FOREIGN POLICY (SPAIN).

HC Deb 27 March 1838 vol 41 cc1320-83

Lord Eliot

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to call the attention of the House to the Order in Council authorising the employment of the subjects of this realm in the service of her Catholic Majesty. In doing so, he should find it necessary to bring under their consideration the general policy pursued towards Spain by her Majesty's Government. He trusted that, in the discussion into which he was about to enter, he should be able to discharge his own duty without either acrimony or violence, and that he should not use any expression which would betray a want of good feeling towards the members of her Majesty's Government. Were he to be guilty of any such want of respect to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, he should display a great want of civility, as from that noble Lord he had himself received nothing but kindness and attention. On his return from Spain, that noble Lord was at the head of the Foreign Department of his late Majesty's Government; and was, therefore, from his situation the judge of his conduct in the political mission which he had returned from discharging. The noble Lord had instantly signified to him his cordial approbation of the manner in which he had performed the duties of the mission intrusted to his care. He, therefore, hoped that he should say nothing which would be inconsistent with the kindness which he had received from the noble Lord, whilst expressing his conviction that the policy of the noble Lord had not been advantageous either to Spain, which he wished to assist, or to England, with the foreign interests, of which he was specially intrusted. He was well aware of the difficulties of the task which he had undertaken—he was well aware of the ability with which this subject had been discussed heretofore, both within the walls of Parliament and by the public; but the House would recollect that it was not only bound to express its opinion on the past conduct, but also to consult on the future proceedings of her Majesty's Government. The House had not hitherto been called upon for at opinion on the latter subject, and the circumstance must be his excuse for now bringing it specifically under consideration. He knew that he should be met in the outset by the imputation, that he, and the hon. Friends with whom he had the honour of acting were partisans of Don Carlos and abettors of despotism He and his friends were not more justly liable to that imputation than the hon. Gentlemen opposite were to the charge of being abettors of anarchy and mob law, and participators in the massacres which had taken place at Barcelona Malaga, and Madrid. He could assure such Gentlemen as might be inclined to make that imputation against him that, owing to his having been some time in Spain, and to his taking a deep interest in every thing which affected the prosperity of that country, no man was more anxious than he was to see a mild and temperate, but yet a strong, Government established in that country. He said a strong Government—for the evils which afflicted that country were undoubtedly owing to the want of strength in the Government which was intrusted with the administration of its affairs. Unfortunately, that Government was not able to depend upon the law, and, therefore, it was obliged to support itself by the aid of party feelings and political prejudices; and, yet no country was better qualified than Spain to enjoy tranquillity and prosperity under a constitution possessing a strong executive, protected by those safeguards for individual liberty, without which no man's person or property was safe. For his own part, he thought that the Cortes of 1823 had lost the fairest opportunity that had ever been offered to men of establishing, in that country, a Government adapted to all the wants and wishes of the people of Spain. It was not necessary, he thought, for him, on the present occasion, to enter into any long retrospect of the history of Spain prior to the bursting out of the present civil war. It was well known that the Salic law had been introduced into that country by an ordinance of Philip 5th, and it was not necessary for him to inquire whether that ordinance had received the due consent of the Cortes, as it had been considered the law of Spain for more than a century. It was equally well known that Ferdinand 7th, a short time before his death, put an end to the ordinance of Philip 5th by his own absolute will and authority. It was as little necessary for him to inquire whether the Cortes had exercised a deliberate voice upon the decree of Ferdinand 7th, and had converted it into law by giving it the authority of their sanction. It was sufficient for him to know that the Queen had succeeded to the throne in consequence of the decree issued by her father. But though he should be taunted with being a partisan of Don Carlos for making the assertion, he must say that it could scarcely be expected that Don Carlos would not find fault with that decree. In point of fact, he protested against it as soon as it was issued, and in consequence of his protest a large portion of the Spanish people came forward to support his protest and to advocate his cause. He did not find fault with her Majesty's Ministers for having espoused the cause of the Queen of Spain in opposition to that of Don Carlos. They had followed the example of their predecessors, who had espoused the cause of Louis Philippe in France, because they found him the sovereign de facto of that country. On the death of Ferdinand 7th Don Carlos fled to Portugal, where he resided for some time under the protection of Don Miguel. The courts of Lisbon and Madrid then applied to the courts of London and Versailles to assist them in expelling Don Carlos and Don Miguel, the two usurpers, as they styled them, from the dominions of Portugal. A treaty was, in consequence, concluded between the four powers, by virtue of which the expulsion of those two princes from the dominions of Portugal was accomplished; and as the object of that treaty was then effected, one would have expected that the treaty itself would have been considered at an end. By that treaty the Government of England found itself bound to furnish naval assistance to the two princesses now reigning in the Peninsula sufficient to prevent any munitions of war from reaching the competitors for their thrones, whilst the Government of France simply engaged to do in that respect whatever might be settled by common consent between the King of France and his three august allies. But shortly afterwards Don Carlos, who had been brought from Portugal to this country in one of our vessels of war, thought fit to leave England and to throw himself upon the protection of the Basque provinces, in which he placed himself at the head of the insurgent population. The Court of Madrid, in consequence of that proceeding on the part of Don Carlos, again addressed itself to the Court of London, and certain additional articles were then inserted in the Quadruple Treaty, and were signed by all the former parties to it. In those additional articles, the former engagement of England was renewed and enlarged. England was not only to afford naval assistance to the Court of Madrid as before, but was also to supply it with arms and munitions of war to an unlimited extent. In the additional articles, no stipulation was made respecting the assistance which the Court of France was to furnish to the constitutional Government of Spain. All that the King of France engaged to do, was to take such measures in those parts of his dominions which adjoined to Spain as would be best calculated to prevent any succours of men, arms, or warlike stores, from being sent to the insurgents of Spain from the French territory. The first object of the policy which the Government of England was then called upon to pursue was to establish a blockade of all the ports in the north of Spain; but it was soon discovered, that as we were not at war with Spain, a legal blockade of the ports of that country could not be established. Whilst things were in this situation, his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, became the head of the Administration in this country, and the Duke of Wellington Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The object of the Duke of Wellington, during his brief administration of the Foreign Department, was to fulfil exactly and religiously all the engagements to which this country was bound by the stipulations of the Quadru- ple Treaty. In the course of it, that illustrious personage rendered an act of signal service to Spain, by endeavouring to humanize the war raging within its confines, and to put an end to the practice prevalent on both sides of putting their prisoners to death in cool blood. His Grace made a proposal to him (Lord Eliot) that he should resort to the head-quarters of the two belligerent parties, for the purpose of making a convention between them for the preservation of the lives of all persons who might be made prisoners during the continuance of this civil conflict. It was well known that he had assented to the proposal then made to him, and that he went to Spain in consequence. He would not enter into any details of matter merely personal to himself. He would only say, that he had gone to the head-quarters of Don Carlos, and in justice to him he must inform the House that that prince, whatever acts of atrocity, justly or unjustly, might be attributed to him, had evinced the utmost readiness to accede to his proposal. Having thus obtained the consent of Don Carlos, he next went by his desire to the head-quarters of his commander-in-chief Zumalacarregui. In justice to the memory of that distinguished officer, he must say that Zumalacarregui had shown no dislike to his proposition, but had evinced every readiness to obey the instructions of his prince on that occasion. He went subsequently to General Valdez, who at that time held the office of Minister at War at the court of Queen Christina, and he was happy to say, that in consequence of the powerful manner in which his representations were backed by Sir G. Villiers, the representative of our Government at Madrid, the Spanish Government was induced, though not without considerable difficulty, to assent to a measure which recognized Don Carlos as a party to the civil war then raging on the Spanish territory. He experienced from General Valdez every attention which he had a right to expect as a recognized servant of this country, and he was bound to add that General Valdez displayed great readiness to facilitate the arrangement which he was sent to accomplish. General Valdez and General Cordova wished certain modifications to be made in that arrangement—modifications which, with one exception, it was unnecessary for him to describe. The modification which he had excepted was this—that the convention should not extend beyond the provinces in which the civil war was then raging, unless the armies then engaged in it should march into another province. Some blame was thrown at the time upon those gallant officers for insisting on that modification; but, in his opinion, it was impossible for them to have acted otherwise; for bands of robbers, who were always ravaging some portion of Spain, would have availed themselves of the opportunity to style themselves partisans of Don Carlos, in the hope of committing their murders and robberies with impunity. He was proud to learn that the convention, to which he had thus obtained the consent of both parties, had been attended with as much success as his warmest wishes could have anticipated. He had received the welcome confession, both from the Carlist officers and the Christino officers, and even from the hon. and gallant officer the Member for Westminster, that in consequence of that convention many lives had been saved which without it, would inevitably have been sacrificed. He distinctly disclaimed any merit for the share which he had had in that transaction, except that of having obeyed to the very letter the instructions which he had received. He had fortunately for him had the advice and assistance of Colonel Gurwood, who had accompanied him on his mission and his object was much facilitated by finding that in every part of Spain through which they travelled the name of an Englishman was hailed as the name of a benefactor, and that the Duke of Wellington who sent them was looked on as the saviour of Spain. He would not dwell upon a topic on which he could easily dilate—he meant the privileges of the Basque people. But he thought that there was no man who had witnessed the progress of the present contest in the Basque provinces, and the enormous sacrifices which the inhabitants of those provinces had made in the course of it, who must not be aware that there was something more than fable and romance in their fueros. Though he gave the Basques credit for attachment and loyalty to Don Carlos, he was convinced that they felt that they were fighting for something more than a mere monarch in supporting as they had done, his cause at every hazard. To return, however, to his immediate subject, the foreign policy of England. When the Administration of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tam- worth had ceased to exist, and that of the noble Lord opposite was called into being, it was probable that if our mediation had been offered to the two contending parties it would have been accepted. Both parties, according to a pamphlet well deserving of credit, were at that time weary of the contest, and ready to avail themselves of an adjustment proposed by a third party. The hope, however, of rendering such a service to Spain was destroyed by the more active intervention in the affairs of Spain which took place on the noble Lord's resumption of office. The noble Lord, not content with sending a naval armament to cruise on the coasts of Spain, sent to that country a force of both artillery and marines, and issued the order of Council which enabled the Spanish Government to raise in this country that auxiliary force which had since been known as the British Legion. He would not venture at that moment to detain the House by entering into any abstract discussion on questions of international law. He held, that war to be justifiable must be necessary, and, for his own part, he knew no moral difference between a state of war and a state of hostility. Though he did not wish to trouble the House with any quotations on questions of dry law, he had recently met with a passage in the works of President Jefferson which he wished to press upon their attention. Jefferson, in speaking of the armaments which the citizens of the French Republic were then fitting out against Great Britain in the ports of the United States, with whom we were then in peace and amity, used this striking and forcible language:—"By nature's law man is at peace with man till some aggression is committed, which, by the same law, authorizes one to destroy another as his enemy. For our own citizens, then, to commit murders and depredations on the members of nations at peace with us, or combine to do it, appeared to the Executive, and to those whom they consulted, as much against the laws of the land as to murder and rob, or combine to murder and rob, its own citizens." And again he said, that "no succour should be given to either party, unless stipulated by treaty, in men, arms, or anything else directly serving for war; that the right of raising troops being one of the rights of sovereignty, and, consequently, appertaining exclusively to the nation itself, no foreign power or person can levy men within its territory without its consent; and that if the United States have a right to refuse the permission to his Majesty's vessels, to raise men within their ports and territories, they are bound by the laws of neutrality to exercise that right, and to prohibit such armaments and enlistments." Acting, then, upon this principle, and looking at the number of men who were subsequently incorporated, under the authority of the order in council, into the British Legion for the service of the Queen of Spain, he felt bound to say, that it appeared to him, that it was the duty of the noble Lord opposite (Palmerston) to have ascertained whether the