HC Deb 16 August 1836 vol 35 cc1259-69
Mr. Grove Price

rose to call the attention of the House to the state of affairs in Spain. He never addressed the House under so great a degree of excitement. Within the last few days events had been such—so fearful and so disastrous—that he did not wish to see the Parliament prorogued without expressing some sentiments upon this fearful prospect. The hon. Member referred to the affairs of Spain for the last few months, to show that it. was impossible to form a moderate party in Spain. There were but two parties in Spain, and it had been, and would be, impossible to form a third. He was glad that those of the Stock Exchange who had been trafficking in the distresses of the country were likely to be disappointed, for he was sure that the bonds that had been entered into would never be paid. No common responsibility rested on his Majesty's Government for the tone of triumph they had displayed on this subject. The next matter was, that there was no third estate—no House of Lords— it had no connexion with the old Cortes— it was an exotic in Spain, and would never take root in the country, even watered as it had been by so much blood. The best Government for Spain was that which would meet with the accordance of the intelligent classes. Such a Government never yet had a trial there. The Constitution of 1812, was now the Government to be set up. He rejoiced at this for one reason, namely, that those who, on the Stock Exchange of London, had been so long trafficking on the miseries of that country were likely to be dispossessed of their ill-gotten gains. If these speculators could gain but a half per cent. they cared little what sufferings they inflicted upon others. There were many who staked their all in these securities—on the credit of his Majesty's Government; and no common responsibility rested on the Government for the tone of triumphant expectation in which they spoke of the affairs of the Queen. The same tone was held by part of the public press, which, in their leading articles, spoke of the resources of the Queen as inexhaustible, of her generals as brave and skilful, and of the Spanish people as friendly to her cause. He felt confident that not one shilling of these loans would be paid, and that they who advanced their money would have nothing for it but blurred and blotted pieces of paper. Now, what were the main, the leading features of this boasted Constitution of 1812? First, there was universal suffrage. This might please some hon. Gentlemen opposite, the hon. Member for Finsbury or others, who had not studied the lessons of history, and had not yet had much experience in the workings of the British Constitution. He looked upon universal suffrage as a great evil. But this was not all; for by the Constitution of 1812, there was an intermediate election. In this the electors had, in fact, no immediate connexion with their representatives. The representatives under the Constitution o 1812 were few in number, greedy, attending only to their own interests, and caring nothing for principle. It was a system which, to the evils of oligarchy, superadded all those of a fierce democracy. This system was tried in France; but it lasted only ten months. In the third place, this Constitution of 1812 recognised no religion but the Roman Catholic. Now, after all the discussions they had had for years in that House on freedom of conscience was there one Member in it who could be friendly to a Constitution like this? The English Government of that day never approved of this Constitution. It was left for some future Government to do that. The conduct of the Cortes under that Constitution was the subject of much complaint in England, because they attended so much to local and so very little to general interests. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock laughed. Did he know, that even the divine Arguelles himself, never went to the Cortes without being armed with a dagger to protect himself? Arguelles himself mentioned this to a friend of his. Under that Constitution there was no Upper House. It was, in fact, an exotic plant that never could flourish in Spain. The Cortes was to be triennial, and the royal authority would have no veto. This Constitution was hostile to the wishes of the Spanish people, and whoever supported it could not be an admirer or supporter of the British Constitution. There were times when it became necessary to support a Government against the democratic principle. Ferdinand was placed on the Throne without a blow having been struck for the Constitution. In 1820 some difficulties arose. Mendizabal excited rebellion in Spain. He was called from the Stock Exchange of London to manage the finances of that country. He recently went over a second time, and was placed at the head of affairs. It was disgraceful to see a man taken from the Stock Exchange of London, and made the First Minister of a great country. It was said, he did not know it to be so; but it was said, that he was the great agitator in the present commotions. The Queen was torn in pieces between two contending parties. She was scarcely Queen de facto. What hope was there for her cause when one-third of Spain was in the hands of the Carlists, and the rest under the control of the disaffected? There was only one hope for Spain, and that was, to recognize the legitimate claims of Don Carlos. The classes most hostile to them were Radicals and Republicans. From 1820 to 1823, Spain was disgraced by more atrocities than ever took place in any country, except, perhaps, during the French revolution. A libel was written by the Canon Vinuesso (as we understood). He merely recommended in it that the Constitution should be settled upon the principles of the old system. He was sentenced to the gallies for ten years, and after that dragged out by a band of assassins and butchered. Did the hon. Member (Dr. Bowring) hear of him? Did he hear of the Bishop who was shot by order of Mina? Did he hear of the massacre of Corunna, where fifty-two persons convicted of offences not capital, and forty-two others, were placed in a vessel, two by two, sabred, and then thrown into the water? Such were the happy days of the Member for Kilmarnock. And so now they had popular freedom again in Spain, with humanity and justice by its side. When men once lost their respect for morality and religion, when the laws were not enforced, there was no longer any Government. He would repeat, there was no chance for Spain, but in recognising the claims of Don Carlos. He was a man of firmness, They might be sure he would not yield while the least hope of success remained. He proved this, when Napoleon came to Spain. He then said, "My brother Ferdinand may resign his authority; but I never will give up my rights." Couple that with what has since occurred, and it proved that he was of a resolution never to yield. His sanguinary decree, as it had been called, was often alluded to. The fact was, that in issuing such a decree, he acted upon laws which long existed in the Basque provinces. According to these laws, no foreign troops, whether during war or otherwise, could enter those provinces without incurring the penalty of death. And the same law applied to the people of the other provinces of Spain. It was death to enter those provinces in arms. He should like to know what course Government meant to pursue under the present circumstances of Spain? He hoped, at least, that they would not sacrifice both the honour and the means of the country. If they connected themselves with the Constitution of 1812, they must form an union with the woman-killer, Mina, and with the assassins of Barcelona and Corunna. He begged pardon for trespassing so long on the time of the House. His excuse must be that he felt strongly for the state of Spain and for the honor and interest of this country. No man, desired more the success of good principles and of a legitimate Government in Spain than he did. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That the dispatch or dispatches of Mr. Villiers, announcing the proclamation of the Constitution of 1812 at Malaga, Saragossa, Cadiz, &c., and the recent events at Madrid, be laid on the table of this House."

