Page images
PDF
EPUB

from a part of its burthens, he will be graciously pleased to direct, that a minute investigation be instituted into the mode and expense of the management and collection of the several branches of the revenue; that a careful revision be made of all salaries and allowances, especially of those which have been increased since 1797, in order that they may be adjusted to the increased value of the currency, and to the distressed circumstances of the country; that a vigilant superintendance be exercised over the expenditure of the country in all its departments, in order that every reduction may be made therein which can be effected without detriment to the public interest; and, in particular, in the number of the army and the expense of its establishments."

an

Mr. Bankes moved, as amendment, "That an humble Address be presented to his ma jesty, to assure his majesty, that we have regarded with satisfaction the measures which have been taken by his majesty's commands for a general revision of the department of the Customs in Great Britain; and to intreat his majesty to give directions that a similar investigation may be extended to all the other branches of the revenue, in order to render its collection more economical, and its management more efficient; that, for the purpose of affording a further relief to the country, his majesty will be pleased to order a minute inquiry into the several departments of the civil government, as well with a view to reducing the number of persons employed in those departments, which, from the great increase of business, were aug

mented during the late war, as with reference to the increased salaries granted to individuals since the year 1797, either in consideration of the additional labour thrown upon them during that period, or of the diminished value of money:-and farther, that his majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that every possible saving which can be made, without detriment to the public interest, shall be effected in those more extended establishments which the country is obliged to maintain for the safety and defence of the United Kingdom and its dependencies, and more especially in the military expenditure, by a reduction in the numbers of the army, and by a constant and vigilant superintendance that and all the other departments connected with the application of the ample supplies granted by this House."

over

The House divided: Mr. Hume's motion was rejected by a majority of 174 to 94. Mr. Bankes's amendment was then agreed to without a division.

On the 2nd of July, lord Darnley followed the example which Mr. Hume had set. After taking a general view of our expenditure, he moved,

"That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, praying that his majesty will be graciously pleased to take into his immediate and most serious consideration the difficulties and distresses of his faithful subjects, and especially of that very important description of them, whose wealth and subsistence more immediately depend on agriculture; and that his majesty will be graciously pleased to give such directions as to his majesty's wisdom shall

seem most expedient, to diminish the public expenditure in all the great departments of the state, both civil and military, as the only effectual means of permanently relieving those difficulties and distresses which, if not principally occasioned, are, at least, materially aggravated, by the pressure of accumulated taxation."

Lord Liverpool maintained, that the distress was not so great as it was represented to be; that it was

not caused by taxation; and that the government had made and were making, every retrenchment consistent with the honour, the security, and the good faith of the country. He concluded by moving an amendment nearly the same with that, which had been proposed by Mr. Bankes, in the other House.

Lord Darnley did not press his motion to a division; and the amended address was agreed to.

[blocks in formation]

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.

T

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 esta blishment 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, no 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 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 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 document, to which our circular was a reply, was by no means the final paper of the allied so vereigns on that important and difficult question-how far the interference of one government in the regulation of the internal administration of another is or is not a justifiable measure? That paper was a confidential document addressed to the different courts of Europe, informing them of the discussions that were then carried on at Troppau, but was not a document stating the manner in which those discussions had terminated. It was a notorious fact, that the minister of England and the minister of France took no share whatsoever in them. The minister of England was indeed there, to notice any territorial aggrandizement, if any thing of that kind had been contemplated; but he was not there to commit his government by any acts or opinions of his own. The House would therefore see, that it would be doing an act of injustice to the allied 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

had caused that declaration was the final manifesto of their intentions. The allied powers had sent to the British government in order to obtain their acquiescence in it.. The British government replied, that they could not acquiesce in the doctrines which it contained. If under such circumstances the allied powers had made answer, "You have pledged yourselves to the same principles that we have, and we call upon you to redeem that pledge," then the House might have some reason to doubt the sincerity of ministers, and might be justified in entering into a full examination of their conduct. But, when no such call had been made by the allied powers-when a direct negative had been given to the principles contained in their state-paper; recognised though they were, according to their statement, by the treaty of Paris in the first instance, and the treaties of Aix-laChapelle in the second, he did conceive that the House would feel it to be its duty not to accelerate the inquiry proposed.

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 government 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

« PreviousContinue »