HC Deb 07 August 1843 vol 71 cc342-51
Mr. Borthwick

, rose to move for copies or extracts of any correspondence which had taken place between the Government of Great Britain and France, relating to the detention of Don Carlos in France. His motion was one which appealed to the general humanities of our nature, which rested upon the broad principles of the law of nations and which had a direct and immediate influence on the policy of Britain, of France and of Spain. Two members of the Royal family of Spain were now in France—the Queen Dowager and Don Carlos. The one palaced, applauded, nobly entertained a Paris—the other guarded, closely watcher at Bourges—and yet which of the two had acted in a manner most calculated to disturh the peace of Spain and of Europe? Justice would answer the question in favour of Don Carlos. A little before the death, the actual not the rumoured death of Ferdinand 7th, the royalist volunteers had been disarmed, and a new corps of militia established in their stead, with other feelings and prejudices to those of the old yeomanry who had guarded the Crown of Spain. At the same time there was a dispute with regard to the statute limiting the succession of the Crown to the male line, and Don Carlos, with more of ancient chivalry than modern prudence, retired, with the leave of his king and brother, into Portugal. During his absence there was a demise of the Crown, and the throne was assumed by Queen Christina on behalf of the Infante Isabella. He would not stop to examine the conduct of the Cortes, for it was a question affecting the Cortes of Spain, not the Commons of England, and it would have been well if the House had always remembered this. If they had done so that fair country would not now have been the scene of devastating warfare. But the House had thought fit to interfere. The treaty of the quadruple alliance for the safety of the Throne of Isabella, had been entered into. Don Carlos returned from Portugal, and the Duke of Victory—that Duke of Victory, who, having gained that title by his deeds, bravely and nobly won it by conquering his enemies, and not that Duke of Victory who had stolen it from fear, and was only entitled to the name by always giving victory to others—the great and brave Zumulacarregui had received him in the north of Spain. The House had then sent auxiliary troops into that country, and it had been said that, if Don Carlos were expelled from Spain, the Government at Madrid founded on his expulsion, must for all good be useless. Don Carlos had been expelled, and now where was the Government? Where was now the Regent? It was not for him to complain of the conduct of that man, but it was for him, it was for every Member of the British Parliament, to complain of the conduct of the English Government, who had attempted to force a religion—a Constitution—a Government upon Spain, which Spain was not willing to receive. It was for him to do all that in him lay to prevent the constant disruption of European peace. The Queen Dowager was at liberty and therefore bound in honour to abstain from all political intrigue against the Government of Spain and the peace of Europe; and Don Carlos was watched and exposed to all sorts of painful and degrading espionage, and therefore quite at liberty to intrigue as much as he could, and yet the exactly opposite course had been pursued by these distinguished individuals; so, he asked, such having been their conduct, why was their present unfair position continued? Why did France, with or without England, still detain Don Carlos? For what purpose was it that his distinguished consort and son were detained with him? It had been said that it was to give liberalized institutions to Spain. Why, that was the very evil of which he complained—that the Government of England had attempted to do for Spain what Spain did not want. Let England withdraw from Spain her annoying friendship, and she would again assume her high position amongst nations. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the papers.

Mr. B. Cochrane

, in rising to second the motion, said, that he should abstain from entering into the general question of the political circumstances which had led to the painful position in which Don Carlos was at present placed, and should simply confine himself to the manner in which that Prince of the Blood was treated in his captivity. When he was last in France he went to Bourges, and, in an interview which he had with Don Carlos, that Royal Prince assured him that the whole of his allowance for his entire family and establishment did not exceed 1,200l. a year. This unfortunate Prince could not walk about the town without being watched and followed by a police agent in plain clothes. It was true, indeed, that he was told he might leave that town whenever he liked, but when he asked to have a passport given him for that purpose it was refused, and when he presented himself at the gates to go out without one he was asked for his passport, and told he could not be allowed out without it. Now, this he (Mr. Cochrane) looked upon as a specimen of moral torture unworthy of the French Government to practise towards any person in the unfortunate situation of Don Carlos, and more especially towards a Prince of Royal blood.