engagements contracted with them by the Spanish Government were likely to be fulfilled, and whether a due and adequate provision was likely to be made for such of them as wounds or disease might send back to England with shattered frames and debilitated constitutions. He was sure, that the noble Lord, when issuing this order of council, could never have contemplated the immense sacrifice of the lives of British subjects which he was then incurring by it. He therefore must be permitted to express it as his opinion, that in issuing that order of council the noble Lord, so far as England was concerned, had not exercised that sound judgment which became either him or the distinguished office which it was his fortune to possess. As far as Spain was concerned, he would ask, whether it was a legitimate policy for the noble Lord to turn, without provocation, British bayonets, to use the language of Mr. Canning, against Spanish bosoms? And he would further ask the noble Lord, on the next occasion on which he complained of the atrocity of the Durango decree—a decree which he reprobated quite as strongly as the noble Lord had ever reprobated it—a decree which it was no less illegal than cruel to execute against the British Legion, as that force was clearly entitled to the benefit of the convention which he had been the instrument of procuring—he would ask the noble Lord, he repeated, with what grace the reprobation of that decree could come from his lips, from him who had sent into Spain a force to carry desolation and destruction into districts with the inhabitants of which we were not at war? He would not enter into the military part of the question, for he was not altogether a competent person to decide upon it. He would not talk either of the defeat or the disgrace which the British Legion had sustained; but he trusted, that the hon. and gallant Officer, the Member for Westminster, would not quarrel with him for speaking of the failure of that expedition. He had received in the course of the last few days the copy of a letter from a Carlist officer now in London, describing the military resources of the Carlists at the time when the British Legion first landed in Spain, and their military resources at the present moment. The noble Lord and the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster might believe as much or as little of the letter as they liked; but this was its statement:— When the Legion disembarked in Spain the Carlist force in the Basque provinces and in Navarre consisted of about 30,000 regular troops. About 8,000 insurgents were in arms in Catalonia, and in Arragon Cabrera and Forcadell were at the head of about 4,000 men. The total force thus amounted to rather more than 40,000 men. At the present moment the Carlist regular force in the Basque provinces and in Navarre amounts to about 35,000 men; in Catalonia to about 18,000, formed into regular battalions; in Lower Arragon and Valencia Cabrera commands 34,000 men under arms, besides 20,000 who remain in their villages unless their services are required on any particular emergency, The total force is, then, 79,000 men. Of the guerilla bands in La Mancha, Estremadura, and Sorio, it is difficult to form an estimate. Catalonia, with the exception of the banks of the Ebro and of the sea shore, is now entirely in the hands of the Carlists, who are in undisputed possession of Berga, Solsona, and all the towns of the interior. All Lower Arragon and Valencia, with the exception of a few large towns, are occupied by the troops of Cabrera, who has placed commandants in every village. At Cantavieja he has established a foundery, and cast fourteen pieces of artillery. The Basque provinces remain in much the same state as when the Legion disembarked excepting that the manufactories of arms have been augmented, and the defences of the country have been strengthened. A traveller may now proceed with a passport from Don Carlos from the Pyrenees to within a short distance of Valencia without interruption by the Christinos, except at the passage of the Ebro, and will be furnished with mules and guides by the authorities on the whole of the road. [An hon. Member: What is the date of this letter?] He was sorry that he could not give the hon. Member the date of the letter, for he had only an extract from it with him. He did not even vouch for the accuracy of the letter, and the hon. Member was at liberty to believe or disbelieve it as he pleased. If, then, the case were such as it was stated to be by the writer of this letter, who, he repeated, was still in London, he apprehended, that the noble Lord, by sending out this Legion, had not produced any favourable effect in the seat of war. The next question which he would ask the House to consider was, whether the noble Lord had produced by that measure any beneficial effect to the Government of the Queen of Spain in the minds of her own subjects? He was sure, that the noble Lord would recollect, that he had communicated to him, either in conversation or by letter, that whilst he was in Spain he had had a conversation on this very subject with General San Miguel, who was one of the leaders of the Exaltado or Liberal party in that country, and whom the noble Lord would recollect as the Secretary to the Cortes in the year 1823. That gallant officer, in a conversation with him had deprecated all foreign interference in the affairs of Spain, no matter whether it came from France or from England—had declared, that the nation which had not power and energy to work out its own freedom unaided was incapable of enjoying it, and had concluded by saying, that he would rather see the Carlists triumph than owe his victory over them to the bayonets of foreigners. Had not hon. Members seen the declaration recently made by Count Toreno to the Cortes, that in his opinion it would be impossible to settle the affairs of Spain without some transaction, as he called it, with Don Carlos? Had they not read, too, the order of the day issued by General Espartero to his troops, in which he told them that he had asked the Government at Madrid in vain for arms, provisions, clothes, and shoes, and in which he informed them that the only consolation which he had upon not receiving those supplies, which he knew they wanted, was his knowledge that the Carlist troops were even worse off than they were? Was that a state of things likely to prove beneficial to the cause of the Queen and of constitutional government? But was even the Spanish Government grateful for the services which our Government had rendered it? Had it extended to our commerce any privileges, or given to our merchants any exemption, to which either one or the other was not entitled before? No; at the very moment that Sir G. Villiers was seeking for some relaxation of the Spanish commercial system in our favour, M. Bardaji, the Minister of Finance, had issued a decree declaring that no foreign merchants were entitled to any exemption whatever. He contended, therefore, that no gratitude had been displayed by the Spanish Government either to the commerce of England or to the soldiers of England, who had risked their lives in its service. He would not dwell any longer upon this topic. He would proceed to notice an observation of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, that success was no criterion of merit. He admitted this to be the fact; but then it was required of those who undertook or who embarked in great enterprises to show that they deserved success, and that they had adopted and proportioned their means to that end. He thought that the noble Lord would find it a difficult task to show that the sending out a force of 10,000 raw and undisciplined troops was calculated to produce any advantageous effect in putting an end to the war. It was the unanimous opinion of all the French officers with whom he had conversed when that expedition was originally sent to Spain, that an army of 40,000 or 50,000 disciplined and well equipped troops would not at that time have been sufficient to restore tranquillity in Spain; in other words, that that number of excellent troops could not have accomplished that object which the raw levies of the Legion were sent out to accomplish. He would here ask the noble Lord whether he conceived the engagements which we had contracted to the Queen of Spain were either unlimited in extent of supply, at indefinite in point of duration? The House had been told on a former occasion that more than half a million of money had been expended on the arms and military stores which had been recently sent to Spain. He believed that that sum, large as it was, fell far short of the sum which in that manner had been transmitted as an aid to the Spanish Government. He had been told, that so many muskets had been sent from the Tower to different parts of Spain, that at this moment we had not muskets for the supply of our own men. He had been told, that, when new muskets were required for one of the battalions of the Guards now under orders for Canada, on the ground that their present muskets had been in use for eleven years, the officer in command had been informed that they had not in the Tower a single new musket to replace the old ones which he wished to discard. [An hon. Member: the noble Lord is singularly incorrect.] He might be incorrect, but the existence of such rumours rendered it essentially necessary that the country should know to what extent it was bound by the engagements which her Majesty's Ministers had formed for it. The noble Lord had incurred by his policy a great responsibility to those who, relying on his promises, had taken shares in the different loans which had been made to the Spanish Government. As neither interest nor principal was likely to be repaid, that was in itself a great reproach to the noble Lord. He would remind the House that in a late debate in the Cortes, Count Toreno had stated the public debt of Spain to be somewhere about 150,000,000l. He had likewise stated, that the interest on that debt at two and a half per cent. was 3,500,000l. Now as the expenditure was about 9,000,000l., and the revenue was only about 7,000,000l., there was a deficit on that head of about 2,000,000l.: and if to that deficit were added the interest on the debt, the total deficit would amount to a sum between 5,000,000l. and 6,000,000l. He thought from that statement it was quite clear, that unless the noble Lord was prepared to afford his assistance to the Spanish funds, there was little chance of those who now held such scrip receiving for it anything like the amount at which they had purchased it. He would implore the House to pause before it gave its assent to the course which the noble Lord had been so long pursuing, and which he still seemed inclined to pursue. Let them remember what Mr. Canning said in 1823, when some individuals expressed an opinion that this country ought to have sent out a maritime armament to watch the events that were occurring on the shores of the Peninsular. "Such a course," said Mr. Canning, "would in my opinion, be unworthy of a great and independent nation like our own, and and would degrade us from a first to a second rate power. I do hope that whenever we determine on war we shall determine to wage it, not as an auxiliary, but as a principal. Such had hitherto been our policy, and on all former occasions when we had resorted to war we had exerted every nerve to bring it to a safe, a speedy, and honourable conclusion. Toto certatum corpore regni. This was the only sound view in which war could be contemplated."^* Let them couple this with the maxim of the Duke of Wellington, that a great country like ours ought never to carry on a little war. To the policy of Mr. Canning the noble Lord was in former days accustomed to defer, and for the authority of the Duke of Wellington, the noble Lord's colleagues had recently expressed more respect than they had formerly exhibited. The next point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was the conduct of the present King of the French. What, he would ask, was the language in which that Sovereign addressed his two Chambers in 1836? Let the House listen to it, and mark it well. "I trust," said Louis Philippe, "that the constitutional monarchy will triumph over the dangers which menace it; but I have wished to preserve my country from sacrifices of which it was impossible to foresee the extent, and from the incalculable consequences of any armed intervention in the internal affairs of the Peninsula. France reserves the blood of her sons for her own cause, and when forced by sad necessity to call on them to shed it in her defence, it is under her own glorious standard that French soldiers march to battle." Could thoughts more just be clothed in expressions more noble than these? He wished that expressions like those he had just quoted had been found in the speech of our own most gracious Sovereign. If Louis Philippe were determined to act only upon that policy which was conformable to the interests of France, he apprehended that the noble Lord would not be able to count upon him as a member of that Liberal league, in which the free and enlightened states of the West of Europe were to be banded against the despotic powers of the North. England, he lamented to say, stood at that moment alone. Where, he would ask, was the noble Lord's array of Liberal Governments? Did he rely on Spain or on Portugal? Could he look to America? Could he reckon upon France? No; it was clear that France was not prepared to go hand in hand with the noble Lord in the Quixotic expedition which the fervour of his imagination had conceived. ^* Hansard, New Series, vol. viii, p.894. Was it, then, wise, or was it dignified, to deal in taunts and menaces, which could only tend to irritate those Powers which were at present in amity with us, and to alienate their feelings from us, forgetting, as those who used such taunts and menaces did forget, that it was to the moderation of those Powers alone that we were indebted for the preservation of the peace of Europe at that moment? For if they had armed, as they had a right, on behalf of Don Carlos and legitimacy, there was nothing to prevent a general war; and was that a contingency for which England was prepared? He likewise contended, that the noble Lord had, by his conduct, furnished a dangerous precedent to all ambitious states, that were anxious to interfere in the affairs of other states, and that he could not for the future reproach them with any interference which they might be prepared to undertake against the liberty and independence of other states. He had now almost done. He had endeavoured to trespass as shortly as possible on the patience of the House. He had spoken principally to its sense and understanding. It would not have been difficult for him to have drawn an affecting picture of the miseries which this desolating war had inflicted upon Spain, but he had purposely abstained from such exciting topics. He had confined himself to facts, and he left it to the House, from those facts, to derive the proper conclusion. To retrace their steps was difficult; to undo that which had been done was impossible; but it was in the power of the House to endeavour to regain that high and honourable position in which the country had formerly stood, and thus to enable it, when a fitting opportunity arose, to mediate between the contending parties, and to propose a conciliatory adjustment of their differences. Such was the object of the motion with which he then concluded, and which he would now put into the hands of the Speaker. After thanking the House for the attention with which it had heard him, the noble Lord moved— That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, expressing to her Majesty the opinion of this House, that no advantage, either to the interests of this country or to those of Spain, has resulted from the employment of her Majesty's subjects in the service of her Catholic Majesty, in consequence of the suspension, by order in Council, of the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act; and since the continuance of such order in Council is not required by the obligations of existing treaties, humbly praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased not to renew it.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

