, that they should be found the certain instru-
ments of that oppression, and the constant defenders
of that tyranny—(Hear).—He hailed the part which
the at mien acted on those occasions, as the proof that
when they became soldiers, they did not cease to be
men. It would afford a useful lesson to States,
and spew them how much safer it was to found
Governments in the affections of the people, than
in the strength of military force— ( Hear, hear).
Those beneficent dispensers of good, the Allied Powers
of the Continent- (hear)—said, indeed, that thele
might be a certain degree of reform allowable in'
States, provided it was not accomplished by a mili-
tary instrument. They asserted, that if the military
had any share, no matter how small, in any such re-
form, if they had any participation in effecting a
change, no matter how meritorious it might be, still
on that account alone, it was a change Wlech was not
to be enforced, which must be reprobated, and until
it was so reprobated, it should be considered that le-
gitimate Monarchy everywhere was insecure. Such
was the language of those Powers. But he would
ask those who supported, or who countenanced such
doctrines as those, what would have become of the
religion and the liberties of this country, if the army
of James the Second had adhered to his fortunes?
If ever the principle of our Revolution was appli-
cable at all, the case of Naples came decidedly within
its influente. What was the doctrine of the Allied
Sovereigns ? What did'it amount to, when divested
of all its pretexts, but this, that no revolution should
take place, which bettered the condition of ene State,
if by so doing it had any effect whatever upon cteei

States? What was their language? "We will not
tolerate freedom in our own States, and we cannot
bear it in yours!" Forgetting the promises which
one of those Sovereigns had made to his People of a
free Constituticns—a promise which to this hour was
fatally withheld—(Hear)----forgetting this, and pass-
ing over the exertions which they had made to infuse
a spirit of freedom into theminds of the. People of
Germany, when they had to resist a foreign domina-
tion, they even held this strange and inconsistent lan-
guage-=" We will not allow you to make any.reform
which originates with yourselves. Send, therefore,
your King to answer before our tribunal; resume the
chains which you have already worn, and when you
have done so, be content to receive such relief front
them as we will to afford you r' This was the lan-
guage of what he should ever call the Unholy Alli-
ance. This was the language which the Government
•of this country had treated with their sanction ,and
favour, but which it was their duty to have marked
with their decided disapprobation. The Noble Lord
then made some observations upon the secret article
of the treaty between Austria and Naples. By that
article it was" understood" (to use a courtly phrase)
that the King of the Two Sicilies was to admit no al.!
teration in his dominions. It was a question, per-
haps, whether, by any fair construction, that article
could be made to apply to Any change which might
take place in the re-establishment of the Neapolitan
Government. But, at all events, he apprehended that
if that article were to be considered as a perpetual
guarantee on the part of the King against any change
as between him and his own People, it was void eh
initio. It had all the features which, according to
the Publicists who have written on the laws of na-
tions, rendered it null and of no force. It was im-
moral, it was inconsistent with the rights of the Peo-
ple, and it militated directly against that principle
which declared that it was beyond the power of the
Sovereign to contract any engagement which would
controul the People in the exercise of their rights.—
Such a contract as that was one which the Sovereign
could not make without forfeiting his most sacred
duties. In his opinion of the efficacy of such a
treaty he was but the m&re confirmed when he saw
that it stipulated that no change should be made in
the Neapolitan State which was irreconcileable with
the principles of government that were acted upon
by Austria in respect to her Italian possessions. What
was the character of that Government? It was
founded on the rights of conquest, and was sustained
by armed force, without any regard to the rights of
the People— ( Hear ). The whole actuating principle
of that Government, in every part of it, was, that
everything should be done for the benefit of Austria,
without any regard to the interests of Italy. Science,
commerce, agriculture, languished under the bane-
ful pressure of such a short-sighted policy. Even
education was impeded, that no ray of light might
be permitted to break in upon the minds of the
People ( Hear ).—Was this, then, a principle to be
tolerated? Was Naples not to be allowed to reform
itself? Was no alteration to be made, no improve-
ment to be allowed in Naples, because the dominion
of Austria might by possibility be rendered less se-
cure in-that interesting portion of the earth? (Hear).
