QUESTION. (Hansard, 6 June 1861)

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
Sir, I wish, before the House goes into Committee, to address to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have given him private notice in writing. I think it, in the first place, due to myself to say that I had no wish to intrude on the attention of the House in the early part of the evening—[previous to the postponement of the Orders of the Day]—and that n rising then I simply desired to give the noble Lord intimation that it was my desire to suit his convenience in drawing attention to the subject to which I am about to advert. The Speaker, however, having, in the courteous discharge of the duties of his office, called me to order, I at once 677 gave way, and, though I am reluctant now again to trespass on the time of the House, yet I am quite sure hon. Members will perceive, from the contents of a letter which, with their permission, I will read to them, that the question to which it relates is one deserving of serious consideration, affecting, as it does, not one, but 700 of our fellow-countrymen in a foreign land. The inquiry which I have to address to the noble Lord is, What steps, in consequence of a pledge which was given some nights ago by the Prime Minister, have been taken by Her Majesty's Government with reference to the religious persecutions to which British merchants, 700 in number, resident in the South of Spain, are subjected, notwithstanding the assurances that indulgence would be extended towards them which have been received by the noble Lord from the Spanish Minister? I wish also to learn whether the noble Lord has any objection to lay on the table copies of any Correspondence on the subject which may have passed between the English Government, their agents in Spain, and the Spanish authorities? Now, it will be in the recollection of the House that I put a question about three weeks ago to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Foreign Secretary, with regard to the outrages which have been committed with the official connivance of Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Xerez, against a number of British subjects resident within the official district of the Consulate of Cadiz. The noble Lord at the head of the Government gave upon that occasion an explanation of that satisfactory nature to be expected from the frankness of his character; but I received a letter only yesterday from the South of Spain, on behalf of a numerous body of merchants, informing me of facts of which I was not before aware. We were told by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the 17th of April last, that the Spanish Minister had given assurance that every indulgence would be extended to the British merchants and families resident in the south of the Peninsula; but I did not then know that which I can now affirm, that those merchants were in possession of direct and positive authority from the British Minister at Madrid, to hold the services of the Church of England in their own houses in that part of Spain. It appears, however, that, in direct violation of the sanction thus given, this privilege has been withdrawn, and I feel assured I do not ap- 678 peal in vain to the House of Commons when I ask them whether the fact that 700 of their fellow-countrymen are forbidden, not only in the Consul's house, but in their own private residences, to pursue the exercise of that religion which is the faith of the country to which they belong, is not one which calls for some expression of opinion on their part? The information which I have received shows, I regret to say, that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has not acted up to the assurances which were given us by the Prime Minister, because, up to the 27th ult., no proceedings had been taken on this subject by our Minister at Madrid or the Consul at Cadiz, so far as I am informed from credible sources, in consequence of any despatch received by them from the Foreign Office. I will now, if the House will allow, read the letter to which I have alluded, which has not been got up for the purpose, of creating a fictitious sympathy, but which comes from an honest English merchant, representing a large number of his fellow-countrymen. The letter is as follows:— Xerez do la Frontera, May 27. Up to the present Mr. Brackenbury has received no communications either from the Foreign Office or from the British Legation at Madrid as regards this case; and, consequently, he does not feel himself justified, as I learnt from an interview I had with Mr. Brackenbury yesterday, in referring to the British Government the whole case as it stands. It may be interesting for you to know that by the late census we have under our Consul's district (Mr. Brackenbury's) no less than 700 British subjects—namely, 400 males and 300 females—all of whom are deprived of the services of our Church. A large number of these are families of engineers, with young families, among whom our late curate had commenced a steady and useful work, by devoting three days in each week to visiting them and teaching the young children. Were Mr. Vice-Consul Gordon to allow us protection of our flag, all might go well. In this hope I address you. Now, it is, I contend, rather too bad of the noble Lord, who can exert himself actively enough in party and political squabbles, to neglect in this respect the duties of the office which he is charged to administer. Those merchants whose cause I am pleading are surely entitled to some respect, and the noble Lord must be aware that the reports, as well from our Minister at Madrid as from our Consuls in other parts of Spain, clearly prove that a system of persecution is carried on in that country to an intolerable degree, not against Spaniards only—of them I will say nothing now—but against our own fellow-subjects, who expect to be supported by the British 679 Government in the enjoyment of those privileges which they are unquestionably entitled to exercise. In finding fault with Vice-Consul Gordon, I am happy to be able to say that he is an exception to the general practice pursued by our representatives in Spain. For example, our Vice Consul at Seville is a Roman Catholic.: Nevertheless, his drawing-room is open to British residents in that city—and there is a large glass factory there in which numbers of Englishmen are employed—for the purposes of Divine service. Another of our Consuls has actually fitted up a chapel for the celebration of the services of the English Church. Yet, notwithstanding these examples, Vice Consul Gordon forbids our fellow-countrymen within his jurisdiction not only to enter his house but to exercise the rites of their religion under the British flag. This is a case, Sir, which it clearly becomes the House of Commons carefully to consider. I do not mean to trespass upon the time of lion. Members now by entering into further details with respect to it, but I would ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he would seriously direct his attention to a matter which these merchants whose cause I am advocating declare to be of vital importance to them—namely, that facilities for holding Divine service on the Sabbath should be afforded them—a privilege, with an earnestness with which we must all sympathize, they maintain to be of as much importance as the free exercise of civil rights. I trust the noble. Lord way be able to give us some assurance that the severity which has hitherto been resorted to in the case of those gentlemen is likely to be abated, and that the promises' of greater indulgence in their regard given by the Spanish Minister may be carried into effect.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
The hon. Baronet has come down to the House, and, without any notice to me that he was about to make such a charge as the present—