said, it was impossible for him to do justice to the very able and candid manner in which the noble Lord had brought forward this question. His speech was so free from every admixture of acrimony and violence, that he was quite sure that no Gentleman on his side of the House would accuse the noble Lord of being either a partisan of Don Carlos or an abettor of despotism. It was perfectly clear, from what the noble Lord had said, that the officers and soldiers of the British Legion were included in the convention which he had formed; and it followed from that, that no less than 147 individuals of that corps had been cruelly and inhumanly butchered. The House, he hoped, would on the present occasion show that they were determined to mark their abhorrence of these atrocities, and their approbation of the policy of her Majesty's Government, which was founded, as it appeared to him, on the justest principles which could regulate the decisions of statesmen. In order to arrive at a correct appreciation of the motives by which their conduct had been governed, it would be necessary to look back to the origin of this question. On the death of Ferdinand, a great change took place in the Spanish Government, and the country was delivered from an unrelenting despotism, which had for ten years oppressed it, by the accession of Queen Isabella. It was necessary that those Powers which were interested in the fate of the Peninsula should consider what line it was incumbent on them to take, in order to protect the young Sovereign against the pretensions of her uncle. The French Monarch was the first to intervene. M. Thiers had told them in one of his speeches, that on the intelligence of the death of Ferdinand France deputed an envoy to the court of Spain, with written instructions to offer the Queen Regent such succour as she should think fit; the nature and extent of it being left to herself. Let it not be said, then, that intervention was begun by the British Government. The French had set the example, and no choice was left to the British Government as to the course which it ought to pursue. To remain neutral was totally out of the question; as long as we had any interest to protect in the Peninsula, it was absolutely necessary for us to take some decided step. Government had to determine whether they would take the part of Don Carlos and Don Miguel, pretenders to the crowns of Spain and Portugal, or espouse the cause of the two Queens, which was the cause of constitutional liberty. It was impossible to think of delivering over Spain to the influence or dominion of France. It would inevitably follow, if we left the French government, on the one hand, to take whatever part it pleased in the affairs of Spain, and stood passively by without interfering, that it would establish a predominant interest in that country; and that British influence would be almost extinguished. If, on the other hand, Government assisted the two princes who advanced pretensions to the Peninsular thrones, then they must have delivered the Peninsula into the hands of the Northern Powers—a fate, in his opinion, infinitely worse than any other that could befal it, and which the present motion, if carried, would tend very much to render certain. Believing, then, that the wisest course was, at once to embrace with cordial good will, the cause of the Queen of Spain, Government sent an envoy to acknowledge her sovereignty, and to declare that it was their wish to maintain relations of amity with her Majesty. This resolution of the British Government excited sensations of the liveliest joy when made known to the Spanish people; but it was not sufficient merely to make a profession of our good wishes—it was incumbent on Government to take active measures, to give effect to its views, and to promote the triumph of the Queen over her enemies, and the enemies of Spanish freedom and happiness. The interests of the two nations of the Peninsula in reference to the event of the struggle between the contending parties were intimately connected; on the fate of Spain depended the fate of Portugal—on the fate of Portugal depended that of Spain. In order, therefore, to secure the peace of the whole Peninsula, and to maintain on its thrones, those who had been called to them by the voice of the people, Government had judged it wise to enter into a treaty of alliance with the Peninsular powers in conjunction with France. The noble Lord had said that the object of the first treaty was attained on the expulsion of Miguel and Carlos from Portugal; but he only stated half the object of the treaty. The treaty was not merely intended to drive these pretenders from Portugal, for the additional articles were agreed upon when neither of them was in that country; it was intended to establish the sovereignty of the two Queens in their respective dominions. That was evident on the face of the treaty, which ran thus: Her Majesty, the Queen Regent of Spain during the minority of her daughter, Donna Isabella the Second, Queen of Spain and his Imperial Majesty, the Duke of Braganza, Regent of the kingdom of Portugal and of the Algarves, in the name of the Queen Donna Maria the Second, being impressed with a deep conviction that the interests of the two Crowns, and the security of their respective dominions, require the immediate and vigorous exertion of their joint efforts, to put an end to hostilities, which, though directed in the first instance, against the throne of Her most Faithful Majesty, now afford shelter and support to disaffected and rebellious subjects of the Crown of Spain; and their Majesties being desirous at the same time, to provide the necessary means for restoring to the subjects of each the blessings of internal peace, and to confirm, by mutual good offices, the friendship which they are desirous of establishing and cementing between their respective States, they have come to the determination of uniting their forces, in order to compel the Infante, Don Carlos of Spain, and the Infante, Don Miguel of Portugal, to withdraw from the Portuguese dominions. In consequence of this agreement their Majesties the Regents have addressed themselves to their Majesties, the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the King of the French; and their said Majesties, considering the interest they must always take in the security of the Spanish Monarchy, and being further animated by the most anxious desire to assist in the establishment of peace in the Peninsula, as well as in every other part of Europe; and his Britannic Majesty, considering, moreover, the special obligations arising out of his ancient alliance with Portugal, their Majesties have consented to become parties to the proposed engagement. It was perfectly clear, then, from the language of the treaty, that its chief objects were, the settlement of the Spanish succession, and the restoration of tranquillity throughout the whole Peninsula. Government had a perfect right to pursue those objects; and it certainly never was meant by the contracting parties, that the special articles to which he had alluded should have any restrictive effect. It was not necessary that all the occasions on which the British Government should afford assistance, should be specified, and the exact nature of it defined in the treaty. What Government were bound to do, as faithful allies was, to take care that none of their acts should be in contradiction to the spirit of the treaty. All that Government had done, he contended, was in perfect accordance with the spirit and intention of the treaty, especially the step they had taken in issuing the Order of Council, by authority of which the British Legion was raised. It was provided by the treaty that in case the co-operation of France should be deemed necessary by the high contracting parties, the king of the French should engage to do whatever might be agreed upon by common consent between himself and his allies. It had been afterwards agreed upon, that besides supplying the Queen's troops with arms and munitions of war, the Crown of Great Britain should send a squadron to co-operate with them, and the king of the French should maintain a blockade of the Spanish frontier, in order to prevent the conveyance of warlike stores to the Carlists. Government had not acted alone in supporting the Queen; the king of the French had actively co-operated with them. The British Government had authorised the formation of an auxiliary Legion, and its embarcation for Spain; the king of the French had also sent the foreign Legion in his service, commanded by one of the bravest officers in his army, to the assistance of the Queen. The gallant commander of that corps, Colonel Conrad, fell at the battle of Huesca. Originally, the Legion he commanded was of superior force to the British Auxiliary Legion; it was not merely recruited in France, but was itself taken from the French army. When the king of the French used the expressions quoted by the noble Lord, and declared that the sons of France marched to battle only under their own glorious standards, he had from 6,000 to 8,000 soldiers in Spain under the orders, not of the French, but of the Spanish government. The British Government was placed, by the conditions of the treaty, exactly on the same footing as that of France, and both Governments had for a considerable time cordially co-operated in behalf of the cause they had espoused. It unfortunately happened, however, after the revolution of La Granja, the French government did not take the same view of Spanish affairs as the British Government had adopted; it was impossible to deny that; but he would affirm, whatever might have been the conduct of France, that the conduct of the Government of this country had confirmed the high character for sincerity and good faith which Great Britain had won in every country in the world, by its strict adherence to the engagements it contracted. No part of foreign history he would maintain, would redound more to the honour of Great Britain than the fidelity with which its Government had observed the stipulations of the treaty in question. Whatever the conduct of others might have been, we, at least, had done our duty. It had been said, that Government ought to have declared war. Against whom should they have declared war? Against a brigand stained with the most horrid crimes, against the author of the Durango decree? Was this a man whom they were to consider as in the situation of a king, and against whom they ought to make proclamation of hostilities? Government had no means of placing themselves in the situation of persons at war with him, but they had endeavoured, in the discharge of their duty as allies, to deprive him of the power of doing further mischief. They had not succeeded to the full extent of their wishes; but on the whole, he contended, that the efforts of the Legion had been successful. The noble Lord asked the House to address the Crown against the renewal of the Order in Council, authorizing the enlistment of British subjects in the Spanish service, as not having been productive of any advantage, either to this country or to Spain. There were those who thought it would have been more expedient for this country to establish that bloody man, who pretended to the crown of Spain on the throne; there were others who thought it would have been better for our own interests, and for those of Spain, if we had not interfered at all; and these, no doubt, would vote with the noble Lord. The noble Lord, therefore, he must suppose, intended to aver, that the Legion had been productive of no advantage to the cause of the Queen of Spain. Then he would beg the noble Lord to remember in what state the Legion had found the contest which was in progress on their arrival. The Queen's army was inconsiderable as regarded numbers; it had met with many disasters, and was in a state of great confusion and indiscipline. It was absolutely necessary that it should be reinforced; and the arrival of the Legion was of immeasureable import- ance in the then position of affairs. In a very short time, the gallant actions of these brave auxiliaries struck terror into the armies of the Pretender, and excited the admiration of Europe. No man could accuse the Legion, no man could accuse its gallant commander, of having failed in any quality requisite to the character of soldiers, in courage, conduct, and steadiness, under privations as great as any European army ever endured. Notwithstanding the disadvantages under which they laboured, they performed the most important and arduous services; they twice relieved St. Sebastian, the key and chief town of the provinces which were the seat of war; they captured Passages, the only seaport in the hands of the enemy; they took four fortified towns, which were delivered to the Spanish troops of the Queen regent, and were now in their possession. These were services of the utmost consequence; but the Legion effected more. Until within a very short time of the departure of the main body, they kept thirty or forty Carlist battalions continually employed in observing their movements. If the progress of Don Carlos had not been impeded by the Legion, could any one deny, that it would have been much more rapid, and that it might even have placed him in triumph at Madrid? Had the Legion not opportunely arrived in the north of Spain, St. Sebastian must have fallen, Bilbao must have fallen, and the occupation of these two places by the Carlists would, he believed, have been the signal for the recognition of Don Carlos by the northern Powers of Europe. Such was his firm belief; and if that result were to be accounted a calamity, then the Legion had averted that calamity from the civilized world. He did not profess to be able to estimate the services of the Legion with military accuracy, but he thought it impossible to doubt that the Legion had performed eminent services, which had not been unacknowledged by the Spanish Government. He held in his hand, among other documents applauding the conduct of the Legion, a rescript signed by Her Catholic Majesty, and couched in the following terms, which he was sure the House would be glad to hear;—"I declare, that the gallant General De Lacy Evans, and all the other generals, chiefs, officers, and men of the British Legion, who contributed to the storming and taking of the town and port of Irun, on the 7th of May last, have most completely fulfilled my expectations." Surely the services of the Legion must have possessed extraordinary merit in the eyes of the Queen and her Ministers, when they were deemed worthy to call forth so flattering an expression of approbation, under the royal sign-manual; and he thought they might safely consider the advisers of the Spanish Crown to be better judges of the benefits they had derived from the services of the British Legion, than even the noble Lord opposite himself. Could there then be a more ridiculous proceeding than to pass a resolution, declaring that the Legion had rendered no services to the cause of the Queen, when they had the declaration of the Queen herself to the contrary? He trusted that the House of Commons would have more regard to its own character than to assent to such a resolution. He hoped too, that in dealing with this question, the House of Commons would have some regard for justice, and accord what was due to the character of these brave men. To him, the declaration of the Queen of Spain was quite conclusive; but, perhaps, nothing would be conclusive on this subject to some hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let them suppose the case, for instance, of a person who, it was alleged, had been grossly ill-used by a certain party; what would be said if, in answer to this allegation, there was produced a statement, under the hand of the supposed ill-treated party, declaring that the accused had never done him any injury, but that, on the contrary, he was the best friend which the writer had in the world. In his opinion, there was not the least difference between this case and that of the Queen of Spain, who had declared her entire approbation of the conduct of General Evans, and of the Legion under his command. He would not enlarge further upon the point, however, but proceed to advert to the noble Lord's declaration, that this species of warfare was one which was not permitted by the law of nations. Now he contended, that to send an auxiliary force like the British Legion, to the aid of an ally, whom you were bound by express treaties to aid, so far from being unlawful and unchristian, was an act as laudable as it would be to send out troops of your own army for the same purpose. The only question was, which plan would be most to the advantage of the party receiving aid, and least to the disadvantage of the party affording it—whether it would be better to declare war against the enemy of your ally, and carry on regular hostilities, or to afford indirect co-operation and assistance. They were told by Gentlemen opposite, that it was quite unlawful for any parties to engage in defence of a cause in which they had no concern. It was begging the whole question to say, that the English nation had no concern in the affairs of Spain. Our alliance with Spain was both prudent and necessary; and the cause of the ally to whom we were bound by treaty, ought to be our cause, involving, as it did, the observance of treaties, and the maintenance of good faith. He was decidedly of opinion, that every man ought to be at liberty to serve whom he pleased, in a military as well as in any other capacity, provided he did not bear arms against the country to which he belonged. Vattel said of mercenary soldiers,— Mercenary soldiers are foreigners voluntarily engaging to serve the state for money, or a stipulated pay. A great deal has been said on the question, whether the profession of a mercenary soldier be lawful or not, or whether individuals may for money, or any other reward, engage to serve a foreign prince in his wars? This question does not, to me, appear very difficult to be solved. They who enter into such engagements, without the express or tacit consent of their Sovereign, offend against their duty as subjects. But if their Sovereign leave them at liberty to follow their inclination for a military life, they are absolutely free. Now every freeman may join himself to whatever society he pleases, and which to him appears most advantageous. He may make the cause his own, and espouse the quarrel, and become, in some measure, for a time, a member of the state in the service of which he engages; and as an officer, is generally at liberty to quit the service, when he thinks proper; and, as a soldier, at the termination of his engagement. If, therefore, the state embark in a war, manifestly unjust, the foreigner may quit its service. And this mercenary soldier, having now learned the art of war, has rendered himself capable of serving his country, whenever it requires his assistance. The doctrine of hon. Gentlemen opposite was completely unknown to our ancestors. Vattel declared that volunteers serving in an army in the field to improve themselves in the art of war, were to be treated in the same manner as subjects of the power whom they served. The noble view of acquiring instruction in the art of war, and becoming more capable of serving our country, has introduced a method of serving as volunteers even in foreign armies, and the custom is doubtless justified by the sublimity of the motive. Volunteers taken by the enemy are treated as if part of the army in which they fight. Nothing can be more reasonable; they, in fact, unite themselves to the army; they support the same cause, no matter whether it be from obligation or free will. These are the words of an author well known in every quarter of the world; and he cited them the more readily, because he was not one who could be styled a writer of the dark ages; which he recollected was alleged on a former occasion, when authorities were cited on his side of the House in support of the principle upon which the Legion was justified. Such were the opinions of a writer who was looked on as a great authority at the present day in every civilised state in Europe. Were the views of the hon. Gentlemen correct, the most celebrated warriors this country had produced, such as Sir Phillip Sidney, and those persons who served the Dutch against the Spaniards, must have been pronounced robbers or banditti at one period of their lives. The great Duke of Marlborough, and the most distinguished officers of that age, had been bred to arms in the service of a foreign power; so also had been his own gallant countrymen Leslie and Monro, men who were said to be as brave as their own swords, and who rendered distinguished services to the cause of liberty in their own country; so had been General M'Kay, who commanded the troops of King William at the battle of Killicrankie, and who had first won reputation in the service of Gustavus Adolphus. Whether these men fought for the rightful cause or not, was not the question; they had become soldiers by serving in those wars. The Duke of Marlborough had been trained in the school of Turenne, and almost all who gained distinction in the British army, then had learned the art of war in a foreign country. He considered that the soldier might with a safe conscience believe in the goodness of the cause for which he fought. If he were a military man, and if his time were at his own disposal, he would, without hesitation, enter into the service of the Queen of Spain, but no consideration should induce him to serve Don Carlos. He believed that every individual of the British Legion, from General Evans to the meanest soldier, with the exception of a few worthless men who gave no heed to the matter, was convinced that he was fighting for the rightful cause. Great atrocities had no doubt been committed by both parties, but the Carlists not only put to death prisoners taken in the action, but stragglers who fell accidentally into their hands; whilst the prisoners taken by the Legion had always been well treated. The very fact that 147 men of the Legion taken prisoners, not in battle, but when straggling from their ranks or cantonments, had been butchered by orders from Don Carlos, while the lives of 1,100 Carlist prisoners had been spared by General Evans, was sufficient to call down upon the former the hatred of the world, and to sanctify the cause of Queen Christina in the eyes of civilised Europe. With respect to the intention of this motion, he trusted the noble Lord would give him credit for not ascribing to him unworthy motives on this occasion; but the noble Lord must needs be susceptible, in some degree, of a bias towards the views of his party on the subject, and he would ask the noble Lord whether he did not hope to have a majority on this question, and whether the motion was not intended as a trial of strength between parties in that House? The same thing had been done three times on this question—three times had Ministers been put on their trial in that House on this question; three times had the whole force and power of the opposite party been put forth; and, to judge from the use that had been made of the name of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir D. L. Evans) in these discussions, there seemed to be no person who had incurred so much of the hatred of hon. Gentlemen opposite as his hon. and gallant Friend. He thought the debate of last night on the subject was wholly personal, that was his decided opinion, and nothing that he could hear from the other side would make him alter it. But what was the real question which the House would have to decide? The question was not that you should say whether the British Legion has been of use or of no use to the cause of her Most Catholic Majesty, but whether the principles on which the Quadruple Treaty was formed, and on which the British Legion performed its services, are to be observed in future by this country, or whether they are to be departed from—whether the system of foreign policy which, under the able administration of his noble Friend, had kept this country so long at peace, shall continue or not. He did not know what party advantage was sought to be obtained by the motion, but he did not hesitate to say, that neither in the vote which he should now give, or on any other occasion, did he adopt a course which he should not take if he did not happen to be attached to the Government. He supported the Ministers on principle, and he begged to tell hon. Gentlemen opposite who cheered, that he had never been called on by the present Government to give a single vote in contradiction to his principles. The question for the House to decide was, whether they would support the present system of foreign policy or not, and the effect of the present motion, if successful, would be felt in all Europe; in the saloons of St. Petersburgh as well as those of Vienna. If it were carried, then adieu to the cause of constitutional government and free institutions in Spain. If Spain fell, Portugal must fall also, and we must submit to have the two Pretenders to these kingdoms ascend the throne, and these two nations intrusted to the rule of the inveterate enemies of free government and free institutions. This was a view of the question which should be considered calmly and dispassionately by both sides of the House. As for himself, however willing he was to accede to the noble Mover the praise of integrity and ability, he could not do otherwise than give his motion a decided negative.

