Графични страници
PDF файл

ratify it: they broke the solemn agreement which their own officer had entered into. Now, if the people of Naples had a right to form this new constitution for themselves (and he was one who did not dispute that right,) had not the people of Sicily, he would ask, an equal right to refuse to accept of that constitution, and to insist on the power of acting for themselves, as the Neapolitans had done? But the noble earl passed by all this. He touched on nothing but what he denominated the conduct of despots. The noble earl and his friends never complained of the conduct of usurpers; they never complained of the acts perpetrated by new dynasties—on these they looked with forbearance and tolerance—they only complained when the actions of legitimate monarchs were brought under consideration. The case which he had just stated was a case in point; and if this government, with the fact of Sicily before their eyes, had not stated their disapproval of such conduct, they would have neglected a solemn duty. He knew perfectly well that there was, in Sicily, a great spirit of dissatisfaction at the conduct which had been pursued in Naples, and that an absolute refusal had been given to send any person to the parliament there. This was an internal circumstance which must, in a considerable degree, have guided the views of those who were called on to speak their sentiments with respect to this revolution. Lord Holland remarked, that the last time he had the honour of addressing their lordships upon this subject, he had supposed a

[blocks in formation]

The stander-by immediately asks “how came sir Christopher Hatton never to ask that question before ?" and the author immediately replies, “What, before the play began 7 how the plague could he?” Sir Walter Raleigh then goes on to inform sir Christopher Hatton of many things with which he is very well acquainted, when the stander-by again interferes, and asks the author “Why, as sir Christopher Hatton knew all that, did sir Walter Raleigh go on telling it him 7” To whom the author replies rather indignantly, “ He knows it well enough, it is true, but the audience are not supposed to know anything of the matter— are they !” Now the ministers of England, Austria, and Naples, were just situated like the characters in this drama. England, who knew what was in agitation, sent this circular to Austria, who also knew what was in agitation, but kept it back from Naples, that Was raw-boned hulking fellow.

was in the situation of the audience, and knew nothing at all about it until the knowledge of it had become as useless as it was unnecessary. “But," said the noble lord, “we took the earliest op

- F. of stating the disappro

ation which we felt at the mode in which the revolution at Naples was effected; and surely we are at liberty to express that disapprobation.” The noble iord, most undoubtedly, was at liberty so to do; but then to whom—if he was such a lover of neutrality as he professed himself to be—to whom ought he to have expressed it? To the offending parties themselves, and not to their enemies. The noble lord, however, in his breathless haste to prejudge the case, reversed the whole matter, never said a word to the Neapolitans, but pointed out all their faults to their Austrian enemies: and yet this the noble lord called acting with impartiality . He would put a case to their lordships to show more distinctly the nature of this impartiality. “Suppose,” said his lordship, “that I have two friends—one a little weak timid man, and the other a great - Suppose also that the little fellow, by some means or other, offends the great one. Well, I go to my great tall strapping friend, and say to him—“ that's a strange meddling little fellow ; I don't like him—I totally disapprove of his conduct.” I leave his house and go to my own. I order my porter never to admit the littlefellow; and, though I pass by his house every day, I never call upon him, so that I give him no opportunity of entering into explanation with me about his conduct. I then say to my

self—“How impartial I am s” and am quite vexed if any body doubts it. In a few days afterwards I walk along the streets, and see the huge fellow trampling the little fellow under his feet, and belabouring his sides most unmercifully with a great oaken cudgel; I pass on and don't interfere, except to make a speech, and to tell all my acquaintance that my little friend has behaved very ill, and that I don't approve of his conduct. Should I after that be entitled to the character of an impartial man : After contrasting the impartiality of a man acting in this manner, with the alleged impartiality of the British government towards the people of Naples, lord Holland proceeded to ask why the secretary for foreign affairs had in the circular to which his name was affixed entered into

discussion with the emperor of

Austria . That grave emperor, it was well known, hated discussion; he had lately told the world so. But he likewise hated learning, and loved its opposite. The circular, therefore, notwithstanding its other faults, might please the royal and imperial palate: for certainly it was better calculated than any document which had ever preceded it to captivate an individual who was not to be captivated by beauty of style or clearness of composition. What occasion, however, was there for him to interfere at all with this grave and potent emperor, and to state his disapprobation of such and such principles of action, unless they were in pursuit of some common object? What that object was, it was not for him at present to declare, and he should therefore leave the circular for awhile and advert to what had failen from his noble friend (the earl of Liverpool) on the benches opposite. His noble friend had said, that though there might be cases in which he should not disapprove of an army taking a part in the accomplishment of a revolution, he could never approve of one which originated with, and was entirely effected by, a military body. He would not cnter into a discussion of that principle at present, but would content himself with saying, that he hoped the recent events in Spain, Portugal, and Naples, where such glorious deeds had becm achieved by the soldiery, would act as a warning to the great despots of the earth, or if they did not act as a warning to them, would act as an example to their subjects— teaching the former that it is better to rest their force upon the affections of their people than upon the bayonets of their soldiers; and the latter, that the power of tyranny, however formidable in the outset, cannot long resist the united attacks of liberty and knowledge. In making this declaration, he was indulging a feeling that was common to all who had the love of liberty at heart, though the noble lord had the boldness to assert that it had never been the feeling of the people of England. Naples certainly was not so important a power in the European system as France, and some persons might imagine that an outrage on its independence was therefore comparatively unimportant. But the invasion of Naples originated in the same spirit, it was the offspring of the same

