HC Deb 27 February 1844 vol 73 cc370-85

"Names of the Officers made prisoners in the action of Elda, and who have been shot this day;—

  1. " '1. Brevet Lieutenant Colonel (Captain) Don Ildefonso Basalio, lately on half-pay.
  2. " '2. Major Don Jose Mena, lately on half-pay.
  3. " '3. Brevet Captain (Lieutenant) Don Luis Gil, lately on half-pay.
  4. " '4. Brevet Major (Lieutenant) Don Pio Perez Villapadierna, from the Carabineros.
  5. " '5. Brevet Lieutenant (Ensign) Don Juan Gomez Algarra, from the Carabineros.
  6. " '6. Brevet Lieutenant (Ensign) Don Luis Molina, from the Carabineros.
  7. " '7. Brevet Lieutenant (Ensign) Don Juan Gomez Algarra, from the Carabineros.


" 'Head-quarters of Villafranquesa, Feb. 14, 1844.

"We learn here to day (but not from any official source), that Boné has commenced reprisals in a spirit of emulation which threatens to outdo the efforts of Roncali and Narvaez, that he has caused fourteen of his prisoners (including Senor Ceruti, uncle of Roncali) to be shot in retaliation! Another report says, that the Archbishop of Seville (the Rev. Cienfugos Jovellanos) has been executed in revenge by the Insurgents at Carthagena!"

