AFFAIR AT TERCEIRA.

HL Deb 23 March 1830 vol 23 cc737-80

The Marquis of Clanricarde

said, that in rising to introduce the Motion on which he had given notice, he felt how inadequate his powers were, to bring it forward in that manner which its importance deserved; perceiving, however, the vast consequences of the principle involved in the course of policy to which he objected, and fearful, if passed over in silence, that what had been done at Terceira should be drawn into a precedent, he thought he should be guilty of a dereliction of his duty if he did not bring it under their Lordships' consideration. The papers which had been laid before the House by the noble Secretary opposite, did not contain, in his opinion, information as ample as the House had a right to expect on this important subject. There was one document in particular, the absence of which he regretted,—he meant the protest of Count Saldanha, against the attack made on the vessels sailing to Terceira, by Captain Walpole,—because he knew that the principle for which he contended was there very fully and very ably laid down. There was, however, in the documents before the House sufficient information on the affair to warrant him in bringing it under the consideration of their Lordships. Before he proceeded further, he would read the Resolutions which he intended to submit for the adoption of their Lordships. The noble Lord then read the following Resolutions, That prior to the 12th of December, 1828, her Majesty the Queen, Donna Maria 2nd, had been recognized by his Majesty, and the other great Powers of Europe, to be the legitimate Queen of Portugal; and that at the period above-named the said Queen was residing in this country, and had been received by his Majesty with the accustomed honours of her royal rank. That on the said 12th of December, the Island of Terceira, part of the dominions of the Queen of Portugal, was governed by authorities civil and military in allegiance to her majesty. That on the said 12th of December, instructions were given by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, stating that a considerable number of Portuguese soldiers and other foreigners were about to sail in transports from Plymouth to Falmouth, and it is supposed they intend making an attack on Terceira or other of the Western Isles, and his Majesty having been pleased to command that a Naval force should be immediately despatched to interrupt any such attempt, you are hereby required and directed to take the ship and sloop named in the margin under your command, and to proceed with all practicable expedition to Terceira, and having ascertained that you have succeeded in reaching that Island before the transports above alluded to, you will remain yourself at Angra or Praia, or cruising close to the Island in the most advisable position for interrupting any vessels arriving off it; and you will detach the other ships as you shall deem best for preventing the aforesaid force from reaching any of the other Islands. That on the arrival of the Naval force sent to Terceira, in pursnance of the instructions, the commanding officer found that Island in the possession of, and governed by, the authorities above mentioned. That in the beginning of January, 1829, a number of Portuguese subjects or soldiers of her said Majesty, voluntarily left this country with a view of repairing to the said Island, and that their departure and destination were known to her Majesty's Government, that they appear to have embarked and sailed in unarmed merchant ships, to have been unaccompanied by any naval force, and themselves without any arms or ammunition of war. That these unarmed merchant ships and passengers were prevented by his Majesty's naval forces, sent for the purpose, from entering the harbour of Porto Praia; and that after they had been fired into, and blood had been spilled, they were compelled, under the threat of the further use of force, again to proceed to sea, and warned to 'quit the neighbourhood of Terceira, and the rest of the Azores, but that they might proceed wherever else they might think proper.' That the use of force in intercepting these unarmed vessels, and preventing them from anchoring and landing their passengers in the harbour of Porto Praia, was a violation of the sovereignty of that state to which the Island of Terceira belonged; and that the further interference to 'compel these merchant ships or transports to quit the neighbourhood of the Azores,' was an assumption of jurisdiction upon the high seas, neither justified by the necessity of the case, nor sanctioned by the general law of nations. Their Lordships would see that he did not enter into the policy of the course pursued by his Majesty's Government towards Don Miguel. Whatever that policy was, it would make no alteration in the arguments which he should submit to them. The avowed policy of Ministers was that of strict neutrality with respect to the contending parties in Portugal. Be that policy good or bad, when the neutrality was once declared it ought to have been acted upon; but he would contend, that in the conduct pursued towards the unarmed Portuguese endeavouring to land at Terceira, there was a violent breach of that neutrality which was avowed, and also an infraction of the law of nations, greatly aggravated by the previous declaration of neutrality. He now begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the circumstances under which the Portuguese, who had acknowledged the title of Donna Maria, had been driven from their country, and had sought refuge in this. Their Lordships would recollect that, after the defeat at Oporto, a considerable number of Portuguese subjects sought and obtained an asylum in this country. In doing so they subjected themselves to no restrictions, but remained as free as before they came here, to listen to the voice of duty, when it called them to take arms in behalf of their lawful sovereign. After they had obtained a temporary asylum here, intelligence arrived that Terceira adhered faithfully to Donna Maria. They wished to proceed thither, and having understood that Don Miguel was preparing an expedition against Terceira, they sought a convoy to escort them to that part of the Portuguese dominions in which the authority of their Queen was recognized. That application was refused. He did not blame that refusal; but he should wish that their Lordships would attend to the reply given by the noble Duke to the Marquis of Barbacena, which was to the effect, that if the Portuguese wished to make war at the Azores, they must depart from this country and go there as private individuals. This was what they wished; but from this they were prevented by Ministers. They were afterwards dispersed from Plymouth, where they had been collected together. This was, he thought, an unwarrantable exercise of power. He contended, that the subjects of a sovereign whose title was sanctioned, recognized, and all but guaranteed, by this country, had a right to come here, and had a right to depart hence, to any part of their sovereign's dominions without any molestation. He did not blame Ministers for not having guaranteed those Portuguese a safe passage to the Azores; but while the negotiations on that point were pending, it was known that Don Miguel's expedition to Terceira had failed. The waters of the Azores were then free, and all that the Portuguese here desired was, an opportunity of departing thither, as the noble Duke had at first advised and admitted their right to do. An application to this effect was made by the Marquis Palmella to Ministers, he at the same