§ Lord Lyndhurstwould take that opportunity of asking the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne), whether he would object to lay on the table the treaty signed by Mr. M'Gregor and the Neapolitan minister at the close of last year, and which was to have come into operation on the first of January this year? The provisions of that treaty were well known to all parties connected with the commerce of Sicily and Naples, and they were most desirous that it should be ratified, as they were fully contented with its provisions. As connected with this subject, he wished to correct a misunderstanding as to what had taken place, and what fell from him in March last upon this subject. The facts which he then stated were admitted by the noble Viscount to be correctly staled. The noble Viscount agreed with him that there had been an infraction of the commercial treaty that existed between the Government of this country and that of Naples. The noble Viscount had stated that complaints had been made to the Neapolitan government. An attempt had been made to obtain redress, but nothing had been done in the way of concession. The noble Viscount also threw out that the Neapolitan government was desirous only that the monopoly should last for six months. He at that time complained of the delay that had taken place, and he stated, that if ships of war were sent out, the matter would soon be brought to a successful issue. In stating this, however, he never intended to sanction such proceedings as had since taken place on the part of her Majesty's Government, and upon which proceedings he would now give no opinion.
§ Viscount Melbournesaid, it was the intention of the Government to lay on the table of both Houses of Parliament all the documents with respect to the subject. 1144 The noble Lord had certainly stated with great correctness what had fallen from him on a former occasion, but whether the inference he had drawn from it was quite so correct, he would not say.