That was civilised, tranquillised Spain! as it was left by the noble Lord (Palmerston). For all purposes of peace and tranquillity, Spain was, in point of fact, blotted out of the map of Europe. And was it because human nature in that country was different from that in other countries? No; it was because institutions had been forced on the people which they did not understand, and a Monarch placed over them whom they did not acknowledge. He could shew, if it were necessary, that Don Carlos was the undoubted Sovereign of Spain by the fundamental constitution of the country; and that the Act which set the Salique law aside was passed by a Cortes called in the reign of Isabella. When the hon. and Gallant Officer stated that Don Carlos was absent from Spain without leave, he stated that which was not the fact. Don Carlos had leave to go to Portugal, and he obtained it from Ferdinand the VIIth., under circumstances which did him the greatest honour. These were the circumstances:—Maria Christina was naturally anxious that her daughter should inherit the Spanish Crown, and, through her intrigues, the question of female succession was mooted in the Privy Council. Don Carlos, as a Member of the Privy Council, said he would not be present when the question was agitated, and he asked permission to proceed to Portugal, which was readily granted, in order that he might not be guilty of the indelicacy of giving his advice in a matter which so nearly concerned his own interests. This was worthy of the character which had been given to Don Carlos by the noble Member for Newark, when he said that he was the exemplar of a Christian cavalier. Well, then, Don Carlos believing himself to be the legitimate heir to the Throne of Spain, being called to occupy that Throne by a large party of the people, and being supported by a vast majority of the people, acceded to that call; and if they disputed that majority, why, he asked, had they thought it necessary to send out so large a force to the assistance of his opponents? The noble Lord opposite had said, last year, that England had only interfered to prevent the Foreign Powers from forcing on the Spanish people institutions to which they were averse; and he agreed with the noble Lord that these were the obligations which rested upon England in this matter; but he maintained that those obligations had been violated; and that they had interfered to force upon the Spanish people an authority and institutions disagreeable to them; and now, forsooth, Don Carlos was to be kept a prisoner in France, because he would introduce into Spain another element of discord. Now, he would ask, was it possible to suppose any country more vexed by civil discord than Spain was at the present moment. If Don Carlos had returned to Spain and re-asserted his rights, could that country have been in a more frightful state of intestine commotion than at present? And as to the three exiles—Christina, Espartero, and Don Carlos—what right had they to make the difference which they did? The noble Lord had said that Espartero was de jure Regent of Spain, because he belonged to the de facto constitution of that country. But here was the Sovereign of Espartero, the de jure Sovereign of de jure Constitution of Spain, detained a prisoner in France, whilst Espartero was fêted at Windsor. Moreover, they had sent back Christina to agitate Spain—she who was the beginning, and the middle and the end of all the intrigues in which this civil discord had arisen. They might rest satisfied that nothing would tranquillise Spain but a system of government which would satisfy the Spanish people themselves. Any Monarch, to be popular, must be a Spanish Monarch. Isabella might be an English Monarch, a French Monarch, a Portuguese Monarch, or a Quadruple Alliance Monarch; but there was not a single man living on the soil of Spain who acknowledged that Queen with a hearty loyalty. But then, Spain must have liberal institutions. Why, she was the cradle of Liberalism in Europe; she showed them the way to Liberal Institutions. The Basque provinces, at the time of the war, had Representatives in Parliament, and every man twenty-five years of age had a vote; and they taxed themselves 50 per cent. on their incomes to support the cause of Don Carlos. Englishmen might dislike the Spanish Inquisition of olden times; the Spaniards might dislike the English Star Chamber; but was it because they disliked their Inquisition that they should prevent the Spanish nation from having the Monarch of their own choice. The right hon. Baronet who had answered the noble Member for Newark, had said that this was a question exclusively for France; and had quoted from the speech of the Foreign Minister of France a passage to the effect that Don Carlos was detained under a certain domestic law of France; he admitted that Don Carlos was treated as all refugees were under that law; that law specified the manner in which refugees were to be treated, whilst they were refugees, but it did not sanction their detention contrary to the Law of Nations: and the broad basis on which this Motion was founded was the Law of Nations. He, therefore, could not hesitate, whether he regarded the character of Don Carlos, his rights, or the interests of Spain—he could not hesitate to support the Motion of his noble Friend. He entertained no doubt that if Don Carlos returned to Spain, a large party would rally round him; and that that party instead of introducing those cruelties which had been alluded to, would be a powerful instrument in putting them down. They had been taunted with the idea that in a general scramble they might get something, but he should be ashamed of himself if, having received the greatest kindness from that illustrious Prince, when he was engaged in a contest not doubtful except for the intrigues of his opponents—he were now to shrink from defending him in his difficulties. But not the interests of Don Carlos—not the interests of Spain—but the interests of Europe depended materially on the adoption of the spirit of the present Motion. He trusted that the time would come when a broad and generous policy, formerly the policy of this country in regard to Foreign States, could be readopted; when friendship with France would no longer imply sympathy with any particular faction in France: when friendship in Spain would no longer imply the support of every succeeding faction which might arise in that country; when our sympathies with Spain would be Spanish and not factious sympathies; and here he could not help regretting the language M. Guizot had used on the famous Report on the Address, when he said, in alluding to the visit of our Queen to France, that that visit had stamped the approbation of her Government on the present policy of France. He trusted that England would have nothing to do with French policy or French revolutions; that she would love France as France, Spain as Spain, separate and distinct from the different factions which might arise in those countries; and if, even at the eleventh hour, England would withdraw that meddling policy which had caused so much evil, he believed that Spain, left to herself, would work out her own redemption—would soon stand on a higher and firmer basis, and lend her aid to advance the general civilization of Europe; and in the hope that England would do that, he gave his cordial support to the Motion.