It conli not have been forgotten, that on the first of
May, 1815, a Proclamation was issued by the pre-
sent King of the Two Sicilies, pronouncing to the
• two kingdoms- that he would give them " a stable
Constitution—that the Prince should be 'the deposi-
tary of the laws, which should be dictated by a wise
and energetic Constituticia." What efforts were then
made to excite the spirit of liberty, that it might act
against the enemy ! A similar Proclamation was the
last act of Murat's reign—the Proclamation which
he had mentioned was the first act of the " legiti-
mate King. T e whole result then was this, that it
was manliest that the Soveieigns of Europe had
combined on the principle that no reform should take
place which did not emanate from the throne itself—
a principle, he maintained, which was inconsistent
with the interests of this country, and derogatory from
the general rights of nations. He hoped that his
Majesty's Ministers would be able to explain on what
principle it was that the Revolution in Spain caused
no suspension in the relations between this country
and Spain, and when the same Constitutioa which
was formed in Spain was adopted in Naples. it did
cause a suspension in the relations between England
and the King of the Two Sicilies. He was unwilling'
to trouble their Lordships farther. He conceived
that at present there were objections to the conduct
of his Majesty's Ministers upon this important sub-
ject. If they could remove those objections, then
all would be well—if they could not remove them,
he at least would feel the satisfaction in his own,
mind, that he had exempted himself from any par-
ticipation, by his assent, in those measures which
had been going on. The Noble Lord then concluded
by moving an humble Address to the King, request-
ing that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to
direct copies of all communications which had passed
between this country and foreign Powers, connected
with the Neapolitan Revolution, to be laid before

the House. - •
The Earl of LIVERPOOL, though he was deter-
mined to oppose the motion of the Noble Earl, yet
he should be sorry if any Noble Lord should leave
the House that night with any doubt upon his mind
as to the propriety of the conduct which Ministers
had pursued upon this important question. That
conduct he was prepared to explain, and he would
also endeavour to answer such observations of the
Noble Earl as appeared to him to require attention.
The chief ground of his opposition to this motion was,
that the paper already on the table contained a clear
and distinct view of the conduct of his Majesty's Go-
vernment with respect to the Allied Sovereigns.—
The doctrines contained in that document were fully
borne out by the whole conduct of Government,
which was entirely founded on the principles of a
strict neutrality. That was the course of their policy;
that was the principle laid down in the document.
If he Should spew that this was the true state of the
case, then the fair inference was that their Lordships
would not sanction the. production of the papers
moved for, unless they admitted that they asked for
information upon which they would afterwards do
something. If their Lordships were satisfied with
the conduct of Minister, then they would think the
production • of fbrther papers unnecessary. If they
should, on the other hand, be of opinion that the con-
duct of Ministers was not proper, then they would
feel it their duty to support the maim The Noble

Earl opposite had,. correethessated what passed on
the first darof the Session upon this subject. He
was not equally correct- in stating the views with
whit') the paper on the table was written. He said
that that paper was written with a view to the meet-
ing of Parliament, and that Government were repre-
hensible for nothaving stated to the Allied Sovereigns,
long before that period, the opinions contained in that
paper. It was necessary to inform their Lorirships
that it was not untilthe Ist of. December that that
paper, or rather project of an intended official commu-
nicatibn was known to his Majesty's Government.—
The Noble Earl was mistaken, if he supposed that
there was at first no intention of answering it. For
even when it was known to Government as a project,
it was stated, through the proper channels, that it
was a paper which demanded as early an answer as
possible. He admitted that the publication of that
paper rendered the answer to it more necessary. But
in the answer which they did send, there was not one
word of general doctrine which had not been uttered
by Government in several papers in the course oflast
year: His Noble Friend opposite (Lord Holland)
would perhaps recollect that he had put a question to
him (Lord Liverpool) as to the paper which had
beep issued by the Court of Petersburgh on the sub-
ject- of Spain, and that in the answer which lie'gave
to the Noble Lord's question, he disclaimed the doc-
trine contained in that Circular, and stated, that Go-.
vernment had already explained themselves on the
subject, but that he thought that the publication of
the paper rather did harm. In this explanation which
he had then given, he had stated no new doctrine.