Sir Adolphus Dalrymple

observed, that the question was, of what use the Legion had been in Spain, and whether the Order in Council ought to be renewed or not. He thought the question might be now approached with more advantage than it was last Session. As to the success of the Legion, the gallant Officer who commanded that force had himself confessed that he was not responsible for the raising it; that the command had been offered to him, and that he had accepted it; that he found the difficulties of his situation much greater than he expected; that when he landed in Spain he found the inhabitants unfriendly; that in his winter quarters at Vittoria one man out of five died in hospital; and that after two years' service and many severe actions, in which the Legion had distinguished themselves in a manner that became Englishmen, St. Sebastian, where they had originally landed, was reduced to a state of blockade. That was surely no proof that the Legion had been serviceable, or that the sacrifice of human life caused by it had been compensated by a great advantage. In arguing this question, the first point for which he should contend was, that the Legion supplied the first instance in the history of this country in which an army was ever raised by beat of drum in this country for a foreign nation, and to be in foreign pay. He knew that such a course was attempted to be taken in the case of Spanish America, and that to prevent it the Foreign Enlistment Act had been passed. He was aware, too, that occurrences in the time of the Black Prince and Charles 1st. had been referred to during the debate last year as affording precedents for the justification of the proceeding on the part of our Government; but these cases were totally inapplicable, because these forces had been raised when there were no standing armies in existence. The troops which were raised were those that would have gone if the country had been at war, and they, in every instance, looked to their Sovereign for pay and support. Elizabeth sent an army to assist the Huguenots into France, but she sent also money for their maintenance. In the time of Charles the First a force of the same description was sent to uphold Gustavus Adolphus, which afforded Rapin, the historian, an opportunity for observing that this mode of raising an army shifted the responsibility from the Sovereign to his subjects. Mr. Canning had remarked on a proposition being made for equipping a similar force to the Spanish Legion, that the time had gone by when it was expedient to afford an outlet by such means for the enterprising spirit of the people, and he dwelt with great force on the probable effects which the presence of so irregular a force would produce on the people. Lord Grey, too, stated that the three great principles of his administration should be "reform, retrenchment, and non-intervention." [Lord Palmerston: No, "peace."] Did the noble Lord mean to say that non-intervention was not included? [Lord Palmerston: Yes.] Surely the noble Lord did not mean to say, that there was no principle of non-intervention with foreign powers. Certainly there was such a principle, and he would say, that if the noble Lord had adhered to it, he would have given great sa- tisfaction to a large body of the people of this country; but he came back to the question of raising an army in England, for employment by foreign powers; they had seen what was the effect of the operations of an army of this sort, and they had seen the effects on the men of the disbanding, and discharging an army of this sort; and, of course, everybody must have felt for them. But, on this point, it was his decided and clear opinion, that if the men must needs be allowed to go out, it was the duty of the Government to have seen that they went out on such terms as could not be taken hold of, and misinterpreted, and that they could not be liable to be charged with mutiny, for not knowing whether their engagement was for two years or for one.

Captain Pechell

said, he would not go back to the wars of the Black Prince, but confine himself to the question before the House, which was one of deep interest. He contended, that the Legion had rendered considerable service to Spain, and that the course pursued by Ministers was one which would, in many respects, prove advantageous to this country. It had been stated, and he believed truly, that the Government of Spain was entirely governed by the moral influence of England. What gave us that influence? The fulfilment of our engagements with her. What was its effect? The complete abolition of the slave trade. It was to the treaty of 1835, concluded by the noble Lord (Palmerston) that the abolition of that nefarious traffic was entirely owing. During the reign of Ferdinand, the Seventh, England never could obtain any moral power over the Spanish Government as regarded it; and in all that time, that hon. Gentlemen opposite held office, they could make no impression on the councils of Spain. He would next proceed to the other advantages to this country, from the fulfilment of the Quadruple Treaty with Spain. One of the chief of these was the employment of the officers of the navy in the service. That was an advantage totally neglected in the consideration of the question by the hon. Member opposite. The officers and men of two small brigs, had not only built two bridges over the most dangerous parts of the Bilbao River, but had also shown the forces of the Queen of Spain, the way to cross them in the face of the enemy, thus proving that, a long peace had neither in- terfered with the courage of the rising generation of officers and men, nor with their conduct and discipline. Another advantage gained, too, was the knowledge of the power of steam-vessels as engines of war—a knowledge unattainable before, because they were unknown in action. By their agency, and the accurate practices of the artillery, another advantage was in evidence of our national resources; the Carlists works on the Bilbao river, had been completely destroyed, whenever they came within the range of their guns. This employment of a part of our naval force, and the knowledge of our undiminished spirit derived from it, together with the valuable experience in a warlike point of view, which our navy acquired, was, he considered, of the greatest advantage. He would now turn to the commercial advantages. Who would deny, that keeping open the port of Bilbao, was an important advantage to our trade with Spain? Who would dare to assert, that that port would not be closed against us, if it were in possession of the Carlists? It was the same with the other ports of that country, which, if occupied by the Carlists, would most assuredly be shut against England, and everything liberal, though hon. Gentlemen opposite, the noble Lord, perhaps, and the late hon. Member for Dover, might have permission to enter them. Without meaning anything personally disrespectful to the noble Lord, he felt bound to say, that he considered his speech a most miserable failure for the purpose intended by it. He disapproved of the tone and temper in which the debates on the subject before the House, had ever been carried on; and he could not help condemning the insinuations in which many hon. and gallant Members on the other side, military men, and officers themselves, had indulged against the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. He was not one of those who would participate in the ruin of a brother officer, for the sake of indulging party spirit, or party feelings. With respect to the Motion before the House, he could not conceive how it was possible that it should be entertained; especially as the only object, it seemed to have was the condemnation of her Majesty's Government, for permitting the employment of her Majesty's subjects, in the execution of a solemn treaty between this country and another. He should give it his decided opposition.

Mr. Poulter

thought, that this Motion was made, not because it was considered that the Government showed want of energy, or that his hon. and gallant Friend, (Sir De Lacy Evans), exhibited any defect of talent, but because our hopes had not, in all respects, and to the highest degree, been fulfilled. The Motion of the noble Lord was similar to that brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Launceston, shortly after the reverse of the 16th of March. The very same kind of appeal was now made, when general disappointment prevailed at the dismissal of the British Legion, and when considerable depression was produced on the minds of those attached to the constitutional government in Spain, because they felt, that the talents and energy of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Evans), were calculated, in a very high degree, to promote the success of the constitutional cause. Now, he would ask the noble Lord (Elliot), or the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Henry Hardinge), whether any man, when he reflected on the whole state and merits of the case, could have any difficulty in finding a complete solution of the question, why the efforts of the Government, and of his hon. and gallant Friend, had not been more successful? Did not everybody know, that there were other parties who had failed in that honest and sincere co-operation, which they were bound to have afforded, in concurrence with the efforts of this country? Was it not known, that in the debates on this subject, in the chamber of deputies in France, many honourable and independent Members started up, and stated their regret at the miserable and false position in which their country was placed, and contrasted the inactivity and apathy of their government with the honest efforts and energy displayed by that of England. He knew that this was a subject on which great delicacy must be observed. He knew it was one on which the mouths of the Ministers must be shut; he was aware of the delicacy, or rather, the indelicacy, of making reflections on a prince with whom we were on terms of amity; but he maintained, (and he said it with deep regret) that one of the main parties to an honourable treaty, had not only not acted up to its spirit, but had trampled it under foot. Yes, while Don Carlos had been receiving large sums of money, which could have alone enabled him to maintain a large army, was it not notorious that he was supplied through the markets of France? He should be glad to know, whether, if the army, now at the foot of the Pyrenees, was not that of Charles 5th, but of Henry 5th, France would not have found means of hermetically sealing the pass of the Pyrenees, and preventing supplies from reaching the army to which she was opposed? Why had not the troops, which fought to such little effect at Constantina, been found side by side with the Legion, and the British marines in upholding the constitution of Spain? Thousands of the French army perished on the coast of Algiers, for the gratification of ambition, when they might be more usefully and honourably employed in advancing the cause of constitutional government in Spain. He was afraid, that domestic opinions were too extensively allowed to enter into the spirit of the policy pursued by the Government of France towards Spain. He thought, that those who had reason to complain of atrocious attempts upon human life, ought to be the last to pursue a line of policy which could only be followed up by an enormous waste of blood and treasure. He could see nothing in the conduct of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, which was not deserving of the highest admiration. Count Harispe, the commander-in-chief of the French force on the frontier, one of the bravest and most experienced officers in the service, and who had no earthly motive for going out of his way to express an opinion, wrote to General Evans shortly after the check which the latter had received, and, after conveying to him the sympathy of a soldier who had himself met with military vicissitudes, gave him the honourable assurance that his character and reputation for military conduct stood unimpeached, and the glory of the British arms untarnished. He could not contrast, except with Spain, the honourable conduct of General Harispe and that pursued by certain persons in this country, who endeavoured, as far as they could, to cry the legion down, and bring their countrymen into disgrace. His hon. and gallant Friend's character and conduct had been amply vindicated; and nothing could be brought forward against him, except a miserable quibble as to the application of one of the articles of war. No reasonable man could doubt, that, placed as his gallant Friend was, in trying and difficult circumstances, he was justified in making a slight deviation. His conduct and pledges had been nobly redeemed to the letter. He could not avoid referring with pleasure to the gallant conduct of the small body of men who distinguished themselves so much at Andoain. Though placed in circumstances of difficulty and hardship, greater than a small body of men were ever placed in, they nobly stood their ground, and perished rather than bring disgrace upon their country. He trusted that no attempts made at the other side, no opposition given, would induce the noble Lord at the head of foreign affairs to discontinue affording to the Government of the Queen of Spain that effective co-operation which honour and good faith demanded, or to relax in his efforts for the restoration of peace, and freedom, and good government in that unhappy country. He trusted that they would not ignobly abandon that, the second constitution, placed in their hands. They were forced, perhaps from necessity, to abandon the sacred cause of freedom and constitutional government in Poland, and he hoped that their experience upon that subject would prevent them from abandoning the constitutional cause in Spain. If the cause of freedom in Spain was abandoned, there was an end for ever to the honour and faith both of France and England.