Sir H. Douglas

However much I admire the generous feelings which have prompted my noble Friend, the Member for Newark, to bring forward this subject, I cannot give my support or vote in favour of a Motion which would urge or impose upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of interfering with the French Government, in the course which they have adopted with respect to the detention of Don Carlos, in conformity, as it appears, with their own laws, and their own views of policy; but this I will say, that the object of the French Government in thus preventing Don Carlos from asserting, in person, his own rights, in any way he may think fit, far from producing the effect which the French Government appear to have in view, operates most powerfully the other way; for, whatever be the strength or the numbers of Don Carlos's adherents, their influence is vastly increased by the sympathy which is always superadded to the assertion of rights, by such acts of injustice as the adherents of Don Carlos consider his forcible detention in France to be. I rather regret this Motion too, because I disapprove of any interference whatever with Spanish affairs, prepared as I am to show, that the fearful state of anarchy which now prevails in Spain, has already been complicated and protracted by foreign interference, and that troubles in Spain will never cease until the Spanish people, apart from all foreign interference, settle their affairs in their own way. Persons who view recent events in Spain, in the abstract, must consider them enigmatical, and inexplicable, but when traced to their source, and viewed in that unceasing series of disorders, which have occurred in connected succession, from what he (Sir H. Douglas) would show, was the original cause of all these troubles, we see in the present state of Spain, a phasis in that unsettled orbit which all nations are doomed to take, in the frightful course of revolutionary movement, when once thrown into that course, by such violent errors and proceedings as those which have been committed throughout, by the Reformers and Demagogues of Spain, and by such mischievous interferences as those which have complicated and protracted that anarchy. The original error was, unquestionably, the Democratic constitution of 1812, framed at Cadiz, by persons who were not constitutionally authorised or competent to do this, and at the time that city was besieged by the French, and very nearly the whole of Spain occupied by the armies of that country—a constitution which virtually deposed the King, violated all the objects which produced the memorable insurrection of the Spanish people against foreign intervention and innovation in 1808—a constitution which plundered the Church, disgusted the Nobility, and was execrated at the time by the great mass of the Spanish people. The foreign interferences to which I would allude, as having complicated and protracted that anarchy, which had its origin in that most ill-advised constitution (very similar to the French Constitution of 1791, and not dissimilar in its tremendous effects), those interferences to which I allude, are, first, the intervention of France in 1823, and then the far more mischievous interferences of the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, between April, 1834, and the termination of the Administration to which that noble Lord belonged. When Ferdinand VII. was restored to his country, by the successful termination of the Peninsular War, in 1814, finding all ranks, classes and conditions of people, dissatisfied and disgusted with the Constitution of 1812, he refused to acknowledge the competency of that act, and to swear to it accordingly. It remained a dead letter till 1820, when the first military pronunciemento of which there have since been about thirty, took place by the mutiny or defection of the Spanish army, then assembled at Cadiz for embarkation to America, to endeavour to re-conquer the allegiance of the Spanish colonies. This example was speedily followed in other parts of Spain, and so it was in other parts of Europe, and Ferdinand was forced, by the Army, to swear to the Constitution of 1812. The people, whose objects were against such sweeping innovation, took fire, as they had done in 1808, and in 1812. Their determination was to maintain their monarchy, their religion, and their ancient local laws and privileges, most particularly their municipal institutions. Civil war ensued between the bulk of the Spanish people and the army: it raged till 1823, when Louis XVIII. determined to send a French army into Spain, to restore order, and to put down military despotism. The Government of Great Britain used every endeavour to deter Louis XVIII. from this intervention; but not succeeding, there arose a very prevailing feeling in this country, to send a British army to the Peninsula to assist the people in driving the French out as before. On that occasion he (Sir H. Douglas) hazarded a prediction, that the French army, whose officers and soldiers had been massacred by thousands, when found straggling from their own columns, would make a march of triumph over the whole of Spain, without being scathed or touched; and, if right in that prediction, he could not be wrong in venturing another, that if we did send a British army to Spain, to oppose the French, we should be the party opposed and massacred by the Spanish people. This, at first, appeared enigmatical; but the prediction as to the reception of the French army, proved correct. He (Sir H. Douglas) endeavoured, at the time, to account for this. Had it not been for French intervention, the parties then conflicting in Spain, the serviles and liberales would have