HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
treaty of neutrality between France 
and Naples had been concluded at 
Paris on the 21st of September, by 
Talleyrand_ and the marquis di Gal- 
lo; and-ratified at Portici by the 
king of Naples on the 8th of Oc- 
tober. Ly this treaty, the French 
agreed to withdraw their troops 
from the Neapolitan territory, 
where they had been stationed, 
without any justiliable pretence, 
since the commencement of the 
_ war with England: and the king 
of Naples engaged, in return, to re- 
main neutral in the war between 
France and the allies, and to repel 
by force, every encroachment on 
his neutrality. Hemore particularly 
became bound not to permit the 
troops of any belligerent power to 
enter his territories; not to con- 
fide the command of his armies or 
defence of his strong places to any 
Russian or Austrian officer, or 
French emigrant, or subject of any 
belligerent ; and not to admit any 
belligerent squadron into his ports. 
But hardly had six weeks elapsed 
after the ratification of this treaty, 
when every one of its stipulations 
was violated by the court of Na- 
ples. On the 20th of November a 
squadron of English and Russian 
ships of war appeared in the bay 
of Naples, and landed a body of 
forces in that city and its vicinity. 
It is still doubtful, whether this ex- 
ag was undertaken by the al- 
ies in coucert with the Neapolitan 
government; but, whether previ- 
ously consulted or not, by not op. 
posing the landing of the troops, 
nor even remonstrating against it, 
the latter made itself a party to the 
transaction, and forfeited the neu- 
trality secured to it by the treaty 
recently concluded. Such at least 
133 
was the interpretation of its conduct 
by the French ambassador at Na- 
ples, who instantly took down the 
arms of France from over the gate 
of his hotel, and demandsd_ pass. 
ports, to enable him to leave the 
kingdom. liad the court of Na- 
ples beer able to justify itself from 
a participation in the counsels that 
led to these proceedings, or been 
still desirous of maintaining its neu- 
trality in the war between France. 
and the allies, this was the moment 
for explanation. But, instead of 
keeping open the door for accom- 
modation, it suffered the French 
ambassador to depart, without even 
attempting a vindication of its con. 
duct ; and contented itself with is- 
suing a decree, in which, after 
slightly alluding to the late trans. 
actions, but without even conde. 
scending to say, that the neutrality 
of its territory had been violated 
against its will, it promised to fo. 
reign merchants, subjects of the al- 
lies of France, and resident in the 
Neapolitan dominions, who might 
otherwise be alarmed at the depar- 
ture of the French ambassador, 
protection for their property, and 
permission to pursue their com- 
merce.— The appearance of sucha 
decree, at such a juncture, was re- 
garded by France as an unequivocal 
declaration, that the late proceed- 
ings of the allies at Naples, if not 
undertaken at the request of the 
Neapolitan government, were a- 
greeable to jts wishes; and if any 
doubts had remained of its inten- 
tion to disregard the treaty of Por- 
tici, and connect itself with the al- 
lies, its subsequent conduct would 
have soon removed them. 
The Russians, who were in uum. 
ber ahout 14,000 men, under ge- 
K 3 Ot ene 