The only difference was, that it was more distinctly
stated, perhaps, as to the case of N'arles. It was the
doctrine that was held during the Treaty of Paris—
it was the doctrine held in the whole course of last
year, both with regard to the revolutions in Spain
and in Naples. On every occasion in which the Go-
vernment had an opportunity of communicating with
other Powers, they distinctly explained their views in
the same unvarying manner. The answer, indeed,
was dated the 19th of January, but the sentiments
and doctrines contained in it were known to the Al-
lied Sovereigns before that time. If this were false,
it might be contradicted. Those doctrines, indeed,
were not explained so fully, perhaps, as they had been
in the answer, but still the prevailing character of
them was fully known. There might have been oc-
casion since, perhaps, for the publication of the paper
signed by the Allied Sovereigns, but he believed it
was not intended to be published. He thought so
because the paper went to the whole of a prospective
league, and was formed with a view to decide on
what ground Governments werc in future to resolve
upon interference with foreign States. The Noble
Earl opposite alluded to the Holy Alliance. The,
Noble Earl did not appear to recollect that that was
an Alliance to which this country was no party.—
There was no mystery in any of our Treaties with
foreign Powers. The principles of them mightt all
be seen oa the face of the Treaties themselves. This
country had no engagement with foreign Powers
which was not manifest to all the world, and which
was not to be found in the Treaties, such as they were,
from time to time submitted to the consideration,
and impressed with the sanction of Parliament.
There was then no difference of opinion between the
Noble Earl opposite and himself on the general prin-
ciple, that it must be a strong and special case which
required the interference of one State with another.
Perhaps lie might say, that, in the general tenour of
circumstances, interference was not necessary, and
that it should be considered rather as an exception
to, than a 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, their own credulity—the security which
each State was under of providing for its own de-
fence. In like ..manner„ the only possible ground
which justified the interference of one country with
another, was a strong and special 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 bad example. If the Go-
vernment of one people gave a bad example to ano-
ther people, that, in his opinion, was not enough to
justify interference. On the general doctrine, then,
he conceived there was no difference between Min
and the Noble Earl opposite. Nothing which had
occurred since the paper was issued by Government,
induced him to depart from the views which it.deve-
loped. The Noble Lord opposite asked, what was there
connected with the Revolution at Naples, which.called
for any sentiments of disapprobation on the part of
the British Government? In the first place, Minis-
ters were not to prejudge how far other Govern.
ments might think that it was not only proper, but
indispensably necessary to their own security, to in-
terfere with the Government of Naples. Bet his sen-
timents of disapprobation were grounded on the man-
ner in which the Revolution of Naples was brought
about, by a military mutiny; and, secondly, on the
ground of their adoption of the Spanish. Constitution.
These, however, were not grounds of conduct which
called for the interference of foreign Powers. If a
State were managed ever so absurdly, and if its Go-
vernment were altered by improper instruments, still
he submitted 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 admitted that that was no ground for foreign in-
terference—( Hear, hear). He also admitted, that in
great national changes the army must take some
, share. When the question came to issue, the artily
, must 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 National Revolution. This was
. not the case of a people demanding a redress of
grievances, such as existed in this country at the Re-
, volution in 1688. The case of Naples was one of
Military mutiny, secretly fomented by a party.—
; There was one feature in the conduct of the new-
, Government at Naples, towards the people of Sicily,
which he could not pass over. He defied any one
to produce anything more outrageous in the history
I of the world, than the conduct which that Govern-
• went, with liberty in their mouth, pursued towards
the Sicilians. Everybody was aware that Sicily was,
an independent kingdom, governed by its own.laws
and usages. Could any one attempt to say, that be-.
• cause the artily in Naples-brought about the Revolts.
tion,.the people .of Sicily Tare to be excluded from
any voice in the formation of the Constitution 2—
11When the event of the chose was made known in

May, the strongest sentiment was felt and ex-prase.]
against it. It was said that that sentiment of diesa-
ttsfaction had for its object not the new Constitution,
but the Sovereign. But he knew that that was not
the case. The dissatisfaction was with reference to
the Constitution. What was the consequence ? Na-
ples sent a military force to overawe the general opi-
nion, and to compel the Sicilians to submit. What
happened when the military force arrived at Paler-
mo ?—When they air ived there, they found that the
difficulties with which they had to cnntend were
greater than they had been led to suppose, and they
entered into a capitulation as reasonable and just in
its terms as any that was ever concluded. It recog-
nized the two parts of the dominion—it recognized
the connection 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?—(Hear, hear).—The
Noble Earl opposite passed by all this. Everything,
he said, was to be allowed he supposed to despots.