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
I wrote to the noble Lord.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
In the evening, after I came into the House.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
The noble Lord was not in his place yesterday or the day before.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
That is true, but the usual mode of proceeding is to give notice in the Votes. The course, however, which the hon. Baronet took was 680 to inform me about five o'clock this evening that he intended to introduce to the notice of the House the question of the persecution of the Protestants in Spain, giving no intimation of his intention to bring the charge against mo that, my noble Friend at the head of the Government having given a pledge that certain matters should be inquired into and certain grievances as far as possible redressed, I entirely neglected to do anything towards redeeming that pledge.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
I beg the noble Lord's pardon—

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
That was the hon. Baronet's statement.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
I beg the noble Lord's pardon. What I said was this, that the communication to which I referred was written to me from Cadiz on the 27th of May; that the writer stated he had, on the previous day, seen Consul Bracken-bury, who informed him that up to that time he had received no communication on the subject from either the British Minister in London or the British Legation in Madrid; and, therefore, I think I was justified in saying that the noble Lord had not paid that attention to the matter which I was led to believe he would have given to it.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
I have no doubt that when the gentleman wrote the letter he thought Mr. Consul Brackenbury had not received a communication; but the hon. Baronet is hardly entitled to say that I entirely neglected the matter. The fact is that, my noble Friend having informed me what had passed in the House, I examined and considered the papers relating to the subject, and immediately took steps to remedy the evil complained of. Those steps were taken a very few days after the hon. Baronet had put his question. It is quite true, as the lion. Baronet has stated, that Mr. Gordon, our Vice Consul, had acted quite unjustifiably, because though, being a Roman Catholic, he would not allow his house to be used for Protestant worship, yet when the British merchants and inhabitants pointed out another person, a British merchant, as being willing to give up his house for that purpose, Mr. Gordon said that that proceeding would be against the law of Spain—that Protestant worship was only permitted in Spain under the flag and in the house of the Consul or Vice Consul, and that he could not be a party to such an infraction of the lair as was suggested. I make 681 some allowance for Mr. Gordon saying that he did not choose to have Protestant worship in his own house, but then I think he was bound to give every facility for the performance of Protestant worship elsewhere. Sir Andrew Buchanan, when this letter came to his knowledge, suggested to Mr. Brackenbury that it would be well, as Vice Consul Gordon felt bound by his conscience not to allow Protestant worship in his house, for him to point out some other person who would act as vice consul without having the same scruples in respect to the service of the Church of England. That letter was written some months ago, but Vice Consul Gordon did not offer any resignation of his position. What I did after reading the correspondence was this—I wrote to Mr. Brackenbury, desiring him to point out some fitting person to act as Vice Consul at Xercz, and I ordered that proper communications should be prepared in order that an exequatur might be obtained from the Spanish Government for the person so appointed. It is quite true that a short time elapsed before this was done, for owing to a multiplicity of business the matter escaped my notice; and, therefore, it is quite possible that Mr. Brackenbury might not have received it up to the 27th ult. But as soon ns I receive from Mr. Brackenbury the name of a fit person to act as Vice Consul at Cadiz I shall immediately apply for an exequatur for him. I think this but fair, because, considering the circumstances in which not only Protestant but Roman Catholic vice consuls have allowed Protestant worship to take place, there appears to be some peculiar hostility to the celebration of Protestant service on the part of Mr. Gordon. With regard to what has been taking place of late years in Spain, Sir Andrew Buchanan, who has been some time in Spain, does not share in the opinion expressed by the hon. Baronet. Sir Andrew Buchanan says that, so far as the Spanish Government are concerned, they do not wish to execute the law in a manner at all oppressive and injurious to British merchants; and he mentions as an instance, that when Lord Howden was at Madrid, that noble Lord wrote word that in consequence of the exertions of my noble Friend near me (Viscount Palmerston) who was then Secretary of State he had obtained permission for the formation of a cemetery at Madrid, where Protestants might be buried; but it was cautiously provided that there should be no procession, and that the clergyman 682 should not wear his surplice or other ecclesiastical habit; whereas, shortly after his: appointment as Envoy, there took place at Madrid the funeral of a Protestant, followed by a procession of a great number of persons who had known the deceased, and a Protestant clergyman, wearing his surplice, performed the funeral service; and this, Sir Andrew Buchanan thinks would not have been allowed several years ago. I will not enter further upon the general question, but when I receive a letter from Consul Brackenbury, and the Correspondence is complete, I will produce the papers, and the hon. Baronet will then be able to judge of the case from a knowledge of all that has passed.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
I do not mean in any way to cast any imputation upon the noble Lord, but I wish to point out that as it takes only five days to communicate with Cadiz, and four weeks have elapsed since the answer of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) was given, I thought upon the receipt of this letter of the 27th May that the noble Lord might in the hurry and flurry of political discussions have forgotten the subject. But I wish to make this further observation—perhaps by way of explanation—with respect to the statement of the noble Lord, that in Lord Howden's time there was a certain amount of liberty of conscience allowed to Protestants, that since that time laws have been passed abolishing all that took place in Lord Howden's time.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
What I said was that Sir Andrew Buchanan had stated that, whereas in Lord Howden's time certain things were not permitted by Spanish law and by the Spanish Government, some of these things were now permitted.