Sir R. Peel

Sir, with respect to the point to which the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in seconding the motion has referred, namely, the treatment to which Don Carlos is subjected in his detention at Bourges, I can only say that it is the wish of the Government of this country that he should be treated with as much indulgence as it is possible consist- ently with a due regard to the objects for which he is detained. In consequence of a communication in the course of the Session with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who, as he has stated, had a personal opportunity of knowing the condition of Don Carlos at Bourges, the Government made a communication to the effect that we had no wish that any undue restraint should be placed upon that Prince, and I am enabled to say, from the answer that has been received, that the French Government are equally indisposed to unnecessary restraint: and I, therefore, have every reason to hope that it will be found by the hon. Gentleman that this ground of complaint has been removed. With respect to the precedents that have been referred to, I do not know what were the means of subsistence provided for those Royal Sovereigns to whom the hon. Gentleman has alluded, but I think it is probable they had private resources of their own, whereas Don Carlos is supported at the sole expense of France. As to the motion itself, I should not have the slightest objection to the production of the correspondence in question, if I felt that I could do so consistently with my public duty, but I do think were I to produce the correspondence that took place between the Government of this country at the time and the French Government, I should compromise my public duty. The House will recollect that Don Carlos left this country for France, and passing through that country made his way into Spain. He subsequently came back to France, and obtained an asylum there upon the express condition that he should abstain from any further attempt to foment discord in Spain, this evil being apprehended. In October, 1839, the Governments of England and France determined to put this restraint on Don Carlos that he should not return to Spain, and I must say that I think the Government of that day were perfectly justified in the course they took. An asylum was granted to Don Carlos in France on the terms of his being prevented from returning to Spain, and it had been intimated to him that if he would give sufficient security that he would not attempt to return to that country, the Government of of this country and of France would immediately grant his liberation. There was no wish to place undue restraint upon him, further than was necessary to prevent his disturbing the tranquillity of Spain; and I hope, therefore, after this assurance, and as the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this motion has had an opportunity of stating his own views, that he will be contnet to have his motion negatived.

Dr. Bowring

said, that in the policy which we had pursued towards Spain, we had evinced great ignorance of the habits and feelings of the people. What could be more absurd than the attempt to familiarise people with forms which had been the growth of centuries amongst us? There were two ways in which Spain might be regenerated; the first was by carrying into effect the system of local and provincial Government, as opposed to the system of centralization; and the other was by the establishment of a Government on the principle of universal suffrage like that of 1812. That Government worked more good for Spain than any which had succeeded it. The noble Lord below him (Lord Palmerston) was, he believed, anxious to do good; but he was led astray by the erroneous notion, that what suited this country must suit all others. He hoped to see a change in our policy, and that we should set about redressing grievances at home, instead of resolving those which were distant, and of which we were ignorant.

Lord J. Manners

said, that the speech of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, in answer to the speech of his hon. Friend, was by no means satisfactory to him, and would not be considered satisfactory by the country. The present condition of Spain was not in any respect to be attributed to Don Carlos. His hon. Friend (Mr. Borthwick) had gone fully into the difference between the treatment of Don Carlos and that which Queen Christina had received from the French government, and it would not therefore be necessary for him to enlarge upon that point. He confessed he did not understand the principle on which that prince was now detained, and he knew not how his liberation at any future time could be justified more than at present. The detention of Don Carlos was opposed to all precedent, and appeared to him to be fraught with all possible evil. He was sure there was no one in that House who would say that Don Carlos or any other person ought to be detained, and deprived of liberty, without even the form or pretence of a trial. Whatever might be said of France or of England, it was generally admitted that they treated fugitives with hospitality. Now, Don Carlos had a right to expect at the hands of France a free and honourable residence; he was unaccused and unsuspected of any hostility against France or any unfriendly feeling towards the reigning dynasty of that country. Was he to be told that Don Carlos had been prejudged by the quadruple alliance? He knew not whether that opinion were now entertained by persons in high authority, but he found that in the year 1837, Lord Aberdeen used these words in the House of Lords:— His noble Friend had very justly and correctly said, that when those two princes had returned from the Peninsula the object of the treaty had been accomplished; the designs and wishes of the contracting parties to that treaty were fully satisfied. He was aware that additional articles had been entered into; but from an extract which he held in his hand, it was evident, that the same high authority, Lord Aberdeen, did not consider that those additional articles did in any respect contravene the other parts of the treaty. That noble Earl said— From the preamble—from the additional articles themselves, nothing could be more apparent than that the expulsion of the two princes from the Peninsula was the real object which the contracting parties had in view. This was in the year 1837; but after the termination of the war in 1840, Lord Aberdeen again denied the permanence of the treaty, and Lord Melbourne who might be supposed to be a good authority on the subject, said that— This country was unquestionably bound to give her assistance to Spain as long as any of the hostilities arising out of the attempt by Don Carlos, to dethrone the Queen continued to exist. Beyond that the treaty did not bind the Government of England to any interference in the affairs of Spain. This was the only just construction of the quadruple alliance, and, in his opinion, any other would be a most lax construction. But now anarchy prevailed at Madrid; and the two political gamblers who had made. Spain the stake for which they played, had nothing to fear from the unfortunate captive at Bourges; he should like to know what spectacles would enable a man so to read the treaty as to derive from it any justification for the imprisonment of Don Carlos. Could anything be said on the score of precedent? He was not about to say that unfortunate princes should not, under some circumstances, be detained in custody. The case of Don Carlos and that of Charles Edward were in many respects similar. Then, as now, there was a quadruple alliance. France was the generous soil on which the royal fugitive took refuge. England then, as Spain does now, demanded that the unfortunate prince should not be allowed to disturb her domestic peace. But what did England do at the period to which he was referring? Did she insist, as Spain does at present, that the French King should become a gaoler? In compliance with the treaty of Aix-la-Chappelle, Louis Quatorze desired that Prince Charles Edward should quit the country. In former times there was some difficulty in making a fugitive quit the soil of France. In future there would be great difficulty in inducing any one to enter it. In those days the indignant population covered the walls with sham proclamations and pasquinades, some of them setting forth that there was an order from George King of England and France to Louis Bourbon, his viceroy, commanding him to seize and to tie, if necessary, the person of Charles Edward Stuart, and to conduct him out of the kingdom of France. If the detention of Don Carlos were not justified upon principle, what consideration of expediency could excuse it? Of what cause was Don Carlos the exponent? It was the cause of order, of religion, and legitimacy; the principles opposed to him were those of anarchy and revolution. The results of anarchical and revolutionary principle had left in ruins the ancient church and monarchy of Spain. Those alone were opposed to him, and looked with satisfaction on his imprisonment, who sympathised with the Canadian rebel, the Polish Refugee, the democrat, and the Chartist, who saw nothing to admire or respect in the character of a Spanish prince and a Christian cavalier, and who saw nothing worth cherishing in those feelings of loyalty and religion on which the institutions of the country depended. He had endeavoured to state to the House what he conscientiously felt upon the subject; and he would implore her Majesty's Government to do all that in them lay to remove that blot which the unjust imprisonment of Don Carlos impressed upon the escutcheon of all the parties concerned in it. It was not Don Carlos who had any cause to blush at his treatment. Stone walls do not a prison make, "Nor iron bars a cage; "Minds innocent and quiet take "That for an hermitage. Let them remember the disgrace which attached to all unjust deeds; and although some temporary end might be gained, that disgrace attached to the oppressor, not to the oppressed. He had performed a duty, and so long as the unjust captivity was continued he would omit no opportunity of protesting against the detention of Don Carlos.