The supposition might be retorted, and it might be
in the same way said that everything was to bc al-
lowed to the people. But were no complaints allowed
to be made of the acts of the people? When they
had done wrong still they were to be held up as
faultless. The Noble Earl then proceeded to state,
that much security could not be hoped for the pre-
sent state of things in Naples, seeing how generally
the opinion in Sicily was against them—that if the
Carbonari were a party confined to Naples, it
would only be so far a national question ; but that'
was not the case, the Carbonari had spread into Swit-
zerland and parts of Germany, and with much of the
French revolutionaryprinciples, they entertained theo-
ries which were hostile to the established, legitimate,
ancient institutions of several Continental States.—
If the sect were in Naples only, it would only be a
national concern ; but as they were so widely dif-
fused, it was a question open for the consideration of
the other Powers. He would give no opinion that
the conduct of the Carbonari justified the interference
of Austria. Upon that subject he would give no opi-
nion, because he would not prejudge the question.—
As to the interruption of the communication between
Naples and this country, there was none. Sir Wil-
liam A'Court was still in Naples, and Count Ludolfe
was here, and a variety of communications had taken
place between both the countries. It was stated some
time ago, that no new powers were given to our Mi-
nister at Naples. The reason for that was in the si
tuition of Naples with respect to Sicily, and they
could not have given those powers without prejudg-
ing that question, and deciding against the case of
Sicily. He had no difficulty in saying, that this
country had not any part in the Revolution: But
still the Sovereign, more than silty years of age, was
always friendly to this country, and Government
would have been ashamed if they had not afforded to
that Monarch and his family every degree of per-
sonal protection. The Noble Earl, after passing an
encomium on Sir William A'Court, who, he said,
acted in circumstances of great difficulty in the most
correct manner, drew a distinction between the modes
in which the Revolution in Naples and that in Spain
was conducted. He stated, that Ferdinand of Spain,
upon his return to his kingdom, was advised by Sir
H. Wellesley, at Valencia, to adopt the Constitution
of 1812, and re-establish the Cones. Other councils,
however, prevailed, upon the King's arrival at Ma-
drid, which disappointed the hopes of the nation.—
He contended, that the Revolution in Spain was per-
fectly national, and that nothing could be more dif-
ferent from it than the case of Naples. The Noble
Earl then stated, that, in his opinion, the Papers
called for by the motion were unnecessary be pro-
duced; and he concluded with assuring their Lord-
ships, that the Government had not in any instance
whatever taken, nor would it take, any hostile part
in the affairs of Naples.
Lord HOLLAND rose and said, that if it was
possible that he could suppose for a moment that the
conduct of this country, with regard to Naples, was
justifiable, and that it was in accordance with the
true principles of neutrality, still he would support
the motion of his Noble Friend; for it had for its
object the production of documents which were ren-
dered necessary by the incompleteness of the informa-
tion before the House. The Noble Lord had said,
that by acceding to the motion for more information,
the House would, in effect, be implying the necessity
of a thorough Parliamentary investigation, and also
that there was a printafacie case against the Govern-
ment. The argument might be true if this were the
only time that information was moved for. The in-
formation, he thought, was still incomplete, even
with respect to points upon which, apparently, the
most satisfactory explanation had been given. It was
true the papers before the House contained a specific
disavowal, on the part of Great Britain, of being a
party to any treaty binding it to co-operate against
Naples. But it should not be forgotten that, accord-
ing to the information before the House the Allies
had the best of it. What was the conduct of the
Allies ? They said to this country, " You are bound
by treaties to co-operate with , us, and we now call
upon you to fulfil your engagements."—" No," said
the Ministers of Great Britain, " we deny the exist-
ence of any such treaties ;" and then those Ministers
referred for a testimony in confirmation of what they
'A
salUp top former papers and convetsations, nothing of
which appeared before the House. It was therefore
highly necessary to have full and explicit informa-
tion before the House. But, combining the speech
of the Noble Earl with the general proceedings of
Ministers, he felt that there was strong ground for
suspecting that they were partial to, if they did not
actually connive at -the proceedings against Naples.