worked out the issue to some settlement, and there can be no doubt that some compromise would have been made, which would have produced a constitutional system, by which rational freedom, the rights of the Church, the privileges of the Aristocracy, the municipal establishments, and the just prerogatives of the Crown, would have been duly conciliated. The French army remained in Spain for several years, during which perfect tranquillity prevailed. In December 1829, Ferdinand married Christina of Naples, his fourth wife, Isabella was born on the 10th of October, 1830. The French Revolution stirred up the embers of disorder and Revolution in Spain, as well as elsewhere, and troubles recommenced. Ferdinand having no son, and being in declining health, began in 1832, to entertain intentions, or at least to yield to solicitations, to alter the Law of Succession in favour of his daughter Isabella, to the exclusion of his brothers, the heirs male of Charles IV., failing from Ferdinand, and accordingly promulgated, in September, 1832, a declaration that he had thought proper to abrogate the Law which settled the Succession in the male line, in conformity with an alleged petition, or memorial of the Cortes of 1789, which document, if authentic and competent, had remained an entire secret till this time. Queen Christina's sister, Donna Carlotta, the wife of Don Francisco Paulo, Ferdinand's brother, prevailed upon him to revoke this declaration. But poor weak Ferdinand, on the instigation of Christina, again revoked the revocation, and died on the 29th September 1833. Now here commenced the disputed succession, which led to the Carlist War. That question is not settled; it is only suspended by foreign intervention, and has yet to be determined by the Spanish people. He (Sir H. Douglas) had looked as fully as he could into all the arguments and merits of this question. He may have formed his own opinion upon it, but no opinion is, or can be, of any avail, none can be decisive, but the free will of the Spanish people. On the one hand, we have the last will of Charles II., (for there were several other wills) which led to the War of Succession, the great object of which was, the independence of the Spanish Monarchy by the settlement of the succession in the heirs male of Philip V., according to the act known as l'auto accordato, of May, 1713, a Decree settled with every solemnity, formality, and competency. For this all the privileged cities, towns, and communities of Spain, were called upon to nominate, and send to Madrid Delegates duly authorized to take into consideration, and decide that most important question, it was settled in favour of Philip V. and his heirs male, and inscribed accordingly in the Code of Law. If the memorial of the Cortes of 1789 had any existence at all, which is very much doubted, it was at best nothing more than an intention, entertained by Charles IV., Ferdinand's father, at the time he, Ferdinand, was a sickly infant, to make an alteration in the Law of Succession in favour of his, Ferdinand's, sister, La Carlotta, in the event of the decease of Ferdinand, then Prince of the Asturias, and of which there then appeared the greatest probability. But Ferdinand survived; and this memorial, if real, which I repeat, is very much doubted, remained but the annotation of an intention which was now made known, of the completion of which, no record is to be found, and the declared object of doing which was annulled by Ferdinand surviving. The Constitution of 1812 takes no notice of it; but, on the contrary, affirms and decrees the succession to be in the heirs male of Philip V.; and yet Zea Bermudez, in his memorial, dated Berlin, February, 1839, calls Ferdinand's death the extinction of the masculine race, although his brothers were then living! It does appear to me, that the claims of these competitors to the Throne being thus fairly before their country, they should have been left to the assertion of their own rights, and the Spanish people, to determine which competitor should wear the Crown or by what compact or compromise to settle it. He (Sir H. Douglas) did think that the greatest mistake the noble Lord had ever made was to throw the judgment of England into the scale, by advising the recognition of Isabella. There is no doubt that the independence of the Spanish Monarchy is of vast importance to the tranquillity of Europe, but the way to provide for that great object, was to refrain from any intervention, which would practically destroy that independence, nor did he (Sir H. Douglas) think that, in the present circumstances of Spain, the independence of the Spanish Monarchy is less provided for by the abrogation of the law of Philip V.; but the noble Lord thought otherwise. The Foreign Enlistment Bill was repealed, and the Quadruple Treaty concluded. One would have thought that England and France, as parties to this compact, should have contracted equal obligations for the common object. But, no; France engaged only to prevent succours of men, arms, or munitions of war, from being carried into Spain; whilst Great Britain engaged, not only to do this, but, moreover, to furnish any succours and munitions of war, which the Queen Regent pourra reclamer, and to assist her with a naval and marine force, if she should deem it necessary. And what has not this cost? Thus commenced the Carlist War; continued till 1838, when the contest was suspended by the Convention of Bergara, brought about by the intervention of England, by moral, political, and physical force, but which contest has only been adjourned, as we shall see. A series of the most frightful and complicated disorders now ensued, in lieu of the noble Lord's expectations