— Lord Hollandsaid, that before the counsel were called in, he thought it necessary to ask the noble earl opposite a few questions on the subject of our foreign relations. Among the mass of papers on the table there was a treaty, by which the five great powers of Europe had formed themselves into a tribunal to judge of the conduct of other nations. They had established a sort of state policy, by which they were, on every emergency, forcibly to interfere in the 256 concerns of other countries. From the armaments of Austria, and the publications which had taken place, it seemed to be thought that that emergency had now arrived. The great variety of menacing papers which had appeared in the foreign journals, both from Russia and Austria, on this subject, gave him a right, he conceived, to ask the noble earl to state what connection, if any, subsisted between the engagements of this country and the proceedings of Austria with respect to Naples? But assuredly he did not ask this question in any spirit of hostility towards the noble earl. He was solely induced to ask the question because he thought it fit that their lordships and the public should be put in possession of the sentiments and views of his majesty's government on this subject. He asked it, too, in the confidence that the answer of the noble earl would, like that given to the question he (lord Holland) had put in the similar case of Spain, redound to the credit of ministers themselves, and prove beneficial to the country. Such an answer would also be useful to those who, in another part of the world, might wish to effect a revolution advantageous to their country. He therefore asked, whether any communication had taken place respecting the object of the armaments now making by Austria, and whether that power had demanded any assistance? If such demand had been made, he wished to know what answer had been given by ministers, and whether any countenance had been given, directly or indirectly, to the principles of interference in the concerns of independent nations professed by the great powers of the continent? He was also desirous of knowing whether the revolution which had taken place in Naples altered in any degree, the relations of amity which had previously subsisted between his majesty and the king of the Two Sicilies? He trusted that the answers of the noble earl to these questions would be such as to show that his majesty's government had no concern, and felt no common interest in any schemes which had for their object an interference in the domestic affairs of other nations.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he was perfectly willing to give his noble friend an answer, which he trusted, would be considered satisfactory: at the same time he thought it necessary to observe, that 257 their lordships must be aware that, consistently with his public duty, some points of these questions were of a nature to preclude minute explanations. The noble lord regarded the events which had token place at Naples as similar to those which occurred in Spain. Before, therefore, he answered the questions of the noble lord, he thought it expedient, in order to obviate any misconception on this subject, to state, that he certainly thought the revolution in Naples differed considerably from that in Spain. This difference arose out of the state of the Sicilian dominions; for it was notorious, that there subsisted a division between the two members of that monarchy, and it did not appear that Sicily had yet acquiesced in the system of government established at Naples. Having stated thus much, he should now, in answer to the noble lord's questions, say—without giving up the right of the government of this country to interfere in the concerns of other nations, under certain circumstances which might call for such interference—that he had no difficulty in declaring, that it was no part of the policy of his majesty's government to interfere in the internal affairs of other states, and that the government was no party either directly or indirectly, to any engagements for such a purpose. He wished it to be distinctly understood, that in what he said, he never meant to fetter the discretion of the government as to what might be thought fitting under particular circumstances: nor was he giving any opinion as to what other countries might think fit to do in the situation in which they might be placed. On these points his noble friend had no right to expect him to enter into details. As he had said, however, he had no hesitation in declaring, that it was no part of the policy of this country to interfere with the internal government of other states, and that no engagements to that effect existed.
Lord Hollandwas happy to hear the explanation which had been given, so far as it went; but the noble earl had not fully answered his questions. The noble earl had alluded to a difference between the cases of Spain and Naples, in consequence of the division which appeared to subsist between the two members of the latter monarchy. He should be glad if the noble earl would inform him, whether he Considered the events which constituted 258 that difference, to have altered the relations of amity which had previously existed between his majesty and the king of the Two Sicilies; and whether that difference appeared to him such as to bring the case of Naples in any way within the exception to which he had alluded.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he had omitted to answer the noble lord's question respecting the relations between this country and Naples merely from oversight. It was well known that a gentleman of great respectability had for some time filled the situation of his majesty's minister to the king of the Two Sicilies. That gentleman was still at Naples, but not in the same character. He had no hesitation in stating, that since the late change took place at Naples no new letters of credence had been sent out to sir W. A'Court. The existing state of the government of Naples would sufficiently account for this; but the fact was, that, under the present circumstances, it had not been thought right to give any new letters of credence to his majesty's ministers at Naples.