Viscount Palmerston

said, he was not now going to enter upon the question of the Quadruple Treaty, which had been sufficiently discussed in its time, and on which he had frequently expressed his opinions. Nor was he now disposed to enlarge on the present situation of Spain, which he admitted was a disagreeable topic. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, in his statement of what had passed on the original detention of Don Carlos. The Governments of England and France were agreed at the time that it would not be expedient to permit Don Carlos to return to Spain. So far, therefore, as the motion of the hon. Gentleman was intended to show that the British Government took a part in the detention of Don Carlos, he was quite ready on the part of the late Government to admit the fact. With regard to what had been said of the character and conduct of Don Carlos, he thought he was not called on to discuss the merits or demerits of that prince; still he thought it right to call on the House to bear in mind the facts that preceded that Prince's detention. When Don Carlos took shelter in Portugal from the pursuit of a Spanish army, it was by British interposition that he was saved—it was to British interference that he owed, perhaps, his life, and certainly his escape from a captivity and treatment far more severe than any he had experienced in France. Now, there was certainly a distinct understanding, when this interference had taken place, that, in coming to England, Don Carlos would not take advantage of his position here to return to Spain, and rekindle the flames of civil war in that country. By returning to Spain, in defiance of that understanding, Don Carlos was certainly virtually guilty of a breach of faith. The object of the present motion seemed to me to show the expediency of calling on the British Government to urge that of France to allow Don Carlos now to return to Spain. It was difficult to imagine any motive for such a course, unless it be to suppose that in the scramble that was now going on there for power, those who thought well of Don Carlos and his cause, were anxious that their favourite should have a fair start with the rest. Almost every element of confusion was already at work in Spain, and certainly her Majesty's Government would not act a becoming part in yielding to the suggestion, to add the presence of Don Carlos to the other causes of mischief. In adverting to what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Dr. Bowring), he would only say, that his hon. Friend was very much mistaken in supposing that her Majesty's late Government had ever counselled Spain to adopt this or that form of Government. His hon. Friend said, that forms of Government very suitable to England and France might be very uncongenial to the local and historical associations of Spain, and ought not to be forced by us upon the acceptance of the Spanish people. Now, the fact was, that England had never attempted to force Spain to adopt any institution. What the late Government had endeavoured to do, and what they had succeeded in doing, was to secure for the Spanish people an opportunity of choosing for themselves the institutions under which they wished to live. At one time, the Spaniards preferred the Estatuto Real; at another time they preferred the constitution of 1837. On each occasion, the change that occurred was strictly a Spanish proceeding, and the British Government had not thought it any part of their duty to interfere. Their only policy had been to prevent that interference which might have enabled Don Carlos, supported as he was by aid from without, to prevent the people of Spain from receiving those institutions under which it was their evident wish to live. He did not see that the papers now moved for would, if produced, do more than establish the fact that the late Government were concerned in the detention of Don Carlos. That fact was not denied, and he therefore agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the production of the papers would not answer any good object.

The original question agreed to.