and assumptions that he had settled the affairs of Spain. Sir, in the course of this sad history may be numbered three constitutions, and about thirty military insurrections; forming altogether a chaos of anarchy, endangering the very existence of Monarchy in Spain, and which has not yet run its terrible and ever-destined course. In May, 1834, the Constitution called L'Estatuto Reale, or Royal Statute, drawn up by Martinez de la Rosas, was disclosed. It consisted of two Estamentos, or Estates, the Proceres, or Peers, and Procuradores, or Deputies. It was some improvement upon the Constitution of 1812, but still a code full of imperfections, the greatest of which was, and that proved fatal to it, the extraordinary melange, in the composition of the Proceres, which was not a Chamber of Peers, but formed of Ministers, Ambassadors, Generals, Judges, landed proprietors, merchants, and manufacturers; and which, by Article 31, reserved entirely to the Sovereign, the initiative in the enactment of laws. This Constitution had but a short existence. The troops under Lieutenant Cordero, pronounced against it in 1835; the Captain General Carvalala was murdered, and the Constitution of 1812 again proclaimed. Then came the pronunciemento against Torenos' Administration, by the troops, which had been sent to quell some disorders, joining the insurgents. This insurrection was appeased by the retirement of Torenos, and Mendizabel's Administration succeeded. The new Cortes was opened by Queen Christina, who, instead of assembling the legislative body in the Upper House was compelled to deliver her speech in the Chamber of Procuradores, or Deputies, decreed thenceforward to enjoy that superiority and privilege. Now came a sweeping plunder, robbery, and persecution of the Church. All Prebendaries, Canonries, and other Ecclesiastical bodies, not connected with the cure of souls, were abolished, and their revenues confiscated to the State. It passed a Decree authorizing the immediate sale of all Church, Monastic, or other property, that might fall into the hands of the State, the tythes had long previously been abolished. Mendizabel's Adminis- tration was overthrown in May, 1836, by French intrigue; and Isturitz, a respectable Cadiz merchant, thought to be in the interest of France, succeeded. Then came the well known pronunciemento of La Granja, headed by a Serjeant Garcia, who forced his way into the Queen Regent's apartments, and obliged her to swear to the Constitution of 1812. Then the disorders in Madrid, and the murder of the Captain General Quesada. In August, 1836, Calatrava's Administration succeeded, and we have another Constitution, in 1839, which still more disgusted all those classes, orders, communities, and interests, that ought to have been conciliated. The upper Branch, decreed by that code, is not a Chamber of Peers; it is an elective Chamber, amounting in number to three-fifths the number of Deputies, chosen by the Sovereign, it is true, but the selection is made from a list of persons elected by the electors of the Deputies, one-third of the Senate going out by rotation annually. This is merely transforming into a branch of the legislature the democratic conformation of the Constitution of 1812, of the Consejo D'Estato. A power of Convocation is indeed given to the Sovereign, but this is so far nugatory, that the Cortes, if not convoked, meets on the 1st of December, of every year; but it cannot deliberate unless a majority of Members be present. The Constitution of 1837 is, at this moment, in a state of infraction, in an organic Article (56) which decrees the Royal minority to extend to the completion of fourteen years of age, which has not yet been abrogated by competent authority, but only set aside by an arbitrary act. Then we come to the general rising against the law of the Ayuntamientos, by which Queen Christina intended greatly to circumscribe, if not to abolish all municipal rights, and to centralize them in Madrid, by which, together with her private conduct, she lost entirely the confidence of the Spanish people. Christina applied to General Espartero, for military aid, to put down the insurrection of September, 1840, against the promulgation of the law vesting in the Crown the nomination of alcaldes, and other municipal officers. He declined to do this, upon which Queen Christina abdicated the Regency; and Espartero became sole Regent. Sir, the attachment of the Spanish people to their Municipal privileges has ever been the main spring of their action throughout their history, front the earliest periods of the Spanish Monarchy. Those Institutions formed the foundation and the bulwark of civil liberty, of which there was an earlier promise in Spain, than in any other country. It was the attachment of Spanish people to their Provincial and Municipal privileges, the full enjoyment of which the villages and rural districts of Spain retained, pretty nearly, according to the old principle of popular election, though very much circumscribed in the great cities and towns, it was the attachment of the Spanish people to these institutions, and their devotion to their religion, that produced the memorable Insurrection of 1808; and it is a remarkable circumstance that a main cause of the combined attachment of the Spanish people to Ferdinand VII, was, that he, by a special decree, admitted a certain number of members to the Ayuntamientos or Municipal Councils, by free election to restore to them that popular freedom of which they had been deprived in former reigns. Now appears prominently on the stage, Don Ramon Narvaez. He was first in the Infantry of the Guards, served with great distinction under Espartero in the