CHAP. VI. Foreign relations-Various Motions respecting the Affairs of NaplesMr. S. Wortley's Motion respecting the Declaration of LaybachLord W. Bentinck's Motion concerning Sicily-The State of the Slave Trade, and the backwardness of the Governments of Europe in abolishing that Traffic-Administration of the Ionian Islands. TH HE situation and fate of Naples excited a very general interest in England, and was the subject of frequent and keen debate in parliament. The members at the beginning of the session had communicated to both Houses, a circular dispatch, dated the 19th of January, 1821, which had been sent to his majesty's ministers at foreign courts, disavowing, on the part of Great Britain, any participation in the plans of the allied sovereigns. This, however, did not satisfy the Opposition; and, on the 19th of February, earl Grey moved for the production of all communications between this government and that of Naples, with regard to the late occurrences in that kingdom. The noble earl, after noticing the conduct of the allied Sovereigns in respect to the establishment of a free constitution in Naples, stated, that though the British government had disclaimed all participation in their proceedings, and had laid on the table a letter in confirmation of, our neutrality; yet, that letter did not furnish a satisfactory proof of our non-interference. If changes in governments took place, no matter with what unanimity on the part of the people, no matter how useful to the community which accomplished them, matter how inoffensive to other powers, the holy alliance had, it seemed, an authority to resist improvements of every kind; to them devolved the right of sitting in judgment on every state, even of calling to their tribunal a brother monarch, to enforce retraction, or to coerce all resistance by arms. The noble earl asserted, that when the conduct of the allies was known, ministers allied themselves closer with the conclave, and at the same time, suspended all amicable intercourse with Naples. An Austrian army was stationed on the frontier, while a British squadron was cruizing in the bay of Naples; and one of our vessels had been employed in executing the scandalous summons of the allies, by which the king was obliged to repair to Laybach. With respect to the circular, it amounted simply to a declaration, that it would be in direct repugnance to the fundamental principle of this country to co-operate in the project of the allies; and it professed not to prejudge the question, or to interfere with the course which other states might adopt: it told Austria and Prussia" that we would make no opposition to their projects, provided we had a reasonable assurance, that their views were not directed to purposes of aggrandisement subversive of the territorial system of Europe, as established by the late treaties."-Now, in his view of the subject, the whole conduct of his majesty's government had been most reprehensible; they passed an implied censure on the allied courts, while they refused to remain in intercourse with Naples. Did not the assembling of an army on the Italian fron. tier, the summoning of the king to Laybach, the suspension of the British minister at Naples, coupled with the declaration con. tained in the paper on the table, amount to this:-that, although we asserted the right of an independent nation to regulate its own government, we admitted that Naples must be an excepted case? The Earl of Liverpool contended, that the paper on the table furnished the best proof, that his majesty's government was acting, in respect of Naples, on a principle of perfect neutrality. This country was no party to any transactions of the holy alliance, nor had any engagement, but what appeared on the face of the papers laid before parliament. The principal objection, which had been raised to the conduct of his majesty's government, was, that, in professing a determination to act upon a system of neutrality, they yet accompanied that declaration with a disapproval of the mode in which and circumstances under which the revolution was accomplished. Now, he had no difficulty in saying, that with that sentiment he concurred; and, though he saw no reason for interference, yet he still condemned the means by which that revolution had been brought about. He denied, that any interruption had taken place in our diplomatic relations with Naples. Lord Holland spoke with great vehemence on the same side with lord Grey. The motion was negatived without a division. Two nights afterwards, a similar motion was made in the House of Commons by sir James Macintosh, and supported with even more than his ordinary eloquence. The line of argument which he pursued was that the principles contained in the circular of the allied sovereigns were inconsistent with the independence of nations, and would justify the landing of Cossacks in England, to restrain us from adopting institutions disagreeable to the Russian Autocrat, as easily as the invasion of Naples---that our ministers had, in their circular, dissented from these principles, and yet had done nothing to prevent or suspend the aggressions which were proceeding from them. He defended the Neapolitan government from the charges, which had been brought against it; but, at the same time, denied that its demerits, however great, could authorize the subversion of the law of nations, by the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and Prussia. Lord Castlereagh's reply was extremely moderate. With regard to the difference of principles which existed between the allied powers and the English go vernment, he observed, that the had caused that declaration was document, to which our circular the final manifesto of their intenwas a reply, was by no means tions. The allied powers had sent the final paper of the allied so to the British government in order vereigns on that important and to obtain their acquiescence in it. difficult question-how far the in- The British government replied, terference of one government in that they could not acquiesce in the regulation of the internal ad- the doctrines which it contained. ministration of another is or is not If under such circumstances the a justifiable