Dr. Bowring

contended, that the constitution of 1812 was not opposed to the ancient usages of Spain. The hon. Member had referred to the conduct of a distinguished friend of his, General Mina. Now he could state that General Mina had assured him that he was not at all the cause of the death of the mother of Captain Cabrera, except having signed officially the warrant. But when the conduct of individuals was adverted to, he might be permitted to say, that although it was no argument to urge the conduct of one man against that of another, yet, if severity on the part of men told for anything, he was fully warranted in asserting that the charge told with much greater force against the adherents of Ferdinand, for, to his own personal knowledge, the commander-in-chief of Ferdinand kept a gallows constantly erected in the market-place of Valencia, where scores, nay, hundreds, were hanged by his orders, without any legal form of condemnation. The real cause of the anxiety felt by the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House was, that they felt that the hopes of Don Carlos would be crushed by the triumph of the Liberal party in Spain. Of this he was quite certain, that the progress of good and liberal Government in Spain deeply concerned the interests of the people of this country.

Captain Boldero

did not think that the British auxiliary force in Spain had sufficient strength to stem the current that was running against them. They were badly appointed, badly paid, badly fed, and badly clothed. He hoped that Lord John Hay would be directed to issue rations to the men, in order that they might not be starved. His opinion of the parties in Spain was, that Don Carlos, with the claim of legitimate right on his side, and the Queen, with the force of arms on hers, were about to be crushed by a third party that had arisen in that country. The quadruple treaty had therefore fallen to the ground. One of the conditions on which the men had entered the service of the Queen of Spain was that they might terminate their engagement at the end of the year. It, however, appeared that three month's previous notice was required. An error had, therefore, occurred; but the error was not on the part of the soldiers, but on the part of the Queen's Government, and the poor men were made to pay the penalty. The Prime Minister of the Queen of Spain had put a false construction on the treaty. He recollected that it had been said that the man who put a false construction upon a treaty was a puritanical impostor. He felt a high respect for General Evans. The valour and skill which he displayed before the lines of San Sebastian made him feel proud that he was a Briton; but what had been the result of the sacrifice of so many officers and 800 fighting men? The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, on a former night stated that the British Marines were not under the command of the Queen of Spain. How did it happen, then, that Major Owen acted under the command of the Quartermaster-general? There was no such person as a Quarter-master-general in the British navy.