Carlist war, particularly at Ostabane in 1836: he was then sent in pursuit of the Carlist General, Gomez, who, after having made a military promenade all over Spain, was routed by Narvaez at Villazobledo. Espartero then became jealous of Narvaez; they quarrelled, and Narvaez was placed on half-pay, and retired to Osuna. In 1838 he joined with Cordova in a conspiracy to overthrow the administration, which having failed, Narvaez fled first to Gibraltar, and then by England to France. Concha, another leader in these military pronunciementos, was one of the officers most favoured by Espartero; but having taken no part in the events of 1840, to force Queen Christina to abdicate, be and O'Donnell were placed in retraite; and were prevailed upon by Don Diego Leon, to join in the conspiracy of October, 1841, the one to attack the Palace, to carry off the young Queen, the other to raise the Basque Provinces to revolt. Roncali, another actor in the present scene, fell into disgrace with Espartero, for having defended Don Diego before the court-martial, by which he was tried and condemned. Roncali is supposed to be a natural son of Conde D'Espana, and of Carlist principles, though he always remained faithful, whilst serving in the Guards. He (Sir H. Douglas) might show in another detail the complications and conflictions of rival parties and persons; but, perhaps he had said enough to support his opinion and advice. After some other minor pronunciementos, and many disorders—after many other pronunciementos and disorders, came the late insurrection of 1843 against Espartero and the formation of the Lopez administration. The dread of the arbitrary decree for remodelling the Law of the Ayuntamientos, was at the bottom of all this. The troops in Valencia having pronounced against the Regent, he determined to proceed, in person, with a large force, to suppress that defection. As soon as Narvaez heard of this insurrection, he left Paris, where he had been in close consultation with Queen Christina, and was conveyed in a French steamer to Valencia, where he placed himself at the head of the insurrectionary troops. Espartero left Madrid with a large and select force. Admitting fully the bravery of the late Regent of Spain, evinced in the Carlist war, and for which by the noble Lord's recommendation, he had been invested with the Order of the Bath, it did not now appear that the political and military talents of that person were equal to what was required of him at this most critical period. The corps d'armé which he commanded, made a rapid march to Albaceyte; but there came to a halt, apparently irresolute and paralyzed. It remained there for a considerable time, whilst defection was spreading around; neither prosecuting the movement on Valencia, nor returning to Madrid, which he ought not to have quitted, and where the presence of the Regent was most essentially requisite. This corps then threw itself, by a cross country path into the great southern road, and there waiting again for some time, retired without striking a blow, to Baylen and then to Andujar, and thus gave up the contest. This lost the Regent the confidence of the Spanish armies, and led immediately to his downfall, and to the anarchy which necessarily ensued—a minor Queen, deprived of the presence and authority of the sole Regent of her Kingdom with no other means of providing for the royal authority than the alternative of either forming another Regency, whilst that which had been decreed, still existed; or to get rid of that difficulty, by declaring the Queen of age, in direct violation of an Organic Article of the Constitution of 1837. Here we may form some conception, of the anarchy that now reigns through Spain. Liberales, and Serviles; Constitutionalists of three parties; Carlists, Chris- tino's, Isabellists, Monarchists, Republicans, Democrats, Progresistas, Independentes, Affrancesados, Inglesses, Fuerists, Centralists, and then the ambition of rival chiefs. The young Queen, a minor, and, as it may be feared, under all these terrible circumstances, Monarchy at the last gasp. These are the sad and fearful fruits of the noble Lord's policy, and however painful it may be for Her Majesty's Government, to stand by, and see the anarchy which may yet ensue, in that unfortunate country, he (Sir H. Douglas) implored Ministers to meddle not with it. The Spaniards area fine and a noble people, attached to their country, their monarchy their ancient institutions, their national faith, and above all, abhorrent of foreign intervention. Let us always remember the noble insurrection of that people in 1808, when the upper classes had submitted, and Napoleon had, by a series of the most flagitious acts insinuated his army into every fortress and chief city in Spain. Let us never forget that it was that memorable insurrection, which, supported by Great Britain, afforded her a fair and noble field, upon which she fought for, and to her own renown, achieved the emancipation of the world, from the tyranny of Napoleon. Let us be persuaded that if left to themselves, the Spanish people will, in the end, prove their attachment to their Monarchy their Church and their Law, by bringing this contest to a conclusion, which will conciliate the just rights and prerogatives of all interests and classes, without reverting to those abuses and imperfections which, most certainly, no one can wish to see re-established; and that out of the present disorder, a system will be instituted best suited to the peculiar circumstances, habits, principles, and wants of the Spanish people, although it may not be such as those who have long been accustomed to the enjoyment of free institutions would altogether approve.

