from any particular hatred against them, and affection for Bonaparte, as from the wish to prevent a civil war, in which they dreaded the re-action of the populace, who were without property, as most of themselves at the commencement of the revolution were, and in which commotions, had these taken place, they were afraid that they might lose the property which they possessed. Hence their wish not so much to oppose the Bourbon interest, as to secure the internal tranquillity of the country, and to prevent the inhabitants from taking up arms against each other; knowing, as they well did, how fearful would be the consequences of civil broils. Massena now threw off the mask, when he saw that such assistance was nigh as would enable him to overawe the Marseillois; and accordingly, he published a flaming proclamation, acknowledging the authority of the Emperor, whom he always worshipped in his heart; and, at the same time, took great merit to himself for having preserved, the valuable port of Toulon, and the important city of Marseilles, to the Emperor. The submission of this latter place was celebrated with a discharge of 100 pieces of cannon, and great rejoicings amongst the Bonapartists all over France; ast they fondly conceived that this event was the end of civil commotions, and the perfect establishment of their government; and, accordingly, they were not slow to dun it into the ears of the people of Europe. Hitherto I have forborne making any mention of the affairs of Italy. But it is now time to turn our attention to the affairs of that interesting country. Previous to the return of Napoleon from Elba, the French press teemed with accounts of discontent, insurrections, and massacres of the Austrian troops in that country. Subsequent to that event, they doubled their diligence in that avocation, so congenial to their minds. In this they had two objects in view: namely, to impress upon the minds of the nations of Europe, that they had so many friends in Italy, that in case of a war it would be easy for them to overrun that country; and next to shew that with Italy overrun or disaffected, Austria could render no effectual assistance to the grand coalition. That France had many friends in Italy, cannot admit of a doubt; and that these might be anxious to make a movement in her favour, and commence it by a massacre of the Austrian troops, and their opponents, is extremely probable. The adherents of France, in all countries, were men of that stamp who gloried in such measures, and followed these from the instinctive ferocity of their disposition. The vigilance, however, of the Austrian Generals, disconcerted all such attempts, and prevented the execution of any such plans; which it was generally observable that the press of Paris, as the true centre of the evil, and the fountain-head of such information, frequently only anticipated. It was evident, however, that commotions in that quarter were approaching. Murat, for some time, had been very busy in augmenting and organizing his army. The Austrian troops were increasing in Italy; and after the escape of Napoleon from Elba, received still more numerous re-enforcements. It was insinuated by the friends of Murat, and the enemies of the Bourbons, that, at their suggestion, Congress was about to deprive the former of the kingdom of Naples, and restore it to its ancient Sovereign. Every endeavour was made to impress upon the minds of the nations of Europe the injustice of this proceeding, and to create an interest in favour of Murat. This was particularly engaged in by the opposition party in Britain, who adopt the cause of any one, when by it they can embarass the measures of ministry, throw odium upon their name, and tarnish the reputation of their country. In defence of Murat they embarked with alacrity; and never doubting his honour, or the honour of his agents, they were so proud of having obtained a tangible accusation against the British Cabinet, and a deed to expose the imbecility and injustice of the despots at Vienna, as they loved to describe them, that they overlooked the source from whence they obtained their information, and accordingly their zeal in their new avocation led them into an aukward scrape. But to such things they had, of late, been pretty much accustomed. Official documents, all on one side of the question, now made their appearance with a most astonishing rapidity, in the columns of the Journal, acknowledged as the organ of the party; all complaining bitterly of the injustice of the proceedings of Britain and her allies, against the brave and the honourable Murat. With such perseverance was this subject continued, that the public began to blame, with severity, the conduct of the Congress, as it related to this personage. Having thus made a considerable impression on the public mind, they collected all their strength, and determined to come to close quarters with their ministerial opponents, in which contest their vanity and security anticipated a signal triumph on their part. They accordingly brought the business, in a very serious manner, before both Houses of Parliament. The attack was in the tactics of Napoleon himself. They broke with their collected strength upon the cen tre of the array of their opponents, whom they hoped to cut in two, and make their victory complete and decisive. But their ground was badly chosen, and the position of their antagonists impregnable. The attack consequently failed. They were foiled with disgrace and shame; and, like Napoleon, retired, for a while, to a rock in the middle of the sea, in order to recruit their scattered forces, and recover their spirits. In the House of Lords, the matter was brought forward by Lord Grey, who contended that Murat had discharged, in the campaign of 1814, the duty imposed on him by the treaty with Austria, which guaranteed to him his kingdom, and which was acceded to by this country. "His co-operation and assistance," said Lord Grey, “ had greatly relieved Austria from the pressure she experienced at that time in Italy. He had cleared the dominions of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and the Ecclesiastical States, of the French armies."