Mr. Herbert

said, that as far as he had yet seen the progress of the Spanish Government, he could not come to the conclusion which appeared to have been arrived at by several hon. gentlemen opposite, and bring himself to think that that Government would exhibit any extraordinary extent of freedom and civilization. The hon. and gallant Officer opposite, the Member for Brighton, (Captain Pechell) appeared to advocate a co-operation with the Spanish Government, under the expectation that they would in gratitude follow up and fully and fairly carry into execution the treaty of 1835, for the suppression of the slave trade. The past experience of the good faith of the Spanish Government, would tend to show the little foundation which existed for entertaining such a hope. He was not one of those who thought that the progress of liberal opinions in Spain afforded any security for the suppression of the slave-trade. The strenuous resistance given to it by the de- mocratic government of America was a convincing proof that the holding of extreme and speculative opinions upon questions of Government was perfectly compatible not only with an unwillingness, but a positive refusal to put them into practice when it militated against their own interest. Since her Majesty's Government had thought proper to embark themselves and the country in the cause of the Queen of Spain, it was only reasonable to require them to explain what advantages had resulted to the people of this country, or what benefits had been derived to them from that interference. The people of England, who always looked with jealousy upon any interference in the purely domestic concerns of a foreign country, would naturally ask what the reasons were which induced the Government to interfere, and having interfered, what good resulted from it, either to themselves or to the people upon whose behalf that interference was exercised. To the people of Spain the consequence had been the bringing into power of a Ministry who had abolished the law of entail, broken down the barriers of aristocracy, and left the country in a state of confusion and disorder. The Judge Advocate had stated, that the egion had rendered most valuable and important services to the cause of the Queen of Spain, but he believed that there existed among persons competent to form a judgment, a great difference of opinion upon that subject. He did not seek, in the observations which he was offering to the House, to throw any imputation upon the gallant Officer opposite; the feelings of his side of the House were very much misconceived by those who charged them with depreciating their own countrymen, or not feeling a sympathy for the disasters which had befallen them, and the privations which they had endured. It was not said that the gallant Officer who had been selected was incompetent or incapable, or that he did not display the greatest bravery; but that the Government had placed him in a position in which all his efforts were ineffectual, it had set him down before enemies in a high state of exasperation against his forces, as intruders and as adventurers, who had wantonly come to improve themselves in the art of war, while those he went to assist, did not wish him to succeed, neither party could be expected to look upon the legion with a favourable eye, The Durango decree was passed, the fault of which must lie upon the heads of those who wantonly allowed and encouraged an interference with the civil war of another people. There arose such a jealousy of the legion, even among the Christino party, that all active co-operation was rendered impossible, and the Spanish officers in command of the Queen's troops would rather see the legion vanquished than victorious. The opposition complained, that their countrymen had been placed in such a position as to entail upon them all the odium of interference, and all the ridicule of failure. If they were to interfere at all, the propriety of which was extremely questionable, he thought they ought to interfere in a manner worthy of a great and powerful nation, in condition to show that their interference was not to be despised. This country had absolutely gained nothing whatever by the interference. At the Court of Madrid, their influence instead of being on the increase, was daily diminishing, and they had a government hostile to them. He held the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs deeply and wholly responsible for all the mischievous consequences of the policy which he had pursued of his own free will. There was no pressure upon him, he was not hallooed on by any feelings of excitement, or by any complaints of injuries sustained. There was throughout this country a growing feeling of indignation, because, instead of gaining anything, the military character of the nation had been compromised. It was easy to perceive, that the historical notices which had been quoted, did not bear the slightest analogy to the present case. He would go through them minutely, but was unwilling to weary the House. Great dissatisfaction was felt throughout the country at the noble Lord not making any announcement that it was not intended to renew the repeal of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Its repeal had either been advantageous to the Spanish government or it had not. If it had been of no advantage, then the interference of her Majesty's Government had been nugatory and futile. If, on the contrary, it had been of any service, the only effect of it was to set up the minority at the expense of the majority, for almost all the peasantry continued to flock round Don Carlos. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen cried, "no, no," but he would ask, could they deny that the majority of the people was with Don Carlos. Hon. Gentlemen, before they gave their votes, ought to recollect that the struggle in Spain had been now going on for more than five years; that during that period all the commercial advantages which they enjoyed from Spain had been diminished, and that they were deprived of all access to the Basque provinces for the purposes of trade, custom houses having been by the Carlists everywhere set up against them. They should recollect, that from interference with the affairs of Spain, they had not only not gained anything, but had compromised themselves in the eyes of Europe. He trusted that they would pause and deliberate before they gave the sanction of their votes to a large and wanton expenditure of the public money at a time when they had so much distress among their own population at home. Those hon. Gentlemen who had distressed constituencies would probably not find them disposed to countenance their representatives in supporting Government in a course of policy which had already swallowed so large a portion of the revenue. He begged to apologise to the House for having trespassed so long upon their attention. He trusted most sincerely that many hon. Gentlemen who were in the habit of supporting her Majesty's Government, almost with pertinacity, would upon the present occasion, be cautious how they sanctioned the continuance of a contest, which had rendered their country ridiculous, not only in Spain but in Portugal, so much so, that any person bearing the name of an Englishman was in danger of losing his life while walking in the public streets. For these reasons he would support the motion of the noble Lord.

Sir H. Vivian

could assure the House, that it was with great reluctance he threw himself upon their attention and indulgence. As the question under discussion, however, bore reference to the profession to which he had the honour to belong, he hoped to be indulged for a short time. He had listened with great attention to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen at the other side of the House, more particularly to the speech of his noble colleague in the representation of East Cornwall, (Lord Eliot) part of which had afforded him great pleasure, as being both creditable to the noble Lord himself, and advantageous to humanity. He could not, however, bring himself to think that it was at all desirable that the valuable assistance which had been hitherto afforded to the government of the Queen of Spain, should be withdrawn. He could not think that the assistance so afforded had not been of advantage to the Spanish Government. Those who felt the advantages of the interference of this country, were the best judges how far that assistance had been useful to them. The documents upon the table afforded ample evidence that the people of Spain were sensible of the advantages which they derived from the presence of the Legion and Marines. The letter of Senor Mendizabal to Mr. Villiers, and that of the Spanish Minister in London to Lord Palmerston, demonstrated the high opinion which the Spanish government entertained of the services rendered to it by the Legion. It was impossible for any one who had read those documents to doubt, that the assistance rendered by this country to Spain, had been most acceptable, and that Spain had benefitted by it. He would wish to look upon the question in a broader, more general and more comprehensive view. He would ask whether the assistance which they had rendered to the Spanish government had not been useful in preserving the peace of Europe. He referred particularly to the preservation of the city of Bilbao from the hands of the Carlists, in consequence of the assistance sent from this country. He would also specify St. Sebastian and Passages, which had been rescued from the Carlists. Supposing that these three places had fallen into the power of the Carlists, there was reason to believe, that the northern powers would boldly come forward in support of Don Carlos, and proclaim him king. Thus would the peace of Europe be endangered, and from this danger had the interference of the British Government relieved them. He was of opinion that the assistance rendered to the Queen of Spain by the Legion, had been of infinite service to the Spanish nation, and not only to them, but to the cause of civilization in Europe. He wished to say a few words upon the conduct of the Legion, which had been so much spoken of in that House. As he had gone so fully into that question on a former night, he did not think it then necessary to occupy the time of the House long upon it. He wished to direct the attention of the House to the documents before them. Even Carlist witnesses had borne testimony to the gallantry with which the Legion had behaved. General Soraa and other Carlist officers, who were taken prisoners at Irun, had borne the most honourable and disinterested testimony to the bravery and humanity of the Legion. Being asked by the most cruel officers of Don Carlos, and who had assisted in executing the miscreant and abominable Durango decree, to spare their lives, the Legion did so, and treated him with the greatest humanity and kindness. But how did the Carlists make return for the kindness and humanity of his gallant Friend (General Evans)? Part of the Scotch Legion was shut up in the church at Andoain after having capitulated. They were, every man of them, butchered in cold blood. His noble Colleague spoke of the Legion as a failure. He (Sir Hussey Vivian) entirely denied, that it had been a failure. Perhaps they were not altogether so successful as the sanguine anticipations of their friends might have expected; and that might be easily accounted for, and yet be no reflection upon their conduct, or the conduct of the Government which sent them out. They all knew well the difficulties experienced by his gallant Friend, placed as he was at the head of a body of men brought together under peculiar circumstances, almost wholly without discipline, and thrown, for the first time, upon a foreign land. They were thrown into that part of the country where they found a large number of the enemy ready to oppose them. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite think of sending this force to Malaga, or Barcelona, or other places where there were no enemies to oppose them? Instead of being sent where there were no enemies to be met with, they were sent into the strong hold of the Carlists, the place where assistance could be most effectually rendered in pursuance of the treaty. What, he asked, was the cause of the failure, if failure there were? Let them look at the state of Spain, which since the revolution had been over-run by French armies, and had lost all her colonies and riches. Those hon. Gentlemen who were unfavourable to the retention of colonies might derive a useful lesson from the poverty brought upon Spain by the loss of her colonies, and by her inability to pay the troops sent out to her assistance from this country. That was no fault of the Legion, or of his gallant Friend, its commander, or of those by whom the Legion was sent out. How could the Government be aware of the impoverished state of the coffers of the Spanish territory? How were they to ascertain the funds in the treasury of Spain? He confidently believed, that if the Spanish Funds were in a prosperous state, and if their resources had not failed, there would now be a Legion in Spain useful to the Government. Upon the score of precedent, too, the appointment of the Legion was justifiable. There was formerly a German Legion and a Hessian Legion, and during the American war England had employed various auxiliaries. Scenes of bloodshed were not a novelty in Spain. During the wars of Peterborough the same cruelty had been practised as on recent occasions, and when he himself was marching to the Pyrenees he passed Pampeluna on the day the French were about to evacuate that place, when a scene of the most revolting cruelty presented itself. When the French soldiers had piled their arms, the Spaniards seized on their accoutrements, and threatened death in case of resistance. On the following day he rode into the town, where he saw the bodies of several French soldiers who had fallen victims to the sanguinary disposition of the Spanish. It could not, at least, be said that the British Government had sent out troops to provoke scenes of carnage altogether new to Spain. With respect to the interference, on which so much stress had been laid, he thought that Government had acted on a strictly constitutional principle, and had adopted a course not only of advantage to Spain, but also tending to promote the best interests of this country. Mr. Canning had been alluded to in the debate; but did not that great statesman say in that House, that he had brought a new world into life for the purpose of restoring the balance of power in Europe? He maintained, that her Majesty's Government were only following out the principle of that great man by using every exertion to restore the constitutional Government of Spain, and with it to restore the balance of power in Europe. Mr. Canning had also stated his opinion, that France might be enabled to acquire great power in Spain, which would be injurious to the interests of other countries. The noble Lord opposite had said, that so large a supply of arms had been sent from the Ordnance, that none were left to furnish the Guards with a fresh supply when they were wanted. This was an error, as no application for arms had been made by the Guards, and, though a large quantity had been sent out to Spain, still plenty were reserved at home for the Guards and for all other troops. It was said, that assistance given to Spain had not been called for by the treaty, and that the naval force had been employed in an unusual manner. Such was not the fact, as whenever the British army was employed, the British sailors and marines were ready to fight on shore if it were deemed necessary. Believing that it would be unjust to refuse assistance to Spain, and that the interference of England was necessary for the continuance of peace in Europe, by restoring the Spanish constitution, he felt bound to vote against the motion of the noble Lord. With respect to that part of the resolution requesting that her Majesty would not renew the Order in Council, he thought the return of the Legion had rendered such a step unnecessary.

Lord Mahon

said, it would be unnecessary and presumptuous in him to speak at any length on a subject that had been already so ably discussed; but he felt himself bound to claim the attention of the House for a short time. He begged leave to repeat what he had said on a former evening, that he did not entertain the least doubt of the valour and gallantry of the Legion, but he complained that battles should have been fought, and privations endured, at the caprice of a foreign Government, and (in the words of the resolution) without any advantage either to the interests of this country or to those of Spain. These were strong assertions against the auxiliary troops; but could it be said that England gained either glory or advantage by their exertions? The noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) had defended the other evening, not only the policy of the Government towards Spain, but also that with respect to Canada, which latter (although it ended in rebellion) the noble Lord had characterised as the brightest ornament of his Administration. Now, with respect to Spain, although no one could dispute the bravery of the British Legion, and of the gallant officer who commanded it, it would be fulsome adulation, it would be uncivil irony, to say that England had gained the least glory by the policy of Government. But the noble Lord might say, that other points had been gained. What were they? He begged the House to consider the expense to which the country had been put The arms sent to Spain were at a cost of 537,000l. The arrears due to the Legion (which the hon. Member for Lambeth recommended the Government to hold themselves bound for) amounted to 250,000l. Then there were ships engaged exclusively in this war, the expense of which, with the expenses previously named, would amount to 1,000,000l., a sum sufficient to keep up the yeomanry of this country for many years, which yeomanry hon. Members opposite, in their mistaken notions of economy, were so anxious to reduce. What, he would ask, did this country gain, in return for those expenses, from Spain? Nothing but the return of a lot of helpless, legless, armless victims. It was not a subject for laughter. Soldiers that had fought so bravely ought to excite sympathy, not merriment, by their sufferings. The gallant Officer, the Member for Westminster, said, that there were many impostors amongst those who professed to have been in the Legion. Such might be the case in a few instances, but there was no deceit in broken legs and festering wounds. With respect to the commerce of this country (continued the noble Lord), I beg to claim the attention of the House to the conduct of the Spanish Government. In the papers laid before the House of Commons is a despatch from M. Calatrava to Mr. Villiers, dated January 14, 1837, in which he announces an order of the Queen of Spain, that the British subjects resident in Spain shall not be included in the exaction of the forced loan of 200,000,000 reals, nor yet in the service of the national militia. Yet, in the face of this engagement, a decree was issued by the Minister of Finance, on the 11th of September, 1837, declaring that all foreigners in Spain, who are not mere transientes, or temporary travellers, shall be subject to the same charges and grievances (cargas y gravamines) as Spaniards. This decree was published at Almeria in the course of the same month, and not only published but enforced. The house of Messrs. Macdonnell and O'Conor, most eminent British merchants, settled in that town, was forcibly entered, and a sum of 500 dollars abstracted, in part of the compulsory loan. Mr. O'Conor himself was compelled, contrary to his wish, to serve the burdensome and critical office of Regidor. I am informed that another Englishman at Almeria, Mr. M'Neven, was likewise enlisted a common soldier in the Quintos, at Almeira, so that if the Carlists were to enter that province, this gentleman would have to march against them in the Spanish ranks. Nay, more, since the Queen's generals refused to extend the Eliot convention beyond the Basque provinces, if Mr. M'Neven were taken prisoner, he—this British subject—might not improbably be liable to military execution. And is such a chance to be contemplated without indignation by a British House of Commons? Now, what redress has been obtained for these grievances? I do not doubt—nay, indeed, I know—that Sir George Villiers has not been neglectful of his duty in sending in repeated remonstrances against them. But what answer has he received from the Spanish Ministers? What influence has the policy of the noble Lord opposite gained us at Madrid? The answers of the Spanish Ministers were, I have no doubt, in a highly complimentary strain, and according to their usual tone, assuring his Excellency "of their most distinguished consideration," and hoping that "his Excellency may live a thousand years." The Spanish memorials then promise, that the grievances shall be immediately inquired into and considered of. Inquiry! Sir, there have been years of inquiry and of promises as to the grievances of English merchants in Spain, but let the noble Lord show me, if he can, one day, one hour, of real practical redress. I have a copy of a letter addressed to the noble Lord opposite, from Mr. Macdonnell, dated the 20th of November last. He says— I regret to observe, that up to the last accounts the remonstrances of Mr. Villiers have proved fruitless in any substantial result, and that the parties in whose behalf I appealed to your Lordships have remained without redress. On the contrary, I shall proceed to show your Lordship the settled design of the Spanish Government in contradiction of their diplomatic assurances to justify and perpetrate upon all foreign merchants (British included) exactions such as those I have complained of. It appears, however, by a communication of February 12, 1838, that after infinite solicitation and trouble, Mr. Macdonnell succeeded in recovering about half the money taken from him, but for the remainder was obliged to be satisfied with a very doubtful and distant security—a bill upon the Spanish duties receivable in 1839 and 1840; and such is the kind and liberal treatment which we owe to the able and judicious policy of the noble Lord, bought too at a very trifling cost—only a million of British money—only 3,000 British lives. The noble Lord continued, it would be presumptuous in him to express an opinion on military matters, but he begged leave to quote from a speech of the Duke of Wellington on the advantages gained by the British Legion in Spain. He solicited the attention of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who of late had so warmly and justly praised the opinions of the noble Duke. Whenever those opinions suited their own purposes then their panegyric was great, and he hoped if the testimony of the noble Duke was in the present instance a little unfavourable to them, it would not be looked on as altogether unworthy their notice. On the 21st of April, 1837, the Duke of Wellington said, The whole of the policy of the British Government, therefore, all the operations of the British Legion, backed by the British Squadron, have effected nothing more nor less towards putting an end to the war, and giving peace to Spain and Europe, than the removal of the blockade of St. Sebastian from one point to another.… I defy any noble Lord to show, that a single advantage of any description has been gained from that day to this.… The amount of inconvenience felt by the town from the Carlist force being in its neighbourhood was neither more nor less than the unpleasantness of ladies and gentlemen residing there being prevented from taking their evening walks in the neighbourhood. This is the whole amount of the inconvenience from which the town was relieved, and the whole amount of the service rendered. Such was the opinion of the noble Duke, and he would ask if Spain had gained any advantage by the interference of England. He should say, certainly not, but, that the country was in a much worse state than before. Let the state of Spain in 1825 (when the noble Lord came into office) be compared with that of 1838, and it would be proved how much worse the present condition of the country was. The Spanish Ministry had broken faith with all parties. They had deprived the ministers of religion of all their property on the promise that pensions would be given, but those pensions had not as yet been paid. Such conduct could certainly not claim the respect of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, although he said the other evening, that the Span- ish people, who were about to reform their church, had a right to expect sympathy from the English nation, which was trying to work out a similar reform. The noble Lord said, the treaty should be adhered to. He fully agreed with the noble Lord, but he would not consent to any measure of the Government that would go an iota beyond that treaty. The practical conduct of the Spanish Government was to crush and keep down the liberties and rights of the people. Had not the Basque provinces particular privileges, and had not those privileges been taken away? The municipal privileges of the Basque provinces were the greatest advantages they possessed. He felt deeply on this question, for he had been in Spain and had witnessed the happiness that the Biscayans had enjoyed. It was said, that they were strongly in favour of Don Carlos, but he believed, that they were animated by a feeling of justice and a desire to maintain their rights and privileges; and besides this, they acted on the conviction of the claims of Don Carlos being well founded. He did not say this from any partisanship respecting Don Carlos, but if the Biscayans were to be dispossessed of their privileges they would resist; and, although we might not be in favour of Don Carlos, were we not to grant them what was just and reasonable, hoping by those means to establish a permanent Government in Spain? On another occasion it had been said, that he had thrown doubts on the character of the subsidiary force, and had called it merely a mercenary force; now he had not said anything harsh on the subject, and when he had applied the term "mercenary," he did not mean that those who had entered it had done so from mercenary motives, but because, rightly or wrongly, that word had been applied to the military volunteers of the middle ages. He felt, that he had scarcely a right to address the House so frequently as he had done on these matters, and he could only say, that he thought the facts of the case were so strong, that a plain statement of them would carry the fullest conviction. The more this question was stirred in the House of Commons the more would its mud be raised. The foreign policy of the noble Lord was A mighty monster, of such odious mien, "That to be hated needs but to be seen.