Mr. Trelawny

said, the party of Young England had shown a great deal of misplaced sympathy for Don Carlos. He wished they would show a little more for the people of Ireland and of this country. The hon. Member for Evesham said he had been in Spain. From the tenor of his speech it might be imagined that Christina had taken Young England captive.

Mr. Borthwick

wished to explain to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that though he (Mr. Borthwick) had been in Spain during a portion of the war having gone there expressly to ascertain what were the real facts of the cruelties reported—yet he never had the misfortune of being captured by the Christinos, and, therefore, had never an opportunity of experiencing their liberality. A certain school, designated "Young England," had obtained some notoriety, but there was another school of youths—the young Bœotians—who were very talkative in that House.

Mr. Monckton Milnes

wished to make a few observations on this important foreign question. He should explain in a few words the grounds on which he should vote. After the speech of the hon. Member for Bridport, if anything could have induced him to vote for the Government, it would have been that speech. The accusation against the King of the French was that he had not been faithful to the Quadruple Alliance, but had permitted arms for Spain to pass through France, and had shown favour to Don Carlos. He thought the detention of Don Carlos rather meritorious than otherwise. He did not think that his liberation would make things worse. The marriage of the Prince of Asturias with the Queen of that country was the only thing that could quiet Spain. So far as he could see into the matter, which he owned in truth was very little, after what had taken place it was the duty of the Powers of Europe to ally themselves together for the pacification of that country. He believed that would be best done by the marriage of the son of Don Carlos with the present Queen of Spain. He should vote with his noble Friend.

Mr. M. Gore

thought, that all the practicable purposes of the Motion would be sufficiently served, and the cause of humanity vindicated, by the expression of sentiments which the question had evoked, without pressing for a division. The influence of those sentiments would not be confined within the walls of that House—they would be felt in every part of Europe, and he had no doubt the voice of Europe would be in unison with the feelings of the English Parliament. He thought, with all deference to hon. Gentlemen who had taken another course, that it would be better for the sake of Spain, and the interests of the world at large, if, instead of indulging in a course of conduct calculated to exasperate party animosity, we did all we could to consider Spain as one ce- mented, one united country. He hoped she would soon take that post which she ought to occupy among the community of European States. Having vindicated the general conduct of Don Carlos the hon. Member said he was sure that a British House of Commons, which was ever ready to sympathise with and admire triumphant virtue, would not withhold its sympathy and admiration from Don Carlos because he was stricken by misfortune. Looking at the subject in a practical point of view, and considering the expression of sympathy which had fallen from the head of Her Majesty's Government, he thought Don Carlos's case could not be in a better situation, and hoped the noble Lord would withdraw his Motion, which was calculated to cause great inconvenience.

Lord J. Manners,

in replying, said it had been asserted that this was purely a French question, but in his opinion, the whole course of events proved that England was implicated in the transactions in Spain. He had heard nothing in the course of the debate to alter the conviction he had always entertained that Don Carlos was the popular candidate for the Spanish Throne. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) said the present Queen was decidedly popular in Spain, but he must give his positive denial to that assertion. If the Queen were a decidedly popular candidate he would ask the House where was the necessity for all the outrages and underhand interference of which they had heard? He contended that it was foreign interference, and foreign interference alone, which finally put down the Carlist cause in Spain. His own personal feeling on this subject would lead him to divide the House, even if he knew that there were only two for the Motion; but, after what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman that preceded him, and the opinions that had been expressed by other Members, he should not feel justified in dividing the House on the Motion. Having thanked the House for the attention they had given the subject, his Lordship concluded by expressing his conviction, that, before long, justice would be done towards Don Carlos.

Motion negatived.