time assuring them that these men would go off unarmed, in small detachments. They hired unarmed vessels, they had neither arms nor ammunition, and the number of men was not greater than the number of men who usually go in one emigrant vessel to Canada, or about 600. Now, he wished to know how could these men be more fully divested of a hostile character, being without arms and ammunition? They sailed, but an order was given to the commander of our ships to prevent their landing at Terceira. One of the vessels was fired into, and murder actually committed, for it was murder, at least manslaughter, which no law could justify. These men formed a part of no invading army; they were merely subjects going home to their fellow-subjects, alike loyal to their sovereign. He knew it was said by the noble Foreign Secretary on 18th of February last, that this expedition bore a hostile character; being composed chiefly of Germans and Danes, who were engaged for the purpose of hostility. He must, however, put his private information on the matter in opposition to the noble Secretary's statement. There was, he believed, one vessel going to Brazil which had some Germans and Danes on board, and that vessel might have intended to touch at Terceira; but it had nothing to do with the four other vessels which sailed from Plymouth for Terceira, and which had no Danes or Germans on board as passengers. But the vessel with the Germans and Danes, moreover, did not sail at the same time with the expedition ["Hear hear," from the Duke of Welton.] He understood the meaning of the noble Duke's cheer; but was the noble Duke so used to arms that he could not imagine an expedition to be anything save a hostile armament? Without dwelling, however, on that point, he must contend that there was no law to justify our interference: there was no writer on the law of nations in whose works there was any pas- sage to justify such conduct. He would not prove this assertion by lengthened extracts; but would merely quote one short one from Vattel, in order to show that in the observance of strict neutrality we could not interfere with the subjects of other countries in the way which had been done on this occasion. The passage from Vattel, which he would quote, was from the 7th Chapter Book iii., and was as follows: It is not possible, then, without injustice, to enter its territory in arms to pursue and capture a guilty person. Such an act affects the safety of a state, and is injurious to the rights of sovereignty or supreme authority, which belong to monarchs. This is what is termed a violation of territory, and nothing is more generally recognized among nations than this, as an injury that should be repelled with vigour by any state that will not submit to oppression. It might perhaps be said, that the sea about the Azores was not the territory of the Queen of Portugal, even if her authority were recognized there; but on this subject he would quote from Bynkershoek the following passages:— Nulla siquidem sit ratio, cur mare, quod in alicujus imperio est et potcstate minus ejusdem esse dicamus, quam possum in ejus territorio." "Non oportet in mari, allerius principis continenti proximo, leges dare, sed accipere, quum ibi sumus subditi, non seats ac in ejusdem territorio." According to that authority, the waters about Terceira were as much under the dominion of the young Queen of Portugal as the island itself. But had it been otherwise, had Terceira been in the possession, of Don Miguel, he would then beg to know what ground there was for supposing that four unarmed vessels, conveying a number of men, who he believed had not even side arms, and certainly had none of the munitions of war, intended an attack upon the island of Terceira?—an island which had, on several occasions, resisted formidable forces brought against it by the Spaniards. It was not for the first time that Terceira was distinguished for its loyalty and valour. It was attacked by the Spaniards in the years 1581, 1582, and 1583 without success. He mentioned these circumstances in order to shew that it was absurd, as he had stated, to imagine that that island could be taken by an unarmed force. But it had been said that a civil war was going on at the time in the Azores, and that those men went out to assist in it. In answer to the assertion he would ask, Why not? Why should those men be prevented if such were their object? The noble Duke had himself, in his first letter to the Marquis de Barbacena, given them his permission, and said they might go out as individuals if they so pleased. But to revert to what had been said by the noble Foreign Secretary as to the Danish and German troops. He had very different information on the subject from an officer in the service of Donna Maria, who was on board, and who declared that the passengers were all Portuguese, with the exception of four Spanish officers, who had been in the service of Portugal, and who were then going out to join the troops. He would now come to the question whether a fraud had been committed by the Brazilian minister in the application made to this Government to be allowed to export arms. The allegation was, that an application was made in the first instance, to send a certain quantity of arms to Terceira. That was refused; and then application was made, and permission granted, to send them to the Brazils; but they were shipped off to Terceira. Now, if the Brazilian minister had acted in this way, it would be a good ground of imputation of want of good faith. But what had this to do with the question of the interference with the Portuguese troops? Let their Lordships however look at the state of the law at the time this application was made. Was there any law which prevented the exportation of arms direct to Terceira? He was aware of none; nor was he aware of any Order of Council prohibiting such exportation of arms. More than this, it had been stated in another place, that at the very time the noble Earl was attaching this condition to a permission for exporting arms, the Portuguese Government was actually purchasing arms in this country, and exporting them for its own use. Why should this, then, have been allowed to the one party, and refused to the other? Again, suppose that arms ought not to have been exported straight to Terceira, what right had the Ministers to prevent the exportation of arms to the Brazils? And, if they had no right to prevent this, what necessity was there for the permission? However, be this as it might, still the unfortunate Portuguese had nothing to do with the pretended fraud, and ought not to have been punished for it. There were other points of law,—such as the false clearances, and so forth, which were minor points of municipal law, and which he would not argue. There was a legal remedy for the violation of such laws, but it was not a legal remedy to follow people on the high seas and fire into their vessels. He contended that in this transaction the Government had committed an infraction of the law of nations, and he trusted therefore that their Lordships would concur in the opinions which he had embodied in his resolutions. The Government had not done this in a hasty moment, or, if it had, Ministers had at least thought proper to defend and to attempt to justify their conduct. Nothing, however, could be more futile than their attempt. They had resorted to a despicable sort of special pleading to justify their conduct, which was far more worthy of a pettifogging lawyer, than of the Ministers of a great nation. They seemed to act on the principle of Achilles. Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis. He trusted, however, that their Lordships would mark the sense they entertained of such conduct by voting in favour of his resolutions. They must remember that by not censuring such conduct, they made it their own. The opportunity was offered to them of retrieving the glory of the country, sacrificed by the Ministers, and they would become parties to the guilt if they did not reprobate and condemn the proceedings of Ministers. In the last Session of Parliament, their Lordships had been told that negotiations were on foot by which it was hoped the Government would be able to reconcile the differences existing between the members of the House of Braganza. The next thing they heard upon the subject was this gross case of the affair at Terceira,—this assault upon one of the very parties whose differences they had been told the Government was endeavouring to reconcile. In the present Session they had been told that all hopes of effecting such a reconciliation were at an end. But to this infraction of the law of nations their Lordships were now made a party, and it became the dignity of that House to rouse themselves and to disclaim all participation in the act. Nay, unless their Lordships strongly reprobated such a transaction, it would become a precedent which might in future times be turned against ourselves, and materially affect the interests of the country. One of the principles acted on most perseveringly and most consistently through many ages by every successive British ministry, was to cultivate a good understanding with Por- tugal, and to take care that the influence of this country at the Court of Lisbon should be superior to, and preponderate over, that of France. At this time in particular this duty ought not to be lost sight of, for it was reported that France had undertaken the task, in which we had failed, of reconciling the differences that existed in the House of Braganza. Were we to be second only in such an affair? Were we to endeavour to attain the object we ought to have most at heart, through the mediation of a Bourbon? By such a course we were enabling France to regain her influence in Portugal, while our own, which was already shaken, would be entirely lost. He trusted that their Lordships at least would not become a party to such policy, but that they would show to Europe, that they were not so lost to all sense of justice as to sanction a flagrant and uncalled-for violation of the law of nations, and that they were not so inattentive to the interest of the nation as to abandon the advantages which this country must always derive from a strict alliance with Portugal. He had only now to invite their Lordships to a concurrence in the Resolutions he had proposed.

The Resolutions having been put by the Lord Chancellor,

The Earl of Aberdeen

said, that although their Lordships had been three or four times already called upon to discuss this question, yet he felt perfectly well satisfied that the noble Lord had thought proper to bring it once more under their consideration; for he was well convinced that the more the subject was examined and understood, the greater would be the certainty of their Lordships giving their sanction to the course which his Majesty's Ministers had adopted. The noble Lord had proposed a series of resolutions which, as he had heard them that night for the first time, it could not be supposed that he was prepared to discuss minutely. Some truth there doubtless was in the narrative contained in the noble Lord's resolutions; but it was dashed with circumstances well calculated to give any one who read it a very erroneous notion of the transaction. The subject was indeed highly important; but their Lordships should view it candidly and dispassionately: it was even a subject, he would say, on which their Lordships should rather distrust first impressions; and moreover, the character of the trans- action depended altogether on its being viewed as a whole, from its commencement to its conclusion. The importance of thus viewing this transaction, — of viewing it as a whole,—imposed upon him the necessity of troubling their Lordships with a narrative of the facts that were connected with it. But first of all let him allude to the position in which this country stood with respect to Portugal, at the time this transaction took place. That position was one of strict neutrality. Whether the choice of that position was right or wrong had nothing to do with the present question. It might have been right,—it might have been wrong, but he had not heard it objected to in that House; and the noble Lord who proposed these resolutions had said, that he would not enter into the discussion of that point. It might have been right to have supported the legitimate sovereign of Portugal; but that course had not been contended for in that House. He knew, indeed, that it had been stated out of the House; and he must say, he thought it would have been only fair to have raised the point in the House, where it might have been met in argument, and the opinions of their Lordships taken upon it; it had been stated out of the House, that the Government ought to have supported the claims of the legitimate government of Portugal. Again, on the other hand, it might have been right to accede to the almost unanimous opinion of Portugal, and acknowledge the prince whom the Portuguese had chosen as their king. Neither of these courses, however, had been adopted; the course adopted was that of strict neutrality, and all he claimed from their Lordships, on the present occasion, was to agree with him that, such a course having been adopted, it was necessary that it should be faithfully observed. For of all the systems that might have been adopted, that which alone was perfectly indefensible was, to lay down a course of neutrality in the first instance, and afterwards to interpret that course according to our opinions, our feelings, or our interests. Having declared then that the course resolved upon by the Government was one of strict neutrality, and that it was necessary to maintain that course faithfully, he would proceed shortly to recapitulate the circumstances of this transaction. After the defeat at Oporto,— or he should rather say, after the flight from Oporto, for where there had been no engagement there could be no defeat,— after the flight from Oporto, the fugitives betook themselves to Spain. At this point it was, that the good offices of this country in their favour were first interposed. The Spanish government ordered them to quit Spain within a month; but by the interference of the British Government the period of their stay in Spain was prolonged, and facilities were given towards their embarkation. Application was then made to this country for transports to convey these troops hither. This our Government could not consent to; but it promised, that if the troops came here, they should be hospitably received, and that accommodation should be provided for them for a time. The troops arrived here about the end of August; and here followed, he must say, the first and the only error of which the Ministers had been guilty. The Government ought, perhaps, to have insisted upon the immediate dispersion of these troops. But when their Lordships considered the deplorable condition in which the men were, and the promise which was made that they should shortly be carried to Brazil, he was sure their Lordships would consider that it was no very extravagant stretch of humanity in the Government to act as it did. The troops, on arriving hero, declined the accommodation which was offered them at Plymouth and