measure? That paper allied powers had made answer, was a confidential document ad- "You have pledged yourselves dressed to the different courts of to the same principles that we Europe, informing them of the have, and we call upon you to discussions that were then carried redeem that pledge," then the on at Troppau, but was not a House might have some reason document stating the manner to doubt the sincerity of minisin which those discussions had ters, and might be justified in enterminated. It was a noto tering into a full examination of rious fact, that the minister of their conduct. But, when no such England and the minister of call had been made by the allied France took no share whatsoever powers-when a direct negative in them. The minister of Eng- had been given to the principles land was indeed there, to notice contained in their state-paper, any territorial aggrandizement, if recognised though they were, acany thing of that kind had been cording to their statement, by contemplated; but he was not the treaty of Paris in the first inthere to commit his government stance, and the treaties of Aix-laby any acts or opinions of his Chapelle in the second, he did own. The House would there- conceive that the House would fore see, that it would be doing feel it to be its duty not to acce. an act of injustice to the allied lerate the inquiry proposed. powers, if it assumed as fact, that the principles contained in that paper were published by them after a calm and deliberate consideration of their tendency. The English government, however, would have abandoned a duty which it owed to itself, to the country, and to the world, if it had not, when those principles were submitted to its notice, explicitly declared its dissent from them. The House would also be doing as gross an act of injustice towards ministers, if it did not give them credit for being sincere in that declaration, as it would be doing to the allied sovereigns, in assuming, that the paper which The noble lord farther stated, that the language which he had held to Naples was precisely the same as that which he had held to Austria. He had explained the same principles to count Lu dolph, as he had to the court of Austria. He had not, indeed, gone out of his way to write a declaration of them to the govern> ment of Naples, but he had not concealed them from its agents here. For though the British government had refused to. receive the prince Cimitelli in his public capacity as minister of Naples, he (lord C.) had not refused to show those attentions, and to make those communica country to co-operate in the project of the allies; and it professed not to prejudge the question, or to interfere with the course which other states might adopt: it told Austria and Prussia" that we would make no opposition to their projects, provided we had a reasonable assurance, that their views were not directed to purposes of aggrandisement subversive of the territorial system of Europe, as established by the late treaties."-Now, in his view of the subject, the whole conduct of his majesty's government had been most reprehensible; they passed an implied censure on the allied courts, while they refused to remain in intercourse with Naples. Did not the assembling of an army on the Italian fron. tier, the summoning of the king to Laybach, the suspension of the British minister at Naples, coupled with the declaration contained in the paper on the table, amount to this:-that, although we asserted the right of an independent nation to regulate its own government, we admitted that Naples must be an excepted case? The Earl of Liverpool contended, that the paper on the table furnished the best proof, that his majesty's government was acting, in respect of Naples, on a principle of perfect neutrality. This country was no party to any transactions of the holy alliance, nor had any engagement, but what appeared on the face of the papers laid before parliament. The principal objection, which had been raised to the conduct of his majesty's government, was, that, in professing a determination to act upon a system of neutrality, they yet accompanied that declaration with a disapproval of the mode in which and circumstances under which the revolution was accomplished. Now, he had no difficulty in saying, that with that sentiment he concurred; and, though he saw no reason for interference, yet he still condemned the means by which that revolution had been brought about. He denied, that any interruption had taken place in our diplomatic relations with Naples. Lord Holland spoke with great vehemence on the same side with lord Grey. The motion was negatived without a division. Two nights afterwards, a similar motion was made in the House of Commons by sir James Macintosh, and supported with eveň more than his ordinary eloquence. The line of argument which he pursued was that the principles contained in the circular of the allied sovereigns were inconsistent with the independence of nations, and would justify the landing of Cossacks in England, to restrain us from adopting institutions disagreeable to the Russian Autocrat, as easily as the invasion of Naples---that our ministers had, in their circular, dissented from these principles, and yet had done nothing to prevent or suspend the aggressions which were proceeding from them. He defended the Neapolitan government from the charges, which had been brought against it; but, at the same time, denied that its demerits, however great, could authorize the subversion of the law of nations, by the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and Prussia. Lord Castlereagh's reply was extremely moderate. With regard to the difference of principles which existed between the allied powers and the English go vernment, he observed, that the had caused hat draaien va document, to which our crmuar was a reply, was by no means the final paper of the alies vereigns on that important and difficult question—how ir be a terference of one goverment # the regulation of the men at ministration of anniter se è st a justifiable measure was a conndemia ducemen dressed to the differen cours Europe, informing the te discussions that were tien gerne by any acts or ommon |