Lord Hollandasked, whether the occurrence of such a revolution in a country like that of Naples was thought a sufficient reason for renewing letters of credence to an ambassador?
The Earl of Liverpooldid not mean to say that, under ordinary circumstances, when a revolution took place, new credentials should be given to the resident ambassador of this country. He had, however, no difficulty in informing their lordships, that, in the existing state of Naples, it had not been thought fit yet to give any new letters of credence, and none had been received from the government of that country.
§ Earl Greyrepeated the statement which he understood the noble earl to have made, and observed, that its result was, that the late accredited minister of Great Britain at Naples remained there in no official station. This, he must contend, was a suspension of the amicable relations between the two countries, which the events that had occurred at Naples did not justify. He had heard the declaration of the noble earl on this subject with great pain. He admitted that the division which subsisted between the two states which composed the Sicilian dominions constituted a difference between the revolutions of Spain and Naples; but that difference was not such as to make it right in this government to sus- 259 pend the usual relations of amity with his Neapolitan majesty; more especially at a time when every motive of interest and policy dictated the extending and cultivating the relations of peace with every part of the world. From what the noble earl had said upon the present situation of his majesty's minister at Naples, it appeared, that he thought new letters of credence necessary. Now, suppose the king of Naples had been continued in the exercise of the royal authority, notwithstanding the revolution, would new letters of credence have then been necessary? The noble lord, it appears, thinks not. Then how did the circumstance of the duke of Calabria, to whom the king had delegated his authority, being at the head of the government, make such a difference? He apprehended that the very same thing had occurred at Naples as had taken place here when the prince-regent was placed at the head of the government of this country, that is, that the sovereign authority of Naples was exercised by the Icing's son, as vicar-general of the kingdom. He could not, therefore, think that what had fallen from the noble earl on this subject was any encouraging symptom of that amicable spirit by which he represented his majesty's ministers to be guided. There was another circumstance in the noble earl's explanation which was not quite satisfactory. If he had rightly heard and rightly understood what passed, the noble earl had intimated, that whatever measures might now be taking by Austria or other powers, in hostility to the revolution of Naples, such proceedings, whatever they might be, had not taken place in consequence of any communication with this country, and had not received any encouragement whatever from his majesty's government. He wished that the noble earl had added, that these proceedings had not only not received, but that there existed no disposition to give them, any encouragement. He hoped, however, that he might understand him in this sense. Into the abstract question of possible cases in which interference might be justifiable, he should not enter; that such cases might occur every body admitted; it was sufficient that they did not now exist. But, supposing things to remain as they were at present, he must consider the government as solemnly pledged, in the face of the House and of Europe, that no encouragement, direct or indirect, was to be given to any measures that Austria 260 might adopt with a view to interference in the affairs of Naples. This pledge would be of the greatest advantage to this country and to Europe at the present moment, when sentiments prevailed such as those he had seen in a state-paper lately published. That paper he had read with disgust, as it contained those principles of arbitrary power, which were more consistent with a conspiracy of kings against liberty than with an alliance deserving the name of "Holy". He was glad, therefore, to hear that no encouragement, direct or indirect, was to be given to Austria.
The Earl of Liverpoolthought it necessary to rise again to obviate any misunderstanding. He wished to repeat, that it was not the policy of this country, at this time, under present circumstances, to interfere with the internal concerns of any other country—that this country was no party, directly or indirectly, to any engagements of such a character, and had not, directly or indirectly, encouraged any measures of the nature alluded to on the part of other governments. This he stated most distinctly, with the reserve that he would not fetter the discretion of the government of this country by saying what course might thereafter be pursued under possible and eventual circumstances. All he desired was, that what he had stated might be taken in the terms in which he had stated it, and not in those in which others might describe it.