at Portsmouth, and they preferred remaining together at Plymouth, where they formed what they called a depot,—where they were disciplined, officered, and, in fact, exhibited every appearance that belonged to a military force. Indeed, it was not denied that they were a military force, and nothing else. In the month of October the Marquis of Barbacena informed the noble Duke (Wellington) near him, in a letter, that he intended to despatch a portion of these troops (for so the Marquis termed them) to the Azores. In order to form a correct judgment of the subsequent transactions, the condition of the Azores at that time must not be lost sight of. Every one of the islands was under Don Miguel, excepting only the island of Terceira, and the condition of that island, but of that island alone, was doubtful. It was doubtful in this way:—the population was in favour of Don Miguel, but the garrison of the fortress, disarming the inhabitants, established the government of Don Pedro, or of Donna Maria,—he did not know which, nor did they, as he believed. The inhabitants, however, were universally in favour of Don Miguel, as were the inhabitants of all the other islands. Such was the state of the island at the time to which he alluded, and such, he believed, was the state of the island at present. This being the condition of Terceira, his noble friend thought, and very properly thought, that it was his duty to tell the Marquis of Barbacena that he could recognise no foreign troops in this country, and that if there were any such, they must instantly disperse, adding, at the same time, that they could not be permitted to go in hostility to any part of the Portuguese dominions. This decision of the noble Duke was hot acquiesced in. At the end of November, it was intimated by the Government that these troops must disperse and distribute themselves in the neighbouring towns; and their chiefs were given to understand that their union at Plymouth was inconsistent with the neutral character which his Majesty had assumed. This led to a discussion, the history of which their Lordships held in their hands. It would be sufficient for him to say, that at last it was fixed that the troops should go to the Brazils; but changing their determination, they found means, by false clearances, to take their departure, and they set sail for Terceira. The continuance of these troops for several months, at Plymouth, armed and disciplined, was the part of the transaction in which he regarded the Ministers as most blame able, for allowing it was manifestly a breach of our neutral character. The noble Lord (the Marquis of Clanricarde) had alluded to an authority which he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had quoted on a former occasion, and had considered it as an authority in favour of his own view of this subject. The passage he had quoted related to the. retreat of an enemy into a neighbouring country; and it had laid down the maxim, that if such neighbouring power, instead of making such enemy march beyond its frontiers, suffered them to remain in his country, to recover and watch an opportunity of making a new attack, then the power which had discomfited and put to flight this enemy, would have a right to enter and pursue this enemy in the country of the neighbouring power which harboured them. Now this passage perfectly described the state of the Portuguese troops in this country. The strict letter of it, he admitted, described the passage of troops through a country: but if the troops could not pass through the territory—if it were impossible for them to pass through it,— the authority clearly showed that the least which could be required in such a case was, that the troops should be dispersed. The manner, then, in which the Portuguese troops had been allowed to remain at Plymouth was, he repeated, a manifest breach of neutrality on our part. Don Miguel might have demanded that they should be dispersed, and, if this demand had not been complied with, Don Miguel might have followed them into the port of Plymouth, and destroyed them there. The law of nations would have justified Don Miguel in this course, and it was, perhaps, only his inability that prevented him from resorting to it. As to the character and the conduct of Don Miguel,—as to whether Don Miguel had put himself in such a condition that he could not lay claim to be treated as a neutral,—this had nothing to do with the present question. This might have been a reason why we should not have promised neutrality, but after we had made the promise, it could be no reason, no justification for our breaking it. The course which the Ministers had pursued had been adopted by them because they thought it their duty to adopt it, and they had done so without any reference to Don Miguel. Now as to this expedition to Terceira, it was quite clear that it was a hostile expedition. The noble Lord had said, that it was an expedition to the territory of their Queen, and that therefore there could be nothing of hostility in it. But, in the first place, he contended that it could make no difference whether the expedition was intended for attack or for defence, because it was equally at variance with the laws of neutrality: and because, judged by these laws, a seasonable supply of troops for the defence of a besieged fortress was just as much an act of hostility as any other act could be. Neither did it matter, he should contend, in whose possession the spot happened to be at that time. He looked upon Terceira just as he should look upon Oporto; they were equally parts of the Portuguese territory, and towards that territory it was, that we had declared neutrality. Then, again, as to these troops sailing for Terceira unarmed, that could not in the least degree alter the character of the expedition. Owing to that fraud to which the noble Lord had alluded, on the part of a Brazilian agent, arms had preceded these troops to the island, and the Government were acquainted with the fact that the arms had been sent thither. Still, however, the fact of these men sailing without arms did not alter the character of the expedition; but when the Government knew that arms had been sent to Terceira, that fact undoubtedly made them suspect that the troops were destined for the same island. Long before these troops left Plymouth, their chiefs had been informed that our Government entertained these suspicions, and they were told that we had a fleet at Terceira, and that they would be prevented from landing there if they should venture to make the attempt. It was unfairly colouring this transaction, then, to say that we had followed unarmed men and cruelly fired upon them. With these many and repeated warnings they ought to have expected what would follow, if, in the face of them, they should attempt a landing at Terceira. And since it could not, he apprehended, be doubted that we had a right to disperse these troops on their arrival in England, and that, moreover, we had a right to prevent their departure from this country on a hostile expedition to any part of the Portuguese territory, the only question was, whether we had a right to prevent them from doing that by fraud which it was our duty to prevent them from doing openly. If we had allowed them to do this, we should indeed have acted in violation of the law of nations. He contended, that we were fully justified in doing that which, if we had not done, it would have exposed his Majesty to a just cause for war; and although from the state of the power which would have had a right to declare war against us, there was no actual danger of war, yet the sincerity