Viscount Palmerston

It is not unnatural that the hon. Member for Sandwich, who takes so lively an interest in the affairs of Spain, should take an opportunity, at the close of the Session, again to record the opinions which he entertains, both of the merits of the respective contending parties, and of the probability of success on the one side and on the other, and I am not aware that in the observations made by the hon. Member, there really was much to call for any reply on my part. The hon. Member has repeated the opinions which he is well known to entertain; he has repeated the predictions which he has already made. With regard to his opinions, they are no doubt founded in such sincerity on his part, that, however I may differ from them, I feel they are entitled to respect. With regard to his predictions, they will be judged of by events, as his former predictions have been judged by, and by those events the hon. Gentleman is no doubt prepared to abide. I say, then, that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to follow him into a discussion of the merits of either the claims of Don Carlos, which we do not admit, because the Spanish nation do not admit them, or the merits of the royal statute, of which, as far as a stranger of Spain may form an opinion, was an approximation to a good form of government in that country. Neither will he require me to discuss with him the merits or demerits of the Constitution of 1812, which also, if I may venture to express an opinion, does not seem to me a form of government which could be practically carried into execution, and which, even if it were established for a moment by the general concurrence of the nation, yet for the sake of permanent tranquillity, it. would be indispensable to make in that constitution great and fundamental alterations. But these are questions which concern Spain and Spaniards, and which we are not called upon to decide. I most sincerely wish and hope, that the Spanish nation may acquire free institutions. What the particular form of whose constitution shall be, it remains for them to decide. But judging, as the hon. Member wishes us to judge, from the lessons of history, and from the experience of former ages, and judging also from those general principles which one is in the habit of applying to human affairs, I certainly am far from thinking that anything which has lately occurred ought to lead me to believe that the Carlists and a despotic Government are more likely than they were to be established at Madrid, The hon. Gentleman has said, that the history of Spain shows how unwise it is to endeavour to anticipate events, and to force prematurely upon a nation, institutions for which they are not ripe, I say, Sir, the history of Spain shows, and is one additional example to many which the history of the world affords, that if, on the one hand, it is unwise to force with too great rapidity, changes on a nation, it, on the other hand, is most unwise and most dangerous to stop and arrest the natural progress of improvement, and to attempt to make the social condition of man stationary, and that those who do so, as the Spanish Government in former times has done, are sure to entail great disturbance and great evils on future generations. The recent history of Spain shews, at all events, this great truth, that nothing is so dangerous on the part of a Sovereign as to break faith with his people. Ferdinand did break faith with the Spanish people when he returned to his throne in 1814. He publicly announced, that if he could not adopt the Constitution of 1812, he would at least take steps to give to Spain a free representative government. That promise was broken. He objected to the Constitution of 1812, which I think he might fairly, and not unreasonably, have objected to. But he endeavoured to establish a pure despotism in the country; and the history of the consequences which ensued, show that no Sovereign can break faith with his people, without discredit to himself, or without interfering with the future tranquillity of his country. The hon. Gentleman has expressed himself in a manner altogether unjustifiable, with reference to a person who was lately at the head of the Spanish Administration, M. Mendizabal. Having been in political relations with that individual, I should think I was not discharging my duty in this House, if I did not say, that I believe that in all the transactions in which that minister has been engaged, his character has been unsullied, and that he has shown, and shown too at great personal sacrifice, that he is devotedly attached to the welfare and interests of his country. The hon. Gentleman has undertaken the defence of Don Carlos's Durango decree. He has said that, however he condemned the limits of the bloody character of that decree, that it was issued in deference to the ancient laws of Biscay, and that Carlos had no discretion when it was forced upon him, except giving his sanction to its execution. Now, when the hon. Gentleman makes a defence of this decree, upon the ground of its being in accordance with the laws of Biscay, let me ask him, where were the laws of Biscay, and where was the absolute necessity to enforce these laws, when Don Carlos consented to the Eliot convention, because he stated that it is not only death for any man, not being a Spaniard, to put to death a soldier within the province, but that it was death also for any soldier, not belonging to the province to do so? If, then, that law justified the decree of Durango, it ought to have concluded Don Carlos against consenting to the convention with Captain Eliot, according to which convention Spanish soldiers, not belonging to the province of Biscay, taken prisoners within that province, were to be released. But I say, that if there is such a law, that law is "more honoured in its breach than in its observance." It is possible that Don Carlos might drag forward some musty records, some local, provincial laws, which, in a barbarous state of society, might justify acts which modern civilisation ought to teach every man to avoid and condemn. Therefore it is no justification of Don Carlos, even if it were true, that in the ancient records of the province of Biscay, any obsolete law might be found which would bear such a construction as has been attempted to be put upon the Durango decree. The hon. Member who spoke last had stated, that he gave me another opportunity of correcting my recollection, if it had happened to have deceived me, as to the fact of the marines under Lord John Hay not being placed under the command of the General of the Queen of Spain. I think I am confirmed in the statement I made by what the hon. Gentleman has himself said; for he has stated that Major Owen was requested by the Quartermaster-general of the Queen's troops to take a certain position, and that Major Owen complied with that request; that in the course of the day another order was issued to the Major to take up another position; but that Major Owen, not considering himself justified in placing himself in that position, declined to comply with the request made to him. That was a distinct proof that Major Owen was not under the command of General Evans, because, if he had been, it would not have been a request on the one part, and a declining to comply with it on the other, but it would have been an order by which, as a military man, it would have been his duty to abide at whatever hazard. I state, therefore, the fact, that whether the hon. Member thinks the marines are properly or improperly employed, they are employed under the command of Lord John Hay, and are not under the authority of the Queen. The only thing that is clear from what has passed this day, and, on other occasions, is that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have set their hearts on the success of Don Carlos, and on the re-establishment of a despotic Government in Spain. Whether it is by being told that the decree of Durango is to be a little palliated; whether it is by misrepresentation that the British auxiliaries in Spain are in a state of insubordination, mutiny, and starvation; whether it is that we are told that the Carlists are traversing the whole country with ease, meeting with no impediment in the provinces; whereas, they have returned without meeting the slightest encouragement during their long march. To whatever part of the transactions in Spain hon. Members opposite apply their remarks, the whole drift of their observations seem to be this, that the cause of the Queen of Spain is hopeless, that Don Carlos must succeed, and that Spain is destined not again to enjoy the advantages of constitutional freedom. When Gentlemen are so anxious to repeat their opinions and their prophecies upon a subject, we are at least entitled to think that their wishes do not differ from their predictions. Now, I say, my wishes are contrary to these. I do most sincerely hope that the contest in Spain between constitutional government, on the one hand, and despotism on the other, may end in the success of the former principle. I do think that the wishes expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, however they may suit those other views which they may entertain, having a bearing upon domestic questions, rather than upon foreign policy, are not very congenial to the spirit of the Members of a British Parliament; and that it is not usual on the part of Englishmen that such an interest should be felt, and such a lively anxiety should be ex- pressed, in favour of a cause sullied by such atrocities and crimes as have been recorded, and the object of which cause is to extinguish the liberties of a great nation.