[ocr errors]

policy, which led to the combination against France. It was, if he might so speak, a cub of the same liffer; it bore about it all the marks of its lineage and extraction: “Sic canibus catulos similes, sic matribus hados.” Let what might take place under such circumstances, the British people would, thank God, still express their sentiments, nor would their attention be withdrawn or confused by any of the productions of the foreign department. The noble lord (earl of Liverpool) had distinctly stated that it never was in the contemplation of his majesty's government to go to war with Naples; and for his own part he felt perfectly assured that such was not their intention. The best illustration of their views was undoubtedly to be drawn from their recorded statements and doctrines, but he was willing to give implicit credit to this declaration of the noble lord. What their lordships. had to consider at present was the question, whether the British government had openly avowed to the world, or clearly intimated to the king of Naples, the principles on which it was determined to act? Had the British government, or had it not, made known to Europe in time for any useful or practical purpose, that it would lend no countenance or sanction to the enterprise of the northern powers ? Might not an earlier declaration of the views of England have had some influence with other states ? That it was a supposed countenance on our part which encouraged the confederacy, was, he thought, as evident

evident as it could be made in the jargon or unintelligible stuff that had issued from the foreign office on this subject. The more he attempted to analyse those documents, the more rigid and chemical the means by which he carried on that analysis, the stronger was his conviction that the British government had acted in a way which favoured the aggression upon Naples. The confederated kings alluded to their subsisting alliance with this country, in proclamations which boasted of their moraland physical strength, but which indicated that their reliance was upon the last alone. The noble lord (the earl of Liverpool) had rested the defence of his government on principles of foreign policy, very unlike those on which he had formerly called upon parliament to approve and to continue the war in Spain. On that occasion the noble lord had most truly stated the nature and limits of those causes that might rightfully lead to foreign interference with the domestic concerns of an independent people. The noble lord had then clearly shown how far it might become the interest of this country to enter deeply into those concerns. But whatever might now be said by the noble lord or his colleagues, he feared that it was too late to apply a remedy. The die was cast, and, far as it was from his intention to undervalue the force of a British army, he must still say that the real strength of England lay in its influence and authority; in its money and its character. This had been the case since the reign of Henry VIII., and yet more

emphatically since the reign of Elizabeth. It was then that the genius and spirit of modern civilization were most advantageously displayed, and that principles were established which might serve as landmarks for succeedin ages. Queen Elizabeth, with a sagacity that seemed constitutional in her, and which, with various blemishes and defects of character, still made her the greatest woman that ever mingled with political affairs, acquired a mighty influence on the Continent without any trespass on national independence. She became the rallying point of the Protestant religion in Europe; and to her wise and magnanimious policy was it indebted for its early protection and support. Without dwelling on the faults of a succeeding race of princes, he should say that many public misfortunes had arisen out of their departure from the same course. Upon prudential motives, as well as on grounds of public right and of general policy, he would call upon the noble lord to consider the probable effects of that course in which he was engaged, as regarded Naples. He had often heard him, in the instance of Spain, insist on the energy belonging to popular sentiment, and on the force which always accompanied the efforts of a free people. He had heard the noble lord maintain not only that the war was popular in Spain, but that its success was owing to its popularity. This was an argument and a most powerful one for repelling the atrocious usurpation of Buonaparte. That usurpation was one of the most unjustifiable aggressions

aggressions ever committed; it had been deservedly condemned; and most readily did he join upon this point in the verdict of condemnation, passed as it was upon one whom he must still regard as a great man, and to whom in his adversity he was the more willing to pay the tribute due to his talents and virtues. But the noble lord (Liverpool) himself had said, that from the period of the occupation of Spain, the French power began to lose its stability. In this opinion he (lord Holland) fully agreed with the noble earl. By the violent usurpation of the Spanish throne the ruler of France destroyed himself—eo ictu sese confecit — from that moment general opinion became arrayed against the French government, and that general opinion was the cause of the ultimate success of the allied armies. But if general opinion had such an effect during war, did the noble earl think that it ought to have no effect during peace? The noble earl was too much of a statesman not to know that wars must again occur. When a war occurred we could place no dependence but on the justice of our conduct, our magnanimity, and our fairness of proceeding towards the rest of Europe. We had had an opportunity, by a seasonable and strong remonstrance, to place ourselves at the head of the popular opinion. The Carbonari, who were now regarded as so dangerous, had taken their origin in secret societies in Germany, instituted for the double purpose of shaking off the yoke of France, and the powers allied with France, and of establishing freedom on a better foundation

than before. They had been en

couraged for that purpose in almost every part of Europe, and he believed they had been en

couraged for that purpose in Italy. Every state in Europe, while thus

struggling against France, promised a free constitution to its people. He must do Austria the justice to say, that she had violated no promise of this kind, for she had given no promise of liberty to her subjects. But, with the exception of Austria, all the

states of Europe, even Russia,

had promised free constitutions

to their subjects, and all violated

their promises. It had been said

that the example of Naples might

be dangerous to neighbouring

despotisms. Mere vicinity was,

he believed, the ratio suasoria of the interference whatever ratio

justificatoria might be assumed or pretended. He (lord Holland)

would not give five years' purchase

for the stability of a despotism in

any territory near the place where

freedom was fairly established.

He agreed with the noble earl

that there was danger, and he

rejoiced exceedingly that there

was danger to a despotic govern

ment, from the mere vicinity of

freedom. But the mode of meet

ing the danger was, not by at

tacking the free government, but

by improving their own. What

more monstrous proposition could

be stated, than that, because our

own government is bad, we must

protect it by attacking a neigh

bouring good government; be

cause our state is founded in

rottenness, we must attack a

neighbouring state whose foundation was pure; because our habitation was founded on stubble,

We

« ПредишнаНапред »