But the Noble Earl said that his Noble Friend (Earl
Grey) laid great stress on dates. He (Lord Holland)
confessed that he saw in the confounding of the date
of the paper alluded to, with the date of its publica-
tion, a • great ground of suspicion, in his opinion
tad whatever might be said by the Noble Earl, it diti
aNsprar to him that there was strong suspicion at-
lathed to the circumstance. The date was the 19th
of,January, and it was worthy of remark, that the
paper so dated was sent in reply to a demand on the
part of the three Allied Powers, of the sanction of
Great Britain to principles which those Powers had

before promulgated and acted Upon. Dor
somewhat strange, indeed, that this country -•
now more than a year explaining the tie
it had been a party ; that it should become ,
our duty to define the principles which eve
ready to support as having been pledged
that the representation of our sentiments
monstrances should have so little effect as
late as the 19th January, it should be necess4r, '
make a public declaration of our semi:heats:,
too at a conjuncture, when it was impossible
promulgation of our sentiments could hare
Bible influence or weight with the weaker part,.
last time he had the honour of addressing "" •
ships upon this subject, he had supposed a
to pass between the Emperor of Austria:
tish Government; and he had some p-'
suggested that they might borrow
it from the Burletta of Ton& 71uratb. Re "
however, of opinion, combining recent
with the Circular then upon their table, r
really adopted a dialogue friim another
similar kind. He recollected that Sir
Halton, in the Critic, thus addresses heirigh,
4, Tell me, thou champion of fly cosuary'sfare.
For there's a question which I still Mae ssl,
A question which I never ask'd before:.
What means these mighty armaments,
Thy. general muster and this throng of mica!
On which Sneer very pertinently says, 44 how
Christopher Hatton never to ask that qv
fore?" and the Author immediately rep*
before the Play began ? how the pl igui
Sir Walter Raleigh then goes on to infdrm ,
topper Hatton of the many things nith which
very well acquainted, when M. Sneer aeain
terferes, and asks the Author " Why, as sire
topper Ilatton knew all that, did Sir Wafter
go on telling it him ?" To whom the
plies rather indignantly, " He knows it well,
it is true, but the audience, man, don't know it,
he must ask the question for the puri;O'si of
forming them"—(A laugh). So it was 'herr;
curtain was going to be drawn up;
was about to assemble, and the audience,
ple, must be told what you and I :_
Another suspicious circumstance witS'a
that Paper, which said, we took the midi'
timity of expressing our opinion of the mode
cumstances in which that Revoluticin took
They were at liberty, as the Noble Lord
said, to express their sen.insents whenever
pleased ; but, if that Noble Eail was
peace and neutrality which be professed
his Colleagues to be, he would have told
meats to the party most concerned to know
fore. Did they communicate their sentiments
subject to the Neapolitans? No ; it was
that Power which was most likely to make
gression upon them on the strength of it.
Earl talked of his being a friend to neutrality,
had often boasted of this Government being
great Constables and Keepers of the Peace(
To illustrate this he would put a case. _
were acquainted with a little person, weak
and timid in di poiticm; and suppose be
acquainted s-..ith a great bulky fellow, firm
poreal strength, and of a most quarrelsome,
bearing, jealous temper, a neighbour of his
friend ; suppose thelittle man were !_
to his garden, or tei some part of his abode,
he (Lord Holland) knew would call forth du
and disapprobation of his great bulky friend,
werel:togo to this great bulky friend and r
what this fellow has being doing! I
,as much haste as I could make, to tell
highly disapprove of it, and that no .
more than I do;" at the same time, that
give orders to his porter not to admit the
to the house, and make a resolution F
would never go near him, lest he gave a
tory explanation of his conduct. What
thought of his impartiality he should like,
under such circumstances? ( Laughter).--SJ
so, when having heard that the bulky man.
the weaker one with a great cudgel, he should
an early opportunity to declare his anxiety
prejudge the case, at the same time
speech, in which he should tell all
the discredit of his little friend,
ment of their thcquaintanceship--(
He maintained that these were
stances. What occasion was there
,in that House to get up and talk a'
vernment ? Why did he take tir
benefit of Austria? The Emperor
pretty plainly told them, that he
ing nor learned men. " I want,'
" good subjects, not learned men.