+ But in what manner did he do it, and for what purpose? This was important to know. Lord Liverpool informed us, that Murat, at that moment, was actually in communication with the enemy. That upon the arrival of Lord Castlereagh, at Vienna, a memorial on the part of Murat was given in by his minister the Duke of Campo Chiaro, stating his service, but which memorial was referred to the Austrian General Nugent, who had made out a long report on its merits, and " on the whole circumstances of the campaign, in which that able officer stated, that Murat had not only not cordially co-operated with the Austrian army, but • After this debate, they continued to nibble about Elba, and its illustrious Sove ereign. ↑ Lord Grey's speech, May 2d, 1815. had broken the engagements which he had entered into."* Not relying on this evidence, however, Lord Castlereagh sent the whole documents to Lord William Bentinck, "who made a report entirely confirming that of General Nugent; and stating, that he had no doubt of Murat's having been in communication with the enemy during the whole of the operations." And further, that as to the co-operation of Murat, Lord William Bentinck even doubted whether the common cause would not have been better promoted without it." These officers, who were upon the spot, were certainly the best judges of all these circumstances. In the House of Commons, however, the arguments and facts took a much stronger turn. The business was there brought forward by Mr. Horner, who, after all the broad and daring charges, which, in the absence of Lord Castlereagh, he had from time to time brought against the executive government, now that this noble personage was present, endeavoured to evade the debate, by submitting to the House whether it would not be "more consonant to the wise and established practice of the Legislature, on the emergency of a new war, to communicate those papers (which he wanted) by a message from the throne, acquainting Parliament with that event, and referring it to the documents, as explanatory of the causes which led to it. He would also suggest, that if the pàpers were to be granted without opposition, the feelings of the House would be better consulted by foregoing in the present state of the question, all statement or discussion on the subject.”‡ This, no doubt, was the proper course; but the Honourable Gentleman had, with his eyes open, chosen another; and after enforcing and insisting upon it, as the proper course, he could not be allowed to retract. Accordingly Lord Castlereagh said, that "he could not avoid feeling surprise at what had fallen from the Honourable Gentleman. He had conceived that those who sat on the opposite side of the House had, long since, considered themselves to be in possession of information sufficient to warrant them in charging his Majesty's government with an • Lord Liverpool's speech, May 2d, 1815. ↑ Do. do unqualifed breach of faith, (hear, hear!) An Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whitbread) had very recently declared, in terms the most decided, that he had at length conclusive grounds for ascribing to ministers a breach of faith, and a gross violation of their duty." The noble Lord proceeded to express his surprise that those who had so long ago "criminated the proceedings of Government, and of our Allies, in the general arrangements adopted for the settlement of Europe, should not now be prepared to support their accusations;" and, that as "he had come down to the House in discharge of his duty, to meet the discussion of charges preferred in his absence, so he expected that the Honourable Gentleman would not shrink from a contest which he himself had provoked."* This keen, but just, observation provoked the patriotic anger of Mr. Horner; and after a panegyric upon his own Parliamentary boldness and consistency, he endeavoured to triumph. over his opponents, by informing the noble Lord that " he had it in his power to embarass ministers in that House, by referr ing to papers which had been already laid before the other House of Parliament."+ The public had already been sufficiently informed by them that such was the case; and what they now wanted to see was these documents so much talked of. Compelled, therefore, to come to the point, Mr. Horner, in a long speech, contended that Murat had been most unjustly dealt with, and that he was entitled to retain his kingdom, in reward for the services rendered the allies, and by virtue of the treaties concluded with him, which he, on his part, had not violated. Murat, said he, had hitherto fulfiled all his engagements." He contended, that the policy of this country. was to secure the alliance of Murat, who was most anxious to form such a connexion, and ready to enter into the most fa vourable stipulations. Except this, there was nothing very remarkable in his speech, which only abounded in daring accusations against the ministers of his country, founded upon disjointed statements and references, and a conviction • Lord Castlereagh's speech, May 2d, 1815. ↑ Mr. Horner's, do. do. |