Mr. Borthwick

thought that the question was not whether Don Carlos or the Queen had the better right to the throne. Whoever was ruler de facto, and our ally, we must support; but let that support be given in a bold and openly avowed manner, not in a manner calculated to compromise the dignity of the country, while it was ineffectual. Great Britain should either speak out on the Spanish question, or wholly withdraw from the contest, by prolonging which she was only increasing bloodshed, and perpetuating every cruelty that could dishonour humanity.

Sir John Elley

lamented that the noble Lord should have taken that latitude of language as to attribute to Members on the opposition side of the House, particular motives for their conduct. He denied in toto being actuated by any such motives. His opinion was, that Spain should settle her own quarrels; but if she could not do so, and other parties must interfere, then he would say, let them interfere in a manner that was likely to be effectual. The hon. and gallant Member, after describing the gallant achievement of General Evans in assailing and taking the batteries of San Sebastian, asked what consequences had resulted? They had incurred the sad misfortune of losing, in killed and wounded, seventy-eight officers, and 800 men, and he could assure the House that the ground occupied in consequence of that success, was not in extent sufficient to feed a rabbit. He wished to ask the noble Lord a question, founded upon information which he believed to be accurate, although he had not received a single letter from Spain since the Legion sailed. If he understood the noble Lord last night, he had stated that neither General Evans nor his Legion were under any orders from this country. Now he had been informed that the inhabitants of San Sebastian had proclaimed the constitution of 1812, and that General Evans had informed them, that if they persisted in doing so he would withdraw his Legion. He wished to know whether he had acted for himself, whether he had received any instructions from the British Government, or whether any direct information had been sent by him to this country. The Legion was now completely stale-mated. They had no move, either to the right or to the left, or to the front. What move, then, had they upon the board? To retire by the fleet that took them there.

Viscount Palmerston

The hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked for information respecting certain communications which he supposed to have passed between General Evans and the inhabitants of San Sebastian. He was really unable to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman any information on the subject. General Evans was an officer in the Spanish service, his communications were made to his own Government, and he was wholly unable to state their nature or effect.

Motion negatived.

Back to