Mr. Vernon Smith

felt it necessary to offer an apology to the House for the observations he had to make, but he wanted no other plea than that the noble Lord who had brought forward this motion had told the House, that he had done so on purpose to try the feelings of the people of England on the subject, and moreover that he had intended it as an attack upon the present Government. As a Member, though a subordinate Member, of that Government, he felt compelled to come forward, but he should not wander far away from the subject, after the example of the noble Lord who had just spoken, by referring to various parts of the world, instead of to the British Legion in Spain. The motion of the noble Lord was entirely an attack on the foreign policy of the Government. As to the question of the renewal of the orders in council, there did not appear to him any necessity for discussing it, and he should therefore dismiss it at once. He perfectly coincided with the opinions which had been expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had spoken as to the noble Lord's speech, and of the peculiar propriety of his being fixed on to bring forward this motion. From the part the noble Lord had taken in the convention with which he seemed proud to associate his name, there was an extreme propriety in his performing this task, and he must say, that the noble Lord had executed it in a manner that had hardly ever been equalled in that House. The only objections which could be found on his side of the House with the speech of the noble Lord was the mildness, he might say the tameness, with which the noble Lord had treated the subject, as though he was afraid of burning himself by the contact. He was well aware of the great difficulty and tediousness which attended all debates upon a moderate line of policy, for it did not supply those topics for the fancy and imagination which a more resolute and violent one would have furnished. The course pursued by the noble Lord had been to condemn the whole policy of the Government of this country, but to that had he confined himself, for he had not undertaken to say the course he should himself recommend. The question before the House was limited to a small space. The noble Lord began, as it was right that he should, after the settlement of the quadruple alliance and the additional articles, and those he would not argue now, even if they not been defended, as they had been so ably, by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Kircudbright, because they had been adopted by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the letter from General Alava, requesting his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) to furnish assistance had been received, he would ask the noble Lord what course he himself would have pursued? What would have been the course of the Carlists whom the noble Lord had repudiated? Though strange to say that, notwithstanding this repudiation, when any information was brought forward, or any Gentleman produced a letter, with or without signature, upon this subject, it always proceeded from some Carlist colonel or supporters of Don Carlos. The maxim, "noscitur a sociis," would, he thought, be the worst that could be applied to them. They had been told by his noble Friend who had last spoken, exactly in the words of the present motion, and which he said he was prepared to move, that no advantage had resulted either to the interests of this country or to those of Spain in consequence of the order in Council. His right hon. Friend, the Master of the Ordnance, had, however, quoted the best possible authority for the advantage which had been derived by Spain, for he had quoted the authority of the Queen of Spain, and of the Spanish Government, and no authority could possibly be better. The House might think it unnecessary to enter into this part of the subject, but they would allow him perhaps to quote from an impartial authority, the Annual Register of the day, as to Spanish affairs, what had been the condition of the Carlists and Christinos previous to the issuing the order in Council. It was said then, that the Christinos considered the prospect of the termination of the war as more distant than ever; that Bilbao was blockaded, Vittoria threatened, and that the Carlists were looking forward and gaining great advantages. Now, he would ask any hon. Gentleman opposite, who was only moderately acquainted with Spanish affairs, whether that was the position of the two parties now? Bilbao was not in a state of blockade, Vittoria was no longer threatened, and the Carlists had not gained the great advantages which they had expected. The hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Herbert) had said, that the Carlists and Christinos were on as even terms now as at the commencement of this warfare; but the contrary was notoriously the fact, and he believed, that no person who had recently come from Spain would deny, that the Carlists were confined to a smaller portion of territory than at that time, and, moreover, that by the measures which were produced by this order, every attempt which they had made to leave the Basque provinces had failed, and in their last attempt they had lost the best portion of their troops and officers. As to the operations in those provinces, he believed, on the best testimony, that the same enthusiasm in the cause of Don Carlos did not exist now, and that there was a growing dissatisfaction for both his cause and his person: for recently his best chiefs had been put under arrest, and every one who knew anything of Spain, and of the feelings of the Navarrese towards their chieftains, must know, that this was not likely to conciliate the Carlists. The Legion had not only relieved Bilbao, and occupied St. Sebastian, but had made themselves toasters of the passes from the Basque provinces, and had thereby prevented the introduction of the supplies with which the French had hitherto too liberally supplied them. On the other hand, too, the Christinos, during the stay of the Legion there, had improved their forces, their men had become better soldiers, and performed their duty more efficiently. If this were the case, then, it could hardly be said, even putting aside the authority of the Queen of Spain and of the Spanish Government, that the Christinos and Carlists were in the same position now as they were before this order was issued; and he believed so great an advantage had the former gained by it, that an Englishman would be received in that country with open arms in consequence of this connexion. It was easy for hon. Gentlemen to complain of assistance having been given, but what would have been their language if that assistance had not been rendered? This, however, was really a question whether the policy of the Government was English policy or not? He should like to learn what his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) was to do; for he had to give all the possible assistance which the treaty had stipulated, and not a scanty or pitiful supply, but he had to act up to the very spirit of the treaty in every essential point. The hon. Member for Wiltshire had said, that we talked of the Spanish Government being liberal, but there was, in truth, no liberality in it. He always had consi- dered, that the issue was between liberal and arbitrary principles. Whether the liberality of Spain and of the Spanish Government was that which exactly suited this country, or whether their institutions could be precisely accommodated to the principles established here, he was not prepared to say; but no man acquainted with Spain would hesitate to say, that there was a distinction between the policy of the Queen and of Don Carlos—for the one was decidedly in favour of free institutions, of a Liberal Government, of suppression of slavery, of subjects enjoying religious toleration, and had acknowledged their North American colonies; while the other party was directly the reverse. As to the order of Council, he would not attempt to defend it, because it had been carefully discussed on a recent occasion. He disapproved of the policy of the Foreign Enlistment Act., and had voted for a repeal of it, but the application for a renewal of this order was not an application for a new law. He had said, that it appeared to him that there was no need of this motion, though there was no reason to complain of the manner in which it had been brought forward, nor of the speeches which had been made upon it. His noble Friend had reminded the noble Lord who had quoted from a speech made on another occasion, "that the Canadian rebellion was the brightest gem of British policy," of the inaptness of the quotation; the noble Lord had retracted it, for he saw that although the antithesis might be very eloquent, the expression could not be correctly applied to the present subject. His noble Friend (Lord Mahon) had placed the policy of the Duke of Wellington in contrast with that of the present Government; but he ought to remember that, during the noble Duke's administration of foreign affairs, arms had been sent to Spain, and the noble Duke was therefore answerable for the maintenance of that policy, if adoption were maintenance, for he thought that the Minister who did not alter any policy was answerable for the maintenance of it. It was true that the Duke of Wellington had fulfilled the treaty, and in his opinion no part of the noble Duke's conduct had been more praiseworthy than his execution of that treaty. He should not have alluded to this if his noble Friend had not brought forward the subject. If the present Government then were answerable for the disbandment of the yeo- manry, because arms had been sent out to Spain, the noble Duke ought to take his share of the responsibility. He must say, that this topic had been forced in neck and heels, and for the sake of popular applause. He was aware that lengthened discussions on a subject that had been so often before the House must nauseate, and all they had to do was to come to a division and decision on the question. He did not think there was any sufficient reason for this motion; but it was because there was a new Parliament, though he should like to know if hon. Gentlemen who had just returned from their elections had heard any great news of Spanish affairs at the hustings, and whether their election banners had borne the words "Christino" or "Carlist?" The noble Lord, too, the Member for Cornwall, who had referred to this, and who, as he lived nearer the sea shore, had better opportunities of gaining information, might be able to inform him; but he had heard no such rumours in the midland county where he was elected. He did not deny, that the question ought to be brought forward, and that occasionally all the acts of policy of the Government should pass under the review of the House. He was always anxious that the House should take notice of the policy of the Government; but this should be done in the way in which his noble Friend had introduced his motion last Session. Why should the tocsin of alarm be sounded to bring up hon. Gentlemen from the country? What would be gained by it? Hon. Gentlemen opposite said they had nothing to do with the Carlists; but would they then say this was a party question? It must be either a party question or one of assistance to Don Carlos. He would ask any sensible man whether he did not think that if this motion were carried, it would be for the benefit of Don Carlos, and if the eyes of Europe were fixed on their debates, they would look upon it in that view, and want to know what other course of policy could be substituted for that which was under assault. If they denied that it was to assist Don Carlos, and that it was merely to eject the Government, then he would ask them what policy would be adopted, and whether such conduct was Conservative, to use the term which the hon. Gentlemen opposite had arrogated to themselves, having yielded up the old name of Tory? The noble Lord, the Member for Hertford, when he blamed the Government for the present condition of the affairs of Europe, ought to recollect what the state of Europe was when the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, left office. He contended, that England would gain great commercial advantages by her intervention in Spain. Such was the opinion of M. Thiers; and he believed it to be well founded, for Spain had herself acknowledged the beneficial results of that intervention. He regarded the present motion as an attempt on the part of the Opposition—who dared not meet the Government on any question relating to home policy—similar to that recently made under the wing of the hon. Member for Leeds to wriggle themselves into office.

