§ MR. URQUHART said, it could not fail to be in the recollection of the House that there had recently appeared in the newspapers a remarkable and almost incredible correspondence, said to have taken place between the Foreign Secretary in this country, the British Minister in Spain, and the Spanish Government. From that correspondence it appeared that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton sought directly to interfere for the purpose of producing a change in the Government of Spain. It appeared also that the note of the noble Member for Tiverton had drawn forth from the Spanish Minister, the Duke de Sotomayor, an indignant reply, in which he repelled with scorn such an interference in the internal affairs of an independent State. Now, the questions which he desired to put were these:—"Was the correspondence authentic? and, if so, was there any objection on the part of the Government to lay that correspondence on the table of the House, as well as the two other letters which were understood to relate to the recall of the British Minister from the Court of Madrid?"
§ LORD J. RUSSELL said: The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions, and has accompanied his inquiries with qualifications and epithets upon which it is not necessary that I should make any observation. The hon. Gentleman refers to certain correspondence which purports to consist of letters passing between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this country, and the British Minister at Madrid; and he wishes to know if 604 that correspondence in the form in which it has appeared in the public journals, be authentic. In reply to this question, I have in the first place to state, that there has been an important omission in the despatch of my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton. It begins substantially thus—I cannot pretend to be strictly aecurate as to the words, but it is nearly in these terms—he "earnestly recommends, if an opportunity should arise," and so he proceeds to state what he does recommend. Now that is different from the words of the despatch as they appeared in the newspapers; and I submit that it is an important difference. There is an obvious difference between an absolute instruction to take a particular course, and a direction to wait till a certain opportunity arises for presenting a note. In the next place, the hon. Gentleman states that the Duke de Sotomayor indignantly rejected the advice thus offered to him. It may, perhaps, be as well, before I go further, that I should refer to some anterior proceedings, and, looking to those, I find that this country is bound by a treaty which lays us under an obligation, when called upon for that purpose by Spain, to supply assistance by sea, and to furnish certain quantities of arms and ammunition for land service, with the purpose of maintaining the present Queen on the throne of Spain. Considering, then, the obligations of this treaty, and considering the sums of money due by the Spanish Government to England for arms and for the munitions of war; remembering the treaty which obliges this country to make naval efforts for the maintenance of the Queen's Government in Spain; bearing in mind that if called upon we have engaged to make those efforts—it is, I conceive, our right thus to tender advice, and it is natural that we should desire that any danger of disturbing the Government of Spain should not be recklessly incurred; at least, we were entitled to give such friendly advice as appeared to us best calculated to avert civil war. Of this I feel perfectly assured, that that was all that my noble Friend intended; he did not intend any thing like dictation. But this country being in alliance with Spain, he did mean to offer such friendly advice as was consistent with the relative positions of both countries, with the interests of Spain, and with the engagements into which we had entered. To the questions of the hon. Member that is the general answer which I am enabled to give. My noble Friend will state whether he has any objection to 605 produce the correspondence. I may add, however, that we have no wish to withhold any paper calculated to afford such information as the House may desire on this subject.
§ MR. URQUHART, seeing the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton in his place, wished to know whether the recent distinction conferred upon the British Minister at Madrid had been resolved upon before or after the late proceedings in Spain?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am sorry I was not present when the hon. Gentleman put his questions. I have now, however, to state, that I entertain no objection to laying before the House the correspondence to which the hon. Member has referred. The papers are already in course of preparation, and I have no doubt that on Saturday they will be quite ready. With respect to the distinction recently conferred on Mr. Bulwer, I have no hesitation in saying that advice was given to Her Majesty to confer that honour long ago—it was given as a mark of Her Majesty's approbation of his general services, and recent events have certainly supplied no reason for altering that determination.