of his Majesty might have been justly questioned. Such an occurrence it was at all times more desirable, more necessary, for a leading monarch to avoid, than it was for him to shun any danger that war might threaten. The noble Lord who so strongly objected to the course which the Government had taken, appeared to have forgotten that there were other periods of our history at which the same principle had been acted upon. Let him call that noble Lord's attention to one very recent instance. In 1826, when the constitution, which had raised so much commotion in Portugal, was brought into that country, a body of Portuguese fled to Spain, and afterwards threatened to return. Now, it was not pretended that any Spaniard had entered, or was about to enter Portugal, yet the Portuguese refugees had received aid and comfort from Spain, which enabled them to return. The Court of Spain denied that they were parties to the expedition of their refugees, and said that their authority had not sanctioned any part of the proceedings. We, however, gave no credit to the Court of Spain, and in the same way Don Miguel might have distrusted our professions of neutrality, if our conduct had resembled that of the Court of Spain. Well, on the occasion to which he was alluding, we sent a British force to resist the attack of the refugees, as though they had been a foreign force hostile to Portugal; and we obtained, moreover, from the Court of Spain the dispersion and the removal of the refugees into the interior of the country. Now this was a case precisely in point, and it would have given Don Miguel a light to remonstrate, and to insist upon our adopting the same line of conduct which we had required from Spain. According, therefore, to the plain sense and justice of this case, and considering the neutral character of his Majesty, the Ministers could not have acted otherwise than they had acted. What the noble Lord had said about the position of this country with respect to Portugal, and the negotiations of France, was altogether founded on misapprehension. The noble Lord was, he assured him, quite mistaken. The noble Lord might rest perfectly satisfied that we were not second in any proceeding of this kind; but that, on the contrary, the whole had originated with, and had been arranged by, this country. It might be true that in the course Ministers had adopted they had displeased both parties, in the disputes with respect to the Portuguese succession; but if that were true, he was not sure that it was not a proof of the strictness of their neutrality, and of the complete impartiality of their proceedings. The noble Lord, who thought that we had acted favourably towards the one party, might be assured that that party was by no means of that opinion; and though the noble Lord might think our conduct had benefitted that party, the party himself was far from thinking so. With respect to the resolutions proposed by the noble Lord, though they embodied a narrative which was in many respects correct, yet as the object of them was to pronounce a censure which was, in his opinion, most undeserved, upon the conduct of Government in regard to this transaction, he should feel it his duty to oppose them.

The Earl of Radnor

said, that he had been listening very attentively to the speech of the noble Secretary, in order to obtain some information on this subject, but that he found that speech to be no answer at all to the points that had been brought forward by the noble Lord near him. The noble secretary's speech had been an account of what had been done, but of nothing else. The reception of the Portuguese troops at Plymouth he admitted to have been a breach of neutrality, but was that any justification of the other breach of neutrality which had been committed by following them upon the high seas, and preventing them from landing at Terceira? Certainly not; unless it was meant to be argued that as the Government had broken the neutrality on the one side, it was a proof of their impartiality to break it on the other. No answer, he contended, had been given to the arguments of the noble Lord near him on that part of the case. The noble Secretary could not mean to say that the misdeeds of the Marquis Itabayana, who had committed the fraud, were to be visited on the heads of these unfortunate refugees. That fraud might have justified remonstrance to the Court of Brazil, but it ought not to have regulated the conduct of Government with regard to the refugees. Again, as to the false clearances: that transaction might have been very wrong, and might have justified our stopping the troops in our own ports, but it did not give us a right to pursue them across the Atlantic, and then fire into their ships. Then the noble Secretary attempted to justify the conduct of Government, by alluding to the transaction of 1826. Those Portuguese, however, were deserters; they left Portugal and retired to Spain, without arms; but they returned with arms, and with the actual support of Spain. But supposing the two cases to have been similar and parallel, would Spain, upon that occasion, have been justified in following the Portuguese refugees into Portugal, and there knocking them upon the head? He apprehended not: and yet the case was not a case in point, as the noble Secretary had called it, unless the parallel could be pursued throughout. The noble Earl slated, that it appeared doubtful in whose possession Terceira actually was; but it was stated in the correspondence of the Marquis of Palmella, that it had never yielded obedience as he stated to the usurper Don Miguel, but had preserved its allegiance to Donna Maria, and it claimed in that respect the merit of having resisted the government of the usurper, and of not having violated the oaths it had taken to the august father of Don Pedro. The same nobleman said, that the Island of Terceira had remained the subject of Donna Maria, that is to say, it had remained in the same political situation in which it was immediately preceding the revolt in Portugal. From both these statements it was clear that Terceira was not in the possession of Don Miguel. But it was said that the refugees had no right to go there for purposes of defence; but be could not understand that. The noble Duke had stated that they might go to Portugal or the Azores, or where they pleased, and they very naturally inferred that they might go where they pleased, for whatever purpose they liked, provided it were loyal and honest. He did expect, that for the sake of the honour of the country, he should have heard some satisfactory explanation from the noble Secretary with respect to the transaction in question, and in answer to the speech of the noble Marquis.

The Marquis of Clanricarde

said, that he had at least the consolation, should his motion be negatived, of knowing that it was so on grounds which could not be generally satisfactory. The noble Earl had alluded to the case of neutrality only, and that in a very incomplete manner. As for the possession of Terceira, it was clear that the government of that island was in the hands of Donna Maria, and was exercised in her name. The comparison drawn by the noble Earl between this case and Spain did not hold good; for it was a fair ground of war against Spain, that she harboured Portuguese deserters and sent them back armed to annoy Portugal. On that occasion we interfered to preserve the peace of Europe. We were bound to protect Portugal, which we did, against Spain. He should certainly take the sense of the House on his Motion, and if it were negatived, he should enter his protest against the proceeding.