Mr. Pemberton

could not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the present motion bore any similarity to those to which he had alluded as having been made on former occasions. The object of the present motion was to call upon the House to discuss the course pursued with regard to Spain by her Majesty's Government, and if they should find that it had been unattended by any advantages, either to Spain or to England, then to address her Majesty, beseeching her not to renew those Orders in Council which had hitherto proved in their operation so unproductive of benefit. The hon. Gentleman, instead of addressing himself to the great question involved in this motion, had made a speech composed entirely of the same materials in which what hon. Gentlemen opposite called the barbarity of the Carlists had, on many former occasions, been railed against—and had accused the Conservative party with abetting and favouring despotic principles. He would tell that hon. Gentleman what was the principle of this motion. It was that great principle that this country ought not to interfere in the internal affairs of others without adequate cause. It was the object of this motion to assert that by such an interference as had been adopted with regard to the affairs of Spain that great and most important principle had been violated—and, therefore, to call upon the House to address her Majesty, in the hope that such a course of policy would no longer be persevered in. The principle they thus called upon the House to assert was one which, unless he was much mistaken, he had heard asserted by the noble Lord opposite, and was one of the principles on which Earl Grey's Government took office—Lord Grey having himself expressly stated, that non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign nations was one of the three great principles on which his Government was determined and professed to found its policy. He might not recollect what was said at the time upon this point, but it appeared he was not singular in that mis-recollection, if so it could be called; for, on referring to a speech which was made by Earl Grey himself on entering office, in what language did he find this principle of non-interference announced—or rather, what consistency did the conduct of the noble Lord opposite exhibit when contrasted with the language of the noble Earl on the occasion to which he referred? The words of Earl Grey on taking office were, "But, my Lords, I now repeat in office that which I before stated as my opinion when out of it, namely, that the first object, interest, and duty of the British Government ought to be to maintain peace by all the means within its power, consistently with the honour and integrity of the empire. Our true policy is to maintain universal peace; and, therefore, non-interference is the principle—the great principle—which ought to be, and will be, most heartily adopted by the present Government."^* The object of those, then, who brought forward the present motion was to call upon the House of Commons to respect this great principle, to re-adopt this policy, and to address the Throne, praying that her Majesty would no longer permit the continuance of the employment of British troops in the contest between the two great parties now at war in Spain. The propositions which this motion asserted were—first, that the course pursued with regard to Spain was unattended with any advantage to England; secondly, that it was unaccompanied by any benefits to Spain herself; and, thirdly, that this country was not bound by any existing treaties with Spain to perform duties inconsistent with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. These were facts which could not be displaced by any clamorous railing against Don Carlos. They must give their verdict upon principles like these in the same manner as the country gave it. But ^* Hansard, vol. i. (Third Series) p. 610. had the policy of the Government been in unison with these principles? As far as the interests of this country were concerned no man had ever contended, that the policy pursued had been attended with advantage. Had our alliance with either France or Spain been strengthened or promoted by that policy? Had not Gentleman after Gentleman, in discussing this question, charged France, one of the great contracting parties to the Quadruple Treaty, with the violation of that treaty? With respect, then, to the conduct of France and this country it was evident that one of the parties must have been guilty of most egregious folly, and the other of most egregious treachery. He had made no reflections upon the officer who had commanded, or the officers who had been engaged in this contest in Spain. He had the pleasure of knowing some of those officers, and could not speak of them more highly than they deserved. It was not for him to criticise the military conduct of those men. He well knew that, contrasting the position in which their commander had been placed in the Spanish country with that occupied in former days by his great predecessor, no very great military reputation was to be gained. All the laurels had been gathered there before. But did not all the disasters which had befallen the British Legion afford a powerful argument against the policy of the Government, and did it not justify the remark which was long ago made, that, from the first moment those troops left the British shore, they had no chance whatever of success? What, then, was the nature of the charge against her Majesty's Government? It was that they had so far miscalculated the force of the Carlists and the Christinos, and so far erred in their speculations with regard to the Spanish finances, that they had encouraged their own countrymen to enter upon an expedition in which certain failure awaited them—and he must be allowed to say, that it was incumbent on them as a Government to show on what considerations they had given countenance or encouragement to the British forces leaving the shores of this country. Where were the advantages of such a course to be looked for? Were they to be found in the contrast of the state of Spain when that Legion landed there, with its state at the present moment? He appealed to the opinion which had been quoted of that great captain, the Duke of Wellington, and the opinion of such a man he considered of far greater utility that the complimentary addresses of the Queen-Regent of Spain, on the departure of the Legion. What, he would ask, was the difference in the feeling of the Spaniards towards Englishmen at the present moment and before the Legion first went out? Did they not consider our interference in their affairs a most unjust one? Was there not on the one side jealousy, and on the other anger? Look at the consequences of the change of policy from that pursued when the Duke of Wellington administered the foreign affairs of this country. The Eliot convention which had been arranged by the Duke of Wellington's Administration had saved hundreds and hundreds of families from ruin and destruction, and that treaty was obtained, not by such means as the present Government adopted, but by means of kind offices, mediation, and conciliation. On the 1st of June, 1835, the present Government began their course of peddling policy; and very soon afterwards foreigners and strangers were embarked in the Spanish contest, and the result was the Durango decree—a measure which the Spaniards considered had been rendered necessary by the policy which had been pursued towards them. He believed, that no human being had more reason to regret the Durango decree than Don Carlos himself, for nothing but the indignation which that decree had excited against him could have driven the people of this country to the gross injustice and impolicy of the course which they pursued. With respect to the advantage which this assistance had produced to Spain, he might ask, what had been the result so far as the cause of the Queen of Spain was concerned? It seemed to be admitted on all hands, that the test of the military operations, contrasting their former with their present state, was favourable to the Carlist cause. In proof of this he might appeal to the state of the Carlist forces at the time the Durango edict was issued and at the present time, but he believed there was no dispute as to the point on either side of that House. He might even appeal to the testimony of the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and he would venture to request the House to contrast the state of the Carlist army at the period the noble Lord gave the de- scription to which he referred with the state of that army at the present moment, and then they would see whether the result of the interference on the part of the British Government, purchased with so much blood and treasure, did in any way promote the interests of the Queen of Spain or not. On the 24th of June, 1835, this was the account of the Carlist troops given by the noble Secretary. The noble Lord said— There are now about 10,000 or 12,000 persons in arms in one of the remote provinces of Spain, and it is to put down this partial and local insurrection that the present effort is to be made, And here I will answer the question of the noble Lord who asks me on which side is the majority of the Spanish nation, and I have no hesitation in saying, that the great majority of the nation is with the Queen. The proof of this fact is to be found in the circumstance, that for nearly a year and a half the resistance of her authority has been confined to two or three particular provinces, and that no disturbances have broken out in any other parts of the kingdom. Such was the condition of the Carlists at this period, according to the noble Lord, and then it was, that the 10,000 or 12,000 British troops were sent out to aid the Spanish Government in putting down the insurrection. Well, the Legion were sent out—they arrived and were backed by 100,000 troops belonging to the Queen of Spain; but what was the consequence? Why, that two years had elapsed, the legion had returned, and where, he asked, were the 10,000 or 12,000 British troops? They were annihilated. How stood the Carlists on the day the affair of Hernani took place? Why, they had 35,000 men assembled under a single leader, and in one district of Spain, to operate against the united forces of England and of the Queen of Spain. He made this statement on the authority of Colonel Humphreys, as able and as gallant an officer as any who served in the Legion, and who, moreover, was himself present in that action. This was the result of the interference of her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord might, perhaps, say he had miscalculated—he had been ignorant as to the real feeling of the Spanish people—but if he should adopt any such course why, then, he would have a right to say, that there were grounds for serious complaint against the noble Lord for having permitted 10,000 British troops to embark for Spain wihout sufficent information or knowledge of the real state of affairs in that country. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said, that if her Majesty's present Government were answerable for the line of conduct which they had adopted the Duke of Wellington was equally so, inasmuch as he had pursued the same policy when he was in office. Did the hon. Gentleman consider that there was no difference between making treaties and fairly and honourably fulfilling them? Did the hon. Gentleman suppose for a single moment, that it was the duty of a Minister—that it was competent for him on his own individual opinion to depart from the faith established by treaties, not on the part of the Government but of the nation? Of the effect of the treaty of the 22nd of April, 1834, all he could say was, that he could not understand how any question could be raised on that subject. At that time Don Miguel and Don Carlos were hovering on the frontier of Spain, and the Governments of Spain and Portugal entered into a treaty having for its object the expulsion of the Infantes from their territories. In the following month that object was accomplished. Don Miguel retired under conditions, but Don Carlos left without any being imposed upon him. He embarked on board the Donegal, and, having reached this country without condition, he left it again without condition, and threw himself into the arms of those of his own countrymen who were eager to receive him. It was then that the additional articles were added to the treaty, and he would defy any one to point out a single expression in the first treaty, that bound the contracting parties to more than the expulsion of the Infantes from the Spanish and Portuguese territories. That was the sole purpose first stipulated for. By the additional articles a further engagement was entered into for supplying military stores to the Queen of Spain, but nothing whatever was contained in those articles from which it could be inferred, that the contracting parties were bound either to establish the Queen on the throne of Spain or to expel Don Carlos from that country. It was expressly stated, that this treaty proceeded from a desire to establish peace in Spain as well as throughout the whole world, and if so, were not the English Government as much bound to lend their assistance in suppressing revolt or insurrection in all other countries as in Spain? It might, perhaps, be said, that they had entered into no such contract. He, however, could refer them to authority, high authority, for since the Duke of Wellington had renewed his ancient office of aiding the weak and succouring the distressed he had acquired a reputation among the hon. Gentlemen opposite which he never before had enjoyed. No persons stood more in need of assistance than her Majesty's Ministers, and having received it from the Duke of Wellington it was not surprising that they were not wanting in expressions of gratitude for the timely service he rendered to them. The noble Lord would not object to the construction put on it by those who made the treaty. Now what was the opinion of the Duke of Wellington with respect to this treaty? Was it such as the noble Lord on a former occasion considered it, or as his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Shaftesbury now, in what he could not help regarding as dying strains, represented it to be? The Duke of Wellington, in a speech delivered by him on the 21st of April, 1837, and which was afterwards corrected by himself, declared his opinion in these words:— These additional articles were signed in the month of August, 1834, and in the month of Nov., 1834, I was called upon to carry the treaty into execution. It was not then considered to be a treaty of the description given by the noble Viscount, it was not considered as a treaty for the preservation of the peace of Europe, or as a plan for great operations to be performed by arms. My Lords, I have a right to say this, because I myself had an explanation on the subject—first with the Government of the King of the French, in which it was clearly stated, that the parties were bound not to interfere in the internal concerns of Spain, or in the contest then going on in that country—it was so stated distinctly at that period, and the statement having been communicated to all the parties in the treaty and in the additional articles was satisfactory to all. The noble Viscount appears to be of a different opinion. I refer to the despatch to prove the truth of my statement. That I assert was the distinct understanding of all the parties in the treaty."^* Why, then, if the contract entered into did not justify the interference upon what principle did that interference proceed? No reason had yet been assigned to show that, that interference was necessary. The language of the treaty itself as well as the ^* Hansard (Third Series) vol. xxxviii. p.140. construction put upon it by those who were parties to it proved incontestibly that the course pursued by the Government was not obligatory on them. This was a fact that could not be denied, and, therefore, he had a right to ask on what principle they were to continue a line of policy so injurious to this country? He heard with surprise the doctrines advocated by some hon. Members that night, who seemed to justify the interference in the present case by a reference to circumstances under which the Hessians were engaged by this country. Were not these mercenaries, he begged leave to ask, ready to sell their swords to Protestants or Catholics, or to people or sovereigns? Were they not content to take pay from that party who would give them the highest reward for their services, without any reference whatever to the case? It was said this country had an interest in the pacification of Spain. Why this country was just as much interested in the pacification of every other country as of Spain. But it was said, that it was to support liberal institutions in Spain that the service was rendered. Was that any justification? Suppose America had adopted a similar course in the case of Canada, what would have been thought of it? Might not America have said, and with equal justice, "We are the friends of free institutions, we are the friends of a liberal Government, we are the friends of democratic institutions, and, regarding as we do the cause of Canada as the cause of that independence which we have achieved for ourselves, we can, therefore, without any breach of amity with you, permit our subjects to engage in the service of the Canadian rebels—we can supply them with ammunition and arms, and then tell you, according to your own doctrine, that we are justified in doing so." It had of late been very much the fashion in that House to refer to the example of France, and to quote the conduct of the French Government as authority. But what was the opinion as to this treaty proclaimed in France? Did Louis Philippe do as the Government of this country had done? Did he repeal existing laws to enable him to interfere in a foreign contest? No, he did not. Why could they not be content to leave the Spaniards to decide for themselves the question as to their own Government? That question would have been settled by the party preponderating in numbers, weight, property, and influence, without foreign aid. And of what consequence was it to the people of England, he should like to know, whether the Government of Spain was more or less liberal and enlightened than that of this country? Whether the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in Spain was less liberal with respect to treaties than the noble Lord opposite, or the Spanish Home Secretary had notions concerning Church property more strict, than those entertained by the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud. The war was to be deeply regretted, but although they might smile at the ignorant simplicity of the Basques for not grasping at a paper Constitution in exchange for the blessings they enjoyed under their charters—although Reformers might sneer at the Basques for not preferring modern to ancient institutions—still he must be permitted to say, that he did not deem such things a sufficient cause for devastating towns and villages, and trampling down the last sparks of liberty in the only province of Spain in which anything like it had existed for centuries.

