§ MR. URQUHART wished to know whether the interpretation given elsewhere of the judgment formed by Her Majesty's Government as to the conduct of the representative of Great Britain at Madrid was correct? He put this question, because he understood that in another place that conduct had been censured, while he understood from what fell the other day from the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) it 761 was approved of by Her Majesty's Government. He further wished to know whether the despatches of the 10th and 11th of April, of which extracts were given, might not be produced in full, and whether the Duke de Sotomayor had condescended to give any answer to the last despatch of the representative of the British Government at Madrid?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON replied, that with respect to the note of Mr. Bulwer, the papers presented to Parliament showed that his conduct had been approved of in two despatches from himself (Lord Palmerston) in respect to the course which, under all the circumstances of the case, he had deemed it expedient to take. With respect to the despatches of which extracts only were given, he did not think it essential to give the whole of them, because there were, as in many despatches, observations and remarks introduced into them, which, however proper for the information of the Government, were not of such a nature as needed to be published generally. He had laid on the table everything important as showing the course pursued. In respect to the third question put by the hon. Member, he had to say that he had not yet received from Mr. Bulwer an acknowledgment of his last despatch; and therefore could not state what answer the Duke de Sotomayor might have given to Mr. Bulwer's last note.
§ MR. BANKES understood the noble Lord to say the other evening that it was his intention to furnish the House, togegether with the recent correspondence between the British and Spanish Ministers, with an extract from a Spanish paper called theClamor Publico. Now, he could not find this extract among the papers presented to the House. He wished to know, also, since it had been stated in that House, or at all events in the public papers, that the publication of that correspondence had appeared in the French papers as if from authority, whether there was any ground for assuming that publication proceeded from the Spanish Minister, or from any one under his authority? He likewise desired to know how it happened that the correspondence presented to Parliament appeared in the English newspapers twenty-four hours before it reached the hands of Members of that House?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON observed, that the previous evening he had promised, if he could lay his hand on the paragraph in the Spanish newspaper, he would in- 762 clude a copy of it in the papers presented to the House. At the time those papers were prepared he was not able to find the paragraph in question, but he had since discovered it, and should not have the least objection to lay a copy of it on the table of the House. With respect to the second question of the hon. Member, as to the source whence the French newspapers obtained copies of the correspondence, of course he (Lord Palmerston) had no distinct authority for his opinion, but he was warranted in saying that the communication did not come either from Her Majesty's Government or from Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid; and, from certain phrases and internal evidence, his opinion was that that communication might come from some party either in connexion with the Spanish or French Government. With respect to the last question of the hon. Member, he could only say that it was the usual and established courtesy, in respect to public departments, when papers were laid on the table of the House, to send copies to the principal newspapers. He did not know whether in the present instance copies were sent to the newspapers before a sufficient number had been struck off for the use of the Members of that House; but it was the usual courtesy, he repeated, to furnish the newspapers, under the circumstances he had mentioned, with copies of documents, and this was found to be for the public convenience.