concocted at the Foreign Secretar
up with all its learning, with
beauty of language, with all its .
sion, for the sole purpose of please
this ! The Noble Earl opposite
not disapprove of a Revolution
had taken part in it. But he said
of it if it originated with an arm'
that he was ready to admit it,
petent authority ; provided the griev.
died be complained of, and reined'
petent Authorities. This doctrine
he must confess, appeared somew)
to him. What was the object of .
lutions ? To purify the Government.
the grievance complained of its •
was not the Goveridnent, or the
ties, as they were called? Did
mean to say. that :the competent .
put themselves forth as a grievance,.
themselves? He hoped that
would operate as a warning to
did not, be hoped they would operate
Lto their soldiers and subjects I That
which every man who cherished
must participate in. He could
on the delicacy of the Noble Lord
so anxious not to prejudge the car
that he threw away the reasons
assigned for its conduct, and Ulf
.He referred to that part of the
which alluded to Sicily. What
Sicily when the House of Bourbon
Naples? The King came from
tution which he had sworn to and
which he had derived all the
and out: of his first acts was to break

.1111upiltit!P°:mbeconten.wIlicenesahttr:meuric8:2144:::414:ithillit
tt
een pledged to,
mtiments
Limn* •
tae effect tit;
as • to
r senti:hents,ald th.v r
as impossible dna L
s could hare a*
le weaker part;g:
ll
siddreson theg lob 111
I supposed a .
f
Austriaaod the W
ome what i I IN
vow the outeriadz.,
kotob. He 1,34 i"1
recent ocatai
tr table, that*jiu
m another *oriel
that Sir Chrdiii,' ,
.11
esses (""
by country's*.
t'rksthisklasribettliingsl:artfhqemers°llskiswiesiitlacaiii;
eg
hlifgisv iuch%lsek
iatrintainenisyyreptis,th lee M
pl 'gut mold be id
to infarm Sir Chio li
M.. /eel agaja
" Why, as gi,. 04.
d Sir IVA& E
rknows it well estirb
a, don't know it,
r
So it was .hen; dr
:cehetnhlanleuwuckdapnPleot I;
:lraci c 41:4
e dp Ca
pill 61
of k tjb:te
i
n
Nk
volutionot
Noble
le eL; ejk p
ut plea„ p
1.110
n of the mod a* •
po
e op p
tents whenever tiq C
E.ail was the lo* ti
professed himself* p
have told thesev4
•ned to know dusk% ti
their sentiments of
No ;it was valy d of
kely to make a<v. al
ngth of it. The NA
nd to neutrality,* w
anent being tried* Isl
f the Peace of Leto Si
t a case. Supfoseie H
erson, weak in body
suppose he mei st
fettow, of greet oat L
st quarrelsome, oats •su
eighbnur of his little
were to do soared',
tof his abode, •'.* : t,l
I call forth the asltr ci
bulky frieid, andbe tl
friend and say= -
ig.! lam cow vie ft
ke, to tell you At I Ii
that no man can
time, that he • I
admit the little 0
ution himself rake w
the gave a satin- b
Let. What woel.lie a
should like to kw, n
inkier . it
e bulky manludhat
'Agri, he should tie al
re his anxiety aotP
titre time maliti .s 1
II all that he
rieip__sins:ep(thiLacieien: tl
citrat
there for the Mile t 1
elk about about.' .11
that trouble fit is
IA
peror of Austria Ili •
he did not vraetkie
it," said his 740 • 0
en." And this pia e
ary's Office, was el
all its thalami
is cleat nest and FP
Teasing such Ms 11
to said, that he c
don because an ,
ai
said he did diva. . !I
army. He said
, if achieved by '
grievance to be
unedied by the.'
rine of the Zol*.* Ih
mewhat • 111
of all political
anent. Add whet
n all !imolai°, 1,.
se competent A "
I the Noble Faris .
nt Authorities
ince,and revok .
the late R '
Monarchs—and -;
operate as an •
That was a
led liberty in his
I not help ;
,ord opposite's's°.
case, at the same'
as which Atunis 0 :t-.1
suggested a Dew
Noble Lords
it was the sit '
•
irbon was reaw•lg'
n SiCily with .
and sanctwoed,
advantage he•
ircak that CO'
•