Mr. Sheil

said, the learned Gentleman, who has just sat down, has announced, that the object of this Motion is to lay down the principle of non-interference. But as the Quadruple treaty was an interference, and the Duke of Wellington had carried that into effect, the object adverted to by the hon. Gentleman is incompatible with the obligations which the Duke of Wellington practically admitted to have been imposed on him. Let it also be remembered, that the noble Lord opposite, was a Member of the Government, when the original articles were signed. [Lord Stanley: I was a member of Lord Grey's Government, not of Lord Melbourne's.] And if the Duke of Wellington comes in to-morrow, the noble Lord will be the colleague of that distinguished person, whose first appointment, when he was last in office, the appointment of Lord Londonderry, the noble Lord denounced. If the noble Lord had not interrupted me, I should not have referred to the nobleman, for whom, so far from entertaining any adverse sentiment in his regard, I entertain personal respect, because he manfully avows his sentiments, and I should not omit to state, that on a recent occasion, that noble Lord declared that he should abstain from pronouncing any censure upon the British Legion, because, in condemning the conduct of his fellow-countrymen, he would not take any part. I opposed his appointment, on grounds solely political. The noble Lord assailed that appointment, in terms stronger than any that were used by me; and yet, if the Duke of Wellington were to return to office, the noble Lord would be his associate in power. But turning from that incident, and reverting to the anomaly in which the Tory party are placed with respect to the quadruple alliance, how, let me ask, can they insist on the principle of non-intervention, when they themselves acted upon it, and when the Members for Pembroke and Lancashire were in the cabinet, when the original articles were signed? Those articles recite the importance of pacifying Spain, and recite the interest that France and England take in that pacification, and then pledge England to a naval intervention in favour of Spain. [Mr. Sheil read the articles.] Who was First Lord of the Admiralty, when those articles were signed? The Member for Pembroke. I cannot, under these circumstances, understand how either the noble Lord or the Member for Pembroke, can consistently insist on the principle of non-interference, as the only and sure foundation of our foreign policy. I now turn to the noble Lord by whom this Motion was introduced. I interrupted him when he was reading the letter of a Carlist officer, but certainly without the least intention of showing him the slightest disrespect. I inquired the date of the letter, merely with a view to learn at what period it was written, as it purports to give an account of the prospects of Don Carlos. I cannot avoid saying, that it seems to me to be not a little extraordinary that a man who professes to take no interest in Don Carlos, should rely upon the statements of a Carlist officer as an authority to prove the prosperity of his cause. I was glad to hear the noble Lord declare, that he was not an advocate of Don Carlos. But when he announced, that he conceived that the Durango decree was contrary to the Elliot convention, surely he ought to have felt that Don Carlos had been guilty of the massacre of British subjects, and that in those atrocities, England cannot be unconcerned. Sir, this Motion involves the consideration of the entire of our foreign policy in reference to the Peninsula, and in order to estimate its wisdom, we must revert to the leading facts with which the Spanish revolution was attended. Ferdinand died in 1833. Although a change had been made in the succession, Zea Bermudez, the tool of Russia, was continued Prime Minister, and declared, that in the system of absolutism, he should persevere. That declaration induced the ministers of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, to continue in Madrid; but when Zea Bermudez was driven from office, and Martinez de la Rosa proclaimed the calling of the Cortes, the liberty of the press, and the abolition of the Inquisition, the ministers of the three despotic potentates left Madrid. What part did it then befit England and France to adopt? Ought they to have availed themselves of the occasion, which was then afforded of producing a counterpoise to the preponderating negligence of the despotic combination, or to have adhered to the policy of the Duke of Wellington in 1828, by which that negligence had been created? In 1828, Russia was permitted to fall on Turkey: she extorted the treaty of Adrianople from the prostrate Sultan, from whom England withheld the slightest aid. If Turkey had not fallen, a diversion might afterwards have been produced in favour of Poland, when that gallant people made an effort to throw off the yoke: but Poland having been crushed, the Czar, in 1833, imposed on Turkey additional fetters, and under the name of protection, reduced her to subjugation. It was in this state of things, that the Spanish revolution took place, and surely the occasion was not one which France and England ought to have allowed to pass, without converting it into a means of counteracting the mighty power which had been permitted to acquire an ascendancy so great. But let me put this view of the case without adverting to incidents which may be considered too remote; if Don Carlos were seated on the throne of Spain, if the allied powers marched upon the Rhine, if the standard of Henri Cinque were unfurled in the south of France, and a. Spanish army crossed the Pyrenees, the monarchy of the barricades would perish, and despotism would be established in Portugal, Spain, and France: this, surely, was a likelihood against which it behoved a statesman to provide. The quadruple alliance was entered info with that object. Don Carlos was in Portugal at the time; he subsequently landed in the Basque provinces, and there proclaimed himself and the Inquisition. I stop not to expostulate with those gentlemen whose flexible Protestantism accommodates itself so readily to its political predilections, but proceed with events. Lord Spencer, having died, his late Majesty thought it right to dismiss Lord Melbourne; but, I think that the Duke of Wellington, for whom he sent, might have suggested that he was not, of all men, the best fitted to carry out the principle, either of the Reform Bill, or of the quadruple alliance. The Duke, however, proceeded to execute the latter, by sending arms to Spain. He at the same time, dispatched the noble Lord for a purpose which does him honour. But, when the Eliot convention was signed, and thus a species of recognition was given to the Pretender it was the duty of the Duke of Wellington to counteract the discouragement to the cause of the Queen, which resulted from it, by some bold and decided measure in her support. I think that I may state, without fear of contradiction, that, from the accession of the Tories to office, the cause of Carlos rapidly advanced. In the Spanish Cortes, the course pursued by the Duke of Wellington was certainly not approved of, and the Martinez de la Rosa ministry, was left in a minority, upon a question connected with the measure which had been adopted by the Duke. Martinez de la Rosa soon after resigned: disaster followed disaster, and in May, 1835, Spain was reduced to the necessity of applying for assistance to France and England France offered to take possession of the country with an army, but to such a proceeding, we, of course, objected; an indirect intervention was resolved upon, and both France and England supplied auxiliary legions. Thus the same course was pursued by both cabinets, and in praise or in commendation they should both equally participate. If Louis Philippe be lauded for his sagacity, let it be remembered that the policy which he recommended was that pursued by ourselves. Here the question arises, what services did our auxiliary legion render? I answer, the most essential. The cause of the Queen immediately received a great moral impulse, and that of Don Carlos became retrograde. His whole army was occupied by the Legion. The siege of St. Sebastian was raised. This was a most important achievement. All the Carlist artillery was taken, a large body of Carlists were left upon the plain, and Sebastibelza, one of the best captains of the Pretender, was slain. I admit that there was a reverse at Hernani, but it was produced by the omission of Saarsfield to join Colonel Evans, and by the arrival of Don Sebastian with 17,000 men. Colonel Evans had but 9,000. On this reverse too much and too restricted a stress has been laid. I cannot, indeed, forbear from saying, that a criticism of a very stern and severe kind has been used in regard to my gallant Friend and the army which he commanded under most disadvantageous circumstances. What can be more unjust than to use the army of the Duke of Wellington, which was sustained with millions of lavish expenditure, and which constituted so vast an item in the national debt, as the standard by which such a body as that commanded by my gallant Friend is to be severely tried? The use of corporal chastisement in the Legion has been reprehended by those who contend that in our own army, which is perfectly fed and clothed, and is provided with comforts even in time of peace, the lash must be employed; but, surely, in fairness, it ought to be stated, that in the whole course of the campaign not a single soldier was put to death, a fact which redounds, under the circumstances, to the highest honour of my gallant Friend. Let it not be for gotten, too, that while the Carlists savagely butchered every British soldier who fell into their hands, 1,100 Carlist prisoners were spared by those to whom no mercy was shown; and yet it is by casting reproaches on men who acted a part so noble that a charge is sought to be fixed upon the noble Lord of having by his policy brought the national character into disrepute. No, Sir; both in the conduct of the Legion and of the Marines examples of valour will be found which reflect lustre upon our arms. The employment of a naval force was part of the measure adopted by the noble Lord when the Legion was enrolled. By the aid of that naval force Bilbao was saved; the eyes of Europe were fixed on that famous siege, and it was felt, that the fate of Spain depended upon the result. For that important achievement Spain was deeply grateful; and surely where the question is, whether service was conferred upon Spain, the acknowledgments, the fervid, enthusiastic thankfulness, of Spain herself ought to outweigh the arguments of those who insist that no service was ren- dered to Spain, and add that upon Spain no benefit whatever ought ever to have been conferred. But, supposing that Spain is not to be deemed a competent judge of the extent of obligation conferred upon her, let us see what estimate has been elsewhere formed, and out of this country, of the great transactions which constitute the theme of this debate. I believe that there are few men whose authority stands higher than that of Monsieur Guizot. He is not a man of vehement passions, or of extreme opinions, and his judgment ought surely to be accounted of no ordinary value. To what does Guizot attribute the preservation of Spain, for hitherto she has been preserved from Don Carlos? He refers it, first, to the feelings of the Spanish people; next, to the use of the British navies and artillery; and, thirdly, to the valour of the foreign auxiliary Legion. [Mr. Sheil read a passage from a speech of Guizot, in answer to M. Berryer, which stated these circumstances.] But it may, perhaps, be said, that Guizot alluded to the French auxiliary Legion. I believe that he alluded to both the French and English; and let it be borne in mind that the employment of both was the result of the concurrent determination of both cabinets. Sir, we have heard a good deal about the hardships sustained by the British Legion, and of the demoralization of the soldiers. I own that I was led to conjecture, inasmuch as the French Legion was composed of troops drafted from the line, that its sufferings had not been as severe, and that it had not been so materially disorganised. I found, however, on inquiry, that the fact was otherwise, and that the British Legion, great as were the evils it had to endure, had met with less disaster. I was anxious also to learn what course had been pursued in reference to the French auxiliary Legion by the French Carlists, and whether their press had ever exulted in the reverses of their countrymen; whether every merit had been depreciated, and every fault had been exaggerated; whether the Carlist papers had relied upon the evidence supplied by the effusions of discontented pamphleteers; and whether the misfortunes of Frenchmen had been converted by them into a factious instrumentality; but I found that strong as are the feelings of French Carlists, although they are devoted with enthusiasm to their cause, to the victories of partisanship they preferred the honour of France. But here how different a course has been pursued! The strangest pictures have been drawn of every scene of inevitable suffering in their own countrymen; evils inseparable from war, and which, at all events, were, under the circumstances, unavoidable, have been exhibited in the most vivid colours; our imaginations have been conducted into hospitals, and made familiar with scenes of loathsomeness, in order to excite the public feeling, and associate the Legion with images of disgust and horror; but all this, it may be said, is fair in political warfare: yes, perhaps; but things were done which are not fair, and which fill the breast of every generous man with indignation. Who does not remember who happened to be in London at the time of the last Westminster election, the expedient by which it was sought to drive my gallant Friend from the hustings in discomfiture and discredit? Who does not remember that procession of squalid wretchedness which was intended to represent the sufferings of our fellow-countrymen, and the dishonour of their chief; but served only to exhibit the excesses into which faction will be carried? But I acquit Sir George Murray of any participation in those proceedings; he could not have assented to them; but when they came to his cognizance, he ought to have hurried to the assembly of those who called themselves his friends, and bidden them, if they had no respect for the character of their country, to have some regard for their own. Sir, I do think, that the whole system pursued in reference to my gallant Friend has been marked by a spirit of pertinacity in persecuting him, which ought to engage, and I believe has engaged, the public feeling in his cause. Of him I shall say no more;—and of the motion, I shall say little more than this:—that, however, the Conservative party may protest, that for the success of Don Carlos they are not solicitous, such a motion is most essentially calculated to advance his interests, and is in accordance with the views which a great portion of the Tory press have undisguisedly acknowledged that they entertain. Whatever language may be used in this House, can it be denied, that the great majority of the Tory journals are advocates of Don Carlos, and that their chief and ablest periodicals are his auxiliaries? Take, for example, the article in The Quarterly Review upon Lord Carnarvon's "Portugal and Gallicia," a work in which so favourable a view is taken of the character of the Pretender. In that article the writer, after in the first pages declaring his conviction that Don Carlos is the lawful King of Spain, proceeds to expatiate upon the privileges of the Basques, and by connecting those privileges with the cause of Carlos, thus effectively pleads his cause. The same course has been pursued in almost every other Tory publication, and in taking that course the most glaring incongruities have been committed, showing into what anomalies men are hurried by the spirit of faction. The Tory party feel the utmost solicitude for the independence of the Basques; and yet, when they turn to the country which is united on the principle of equality with their own, their enthusiasm at once subsides, and, instead of taking part with men who do not ask exclusive privileges, but a participation in the rights of British citizens, they not only resist that just and rational requisition, but invite the religious passions into hostility to their demand, ring the tocsin of religious discord, and awaken the no popery cry: and who are the men that revile the religion and the pure and Christian priesthood? The very men who, in sustaining the cause of Don Carlos, would restore what they call popery, but what I do not recognise as anything else than the grossest perversion of the Catholic religion, for the worst inquisitorial purposes to which, in an unnatural alliance with despotism, it ever was applied. If ever abuses flowed from the impure connexion of religion with a corrupt contamination of state—if ever the sanctuary was desecrated by its annexation to the palace—if ever baneful effects were generated by the perversion of institutions originally holy—if ever misdeeds were done under the name of religion, at which the blood should curdle—all these enormities are associated with the cause of which Don Carlos is the representative; and to such an extent of late has his impiety—for I can call it nothing else—been carried, that, while he surrenders the Christino women to the indiscriminate licentiousness of a ferocious soldiery, he has had the blasphemous daring to proclaim one, whose name I will not utter, the patroness of his arms. And yet it is with this bad man, whose hands, when they are lifted in prayer, drip with Durango blood; it is with this remorseless, worthless, marble-hearted man, that the sympathies of Anglo- Carlist Protestants are associated. But, thank God! the people of England entertain for his cause the feelings that befit them—they will, I feel assured, give to the Government of this country their cordial aid in excluding the tyrant from the throne which he would encompass with scenes of blood. Of the result of this contest, in which the interests of humanity and of liberty are so deeply involved, I have but little question; and although the despotic powers of Europe should confederate in favour of the Pretender—although Russia, while she crushes the Catholic religion in Warsaw, would reestablish the inquisition in Madrid—although Austria, while she would extort the Papal territory from its sovereign, would restore the monastic orders to their opulence and their sinecurism—although Prussia, while she imprisons the Catholic prelate of Cologne, would prepare dungeons for heretics at Seville; yet, despite this confederacy, if France be true for the cause of Spanish liberty, there is nothing to be apprehended; and even if France be false (which I do not believe)—if the King of the French shall omit to recollect that England is his only natural ally, and that on the day on which Don Carlos enters the palace, which its architect so appropriately copied from an implement of pain, he must escape by a postern-gate at the Tuilleries; still, despite of perfidy—despite of fraud—despite of the array of European hostility, England, standing alone, will adhere with inviolable fidelity to her engagements, and prove that, as it was said of old, nothing human can be alien from man. Wherever freedom is at stake, England can never be unconcerned.

Debate adjourned.