Lord Holland

should not have ventured to trouble the House with any observations on the subject, but after the manner in which it had been treated, he could not allow it to go to a vote without expressing his surprise at the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers. When this unfortunate and painful subject first came before the House, the Government appeared to be panting and longing for an opportunity to give an explanation of the whole of their conduct; yet now, neither in the speech of the noble Earl, nor in the defence put before the House, on which the Government rested its case, was one word said directly or indirectly on that branch of the subject which formed the principal ground of the Motion of his noble friend below him. It had been the custom when the affairs of Portugal were introduced in that House, to elude the question, by professing an unbounded love of peace, a strict and austere adherence to the terms of our conventions with other countries, and a most unbounded respect for the opinion of the people in them. In had been found, for instance, in the present case, that in the unanimous opinion of the people of Portugal (by what magic the noble Earl had taken the exact poll of the people of Portugal it was hard to say), the Government of Don Miguel was preferred to the charter accorded by Don Pedro. The noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government sometimes shewed that he understood the tactics of debate as well as he did those of the field. He had spoken on these questions several times, and although he had said little to elucidate the subject referred to, he had obtained one great advantage, he had contrived to impress the public with the belief that those who found fault with his Majesty's Government were in fact doing nothing more than urging an unnecessary interference in the affairs of another country, and prompting this Government to impose by its will upon another people a Government which they disliked. He would notice that part of the subject more particularly before he sat down. But with respect to those professions to which he had before alluded, he could not help saying, that when they were made he could not think the noble Duke stood forward with all the advantages which sincerity in his professions was calculated to confer on a Speaker. He could not compliment the noble Duke upon his prodigious anxiety for the will of the people. He knew not where the noble Duke had learnt it— whether in India or on the plains of Waterloo; and he must confess that it did not come with a very good grace on the present occasion from the lips of the noble Duke. The noble Earl who had spoken already was wrong in supposing that he was charged with any pusillanimous love of peace—on the contrary, the charge was, that he had shown a love for a pusillanimous war—not any squeamish dread of interference, but interference where even less than squeamishness ought to have stopped him—not any extravagant love of popular liberty and of the will of the people, but that he had been guilty of a violent outrage on the people of a country most nearly and dearly connected with Great Britain. Let them look at the detail of facts as laid before that House. In the first place, what had been said by the noble Secretary of State was true— that the question must be considered as a whole. He had no objection so to consider it, provided he was not obliged to cut it up as it was cut up in the minds of the noble Lords opposite, and provided the objections to the parts of the transaction were taken separately, and perfectly understood. He did not then object to other parts of the conduct of Government towards Portugal: he did not include in this Motion the treatment of Donna Maria, and the infraction of the rights of her sovereignty;—he might object to these transactions as unkind and unfortunate, but he did not charge them as actual crimes and offences against the law of nations. It was necessary indeed to consider our relations with the individuals and countries interested, and we ought to trace the whole progress of our proceedings with respect to Portugal from cold-hearted indifference towards the constitutionalists, through the various gradations and successive changes of suspicion, jealousy, contumely, ill-temper, up to injury, outrage, oppression, and acts of positive war. And this was what he charged the Ministers with. Who were the persons attacked and ill-treated? They were the subjects of a country most nearly and dearly allied to Great Britain,—persons who held to their allegiance towards a youthful princess whom we ourselves had received and recognized as the legitimate ruler of Portugal, and whom his Majesty, with that generosity which invariably distinguished him, had received with marks of more than common consideration and distinction upon the soil of Great Britain. But to return. Those individuals attempted at Oporto once more to raise the standard of Donna Maria, and failed in the attempt. When forced to look around for an asylum in which they might expect hospitality and protection, they naturally turned their eyes to Great Britain, a country closely allied to their native land, and, as they thought, favourable to the cause of the queen and of the constitution. Could they have anticipated the possibility of such a reception as they had, unfortunately and disgracefully for the character of this country, received at our hands? Could they have imagined that every advantage would have been bestowed upon others, none upon them? Could they have feared that we should have looked with a narrow scrutiny, with searching and jealous eyes, upon their faults or errors, and make these (no matter whether real or imaginary) the wretched pretence of injury and oppression? On their arrival in England, the first observation with which they were met was one applied to them by the noble Secretary of State (then recently appointed, and therefore in all probability not possessed at the time of that sort and extent of knowledge with regard to these individuals which a Minister of the Crown in this country ought to possess),—the noble Lord declared in his place in Parliament his firm opinion that the supporters of Don Miguel were the real friends of Great Britain. Could there be anything more galling for any man who had sacrificed everything to what he considered the real advantage of his country, and as part of that advantage to her close connection with this, than to find on his arrival here, that his enemies and persecutors were deemed the real friends of Portugal and of Great Britain; and that he and his friends were placed among the number of their enemies? He believed this was a hasty and inconsiderate, if not an accidental, assertion on the part of the noble Earl, but he must always regret it as a most unfortunate and unfounded one. He had in his pocket a list of the names of four-and-twenty or thirty of these brave and noble men, and there were individuals not less distinguished for rank, wealth, and talent, than for the unflinching manner in which they had adhered to their principles. Among them were names deservedly dear to many of their Lordships —names always distinguished for endeavouring to maintain inviolate the connexion between Portugal and Great Britain. He should not enumerate them all; but he might be excused for mentioning the name of the Marquis of Palmella, who was a coadjutor of the noble Duke (Wellington) and of those who in concert with him had adjusted the condition of Europe at the conclusion of the war—who had sat in councils and congresses with the noble Duke, and whose character must therefore be well known to him, as it was to most of their Lordships. The Marquis of Palmella had been admitted as a representative of his country at the general congress, where, by the splendor of his talents, by his conciliatory character, by his address, by his zeal in the service of his country, and by the disposition which he manifested to cement the union between England and Portugal, he placed himself upon a level with the first diplomatists of the day, and entitled himself to our lasting gratitude. Another of those individuals was Count Funchal, who, though labouring under the pressure of undeserved misfortune, enlivened by his agreeable talents every society of which he made a part. He spoke of this gentleman from the knowledge which an acquaintance of many years had afforded, and could say, that in him the strongest feelings of patriotism and of honour were united with the most sincere desire to preserve the connexion between the two countries, as the best means of promoting the prosperity of Portugal. Let him also mention as belonging to this band, M. Villa Real, who, he believed, originally had not a very strong prepossession in favour of the constitution, and finally engaged in its support, principally because he thought that by means of it the union that had long subsisted between this country and Portugal might be best preserved. Judge then of the mortification of those men who had suffered so much in the cause of their country, and it might be added, to preserve its connexion with us, at hearing their services denied, and their opponents described as the real friends of England! Such was their reward for espousing the cause of their legitimate sovereign, of the constitution of their country, and of England. They resisted a party favourable to the establishment of Spanish influence in Portugal, with a view to unite these two countries in closer bonds, and weaken or destroy the connexion that had long subsisted between Great Britain and Portugal, and this was their reward! But it seemed, the original cause of all the soreness in the minds of Ministers upon this subject consisted in what had been called the fraud and deceit of the Brazilian minister. He was not going to say one word in justification of that functionary's conduct; assuming it to be as had been represented, it was not necessary to his argument, although he believed a great deal might be said in palliation, if not in direct excuse of that conduct, and that the palliation would rest upon our own persecution. Though he did not deny the abstract right of his Majesty's Government to prohibit the exportation of arms from this country, under particular circumstances, and although he was far from questioning the power which it had used—permitting arms to be exported to Rio de Janeiro, but prohibiting their exportation to Terceira; yet he did say it was an unfriendly and ungracious exercise of our power against the faithful subjects of Donna Maria. This was taking the argument on the lowest ground. The noble Earl said, "We are for strict neutrality." To this, in order to be consistent, it. ought to be added, "We are also for strict impartiality." But had we acted impartially? Certainly not. We acted for our enemy, and against our friend. Taking the matter upon higher grounds, he did not understand the noble Earl's language or acts, when examined by the tests of the law of nations or plain common sense. Ought we to have acted impartially in such a case?— assuming, for the sake of argument, that we had. He thought not; he was opposed to Don Miguel, and in his opinion, the Ministers of this country should also be his opponents. Why? — because he had mounted the Portuguese throne by fraud and treason? No; but because he had become de facto King of Portugal, in the teeth of his promise and sacred obligation to Great Britain, and upon interests (notwithstanding what the noble Earl said) directly hostile to this country. Why, Ministers felt this; they did not acknowledge Miguel as King, and the Princess Donna Maria was residing in our Court, and receiving all the honours due to her rank, and all the consideration due to the peculiarity of her situation. To show the same respect to one of these individuals as to the other would be a contradiction of our own acts and words; and yet the noble Earl talked of being strictly neutral. We were not neutral; we ought not to be neutral; but, after all, we were worse, much worse than neutral in our proceedings towards the subjects of Donna Maria. Let us see how this affected the present question. The Brazilian government applied to us for leave to export arms in a King's ship; it would have been perfectly legal, and no sanction was necessary to export arms in a merchant ship—no order to the. contrary existing—but it rested with Government to give permission or not, as it pleased, for the exportation of arms in a vessel of war. Ministers had the choice of granting permission or refusing it without assigning any reason or instituting any inquiry. But according to the laws of nations was it fair to allow a belligerent government to arm vessels in our ports against an ally? In the present case the Brazilian government was not at war with the government of Don Miguel; but taking it as a belligerent government, was it a breach of neutrality in us to allow it to arm vessels in our ports? There were fifty instances in which the thing had occurred; though he would only refer to the case of Russia, who, in 1770 or 1771, sent for the first time a fleet into the Mediterranean, she being then at war with Turkey. The Russian ships put into Portsmouth and Plymouth, and were there equipped with ammunition and arms. The anti-Russians of that day said (and perhaps with some show of reason), that Russia had fitted out the expedition imperfectly at St. Peters-burgh, for the purpose of availing herself of the advantage of arming it in this country; but we never heard of that having been considered as a declaration of war on our parts against the Turks, with whom we were at peace. Here were we, who considered it necessary to guard against the preponderance of Russia in the Mediterranean, arming her ships in our arsenals to enable them to act against Turkey, our ancient ally. Now, forsooth, if we allowed arms and men to go from our shores to Terceira, his Majesty's Ministers were afraid that this terrible and redoubted Don Miguel would come and swallow us up quickly and destroy us. But be maintained that the Emperor of Brazil was a neutral power according to the law of nations, and therefore there was no pretence for acting as we had done. Granting, however, that the Brazilian minister had disappointed our hopes, and conveyed to Terceira what was intended for Rio de Janeiro; and granting that this was contrary to the law of nations, and opposed to neutrality, it gave us the right of remonstrating,—possibly of going to war with Brazil; but what right had we to say that the subjects of another power, or even other subjects of the same power, should act so-and-so on the high seas? Granting, for the sake of argument, every word which the noble Duke and the noble Earl had said, to be perfectly correct and true as against the Portuguese refugees,—granting that these individuals were conducting themselves in a way such as individuals availing themselves of our national hospitalities had no right to act in,—granting that there were just apprehensions lest Don Miguel should be so touchy upon the point as to be ready to go to war with us, and supposing we were afraid of him— granting all this, what right had we to follow those persons upon the high seas and forcibly control their actions? The noble Earl was no great friend to Don Miguel, judging from the complimentary epithets he had bestowed upon that individual; and whenever the noble Earl sent an ambassador to the Portuguese Court, in order to act consistently he must address his official communications, not to "his most faithful Majesty," but to "his most faithless, cruel, and cowardly Majesty." But notwithstanding all this, how did the matter stand? It appeared that an offence against Don Miguel in England was after all a great deal worse than an offence committed against his Britannic Majesty in the same country,— and that the offenders were to be followed and punished upon the high seas. If individuals had plotted the death of his Majesty,—been guilty of the crime of treason,—committed the greatest outrages, —and escaped to Calais,—should we have had a right to arm a fleet to seize them at Calais? [The Duke of Wellington.— "No."] The noble Duke said "no," but how had we acted in this instance where all the offence of these unfortunate persons (supposing them to be guilty of all the crimes laid to their charge) did not entitle us to inflict punishment upon them within the limits, and certainly not out of the limits, of our own jurisdiction, and within the jurisdiction of another power? Where was our right to do so? That was the real question at issue. The argument with respect to the particular situation of Terceira was little to the purpose; but he found it rather difficult to listen to arguments utterly unfounded in their nature, and contrary to the law of nations, without taking notice of them. It was true the noble Duke (Wellington) said the other night "he could not be supposed to know much of the law of nations." He did not see any thing in the various situations filled by the noble Duke which disqualified him from being acquainted with the law of nations. The noble Duke had been Commander-in-chief of a confederate army,—Ambassador at Paris,— Ambassador at the Congress of Vienna,— and was now the first Minister of the country: there was nothing in any of these offices incompatible with a knowledge of the law of nations. An acquaintance with the subject was rather required by every one of them. It would not appear strange, therefore, if the noble Duke should be supposed to know something of the laws which regulated the relations and intercourse of nations, and were not without their influence upon the laws of war itself. But he did not mean by this to gainsay what the noble Duke had himself said as to his knowledge of the law of nations. By no means. He was not going to advocate, or attempt to prove the noble Duke's acquaintance with the matter. If he meant to do so, he must say the noble Duke had furnished him with a most miserable brief in his correspondence on this subject. Every word of the correspondence was directly against the supposition that the noble Duke knew any thing about the law of nations. The noble Duke and the noble Earl first considered the island of Terceira and the Azores as "a whole;" the law of nations would not bear them out in considering them so; but no matter, they were resolved to consider them as one entire whole. Then the noble Lords, after considering all the Azores as a whole, said "we will consider the island of Terceira as divided into two or three parts." Why? —because it was in a state of war! But on the face of the papers it appeared that the direct contrary was asserted and remained uncontradicted. When he looked at the correspondence, he found it absolutely stated there that Terceira was, and always had been, in the possession of Donna Maria; but the noble Lord denied this, and said the island was in a state of civil war. When speaking on another occasion of a somewhat larger island than Terceira (the island of Candia), it had been said that Candia was in a state of civil war—and he believed it had been in that condition for more than seven years— but noble Lords opposite said we were not so to consider it. It was said, "True, the people are Greeks, and they are uneasy— very uneasy—but then the ports are in the hands of the Turks; they are the ruling power, and you call upon us to make war upon our allies by interfering on the ground of some civil dissensions, which you call civil war." To steer from Candia somewhat westward, and come to Terceira, we found the island in the hands of Donna Maria's subjects, with a few sulky monks skulking in the mountains, —some civil dissensions,—and Ministers cried out immediately, "Oh, there is civil war there,—civil war enough to justify us in preventing this expedition from proceeding." Noble Lords opposite had furnished their Lordships with some papers on the subject, but not with all. What they had furnished supplied them with no plausible defence for their own conduct; but, where that was wanting, they were not very nice about their assertions, and so made out the best case they could. The observations of the noble Earl seemed to imply that the information offered by the noble Marquis to the House was not correct in all points. Perhaps not: but it could not be denied that in the four ships there were no others than Portuguese on board;—no foreigners,—no Germans, as had been alleged. But even if there had been German soldiers on board, the matter ought not to have given rise to the transaction in question. But the noble Lord said, the soldiers cheered with delight the word "expedition." How were they to be divested of their character of troops? When they came into this country they might have been dispersed, but Ministers did not adopt that measure: such being the case, they should not afterwards have taken advantage of their own laches. But, assuming that these unarmed men did possess the character of troops, what right had we to interfere with the subjects of Donna Maria, an independent sovereign? —no, not an independent sovereign, for she depended upon our favour and protection, which had been first afforded, and then groundlessly withdrawn. The noble Lord said "Look at the case of Spain;" but that case was completely different from the present. The noble Duke (Wellington) shook his head at this assertion, but he (Lord Holland) was willing to stake the issue of the question upon the noble Duke's own words. He had formerly heard the noble Duke speak, and seen him vote on the subject: the noble Duke on that occasion, taking great credit to himself (as he was undoubtedly entitled to do), for his extensive military and local knowledge, confirmed his vote by stating that he took upon himself to say, as a military man well acquainted with the localities, that the frontiers of Portugal were actually invested by the force referred to. Did the present case at all resemble that? He thought not. Here not more than 600 men sailed in each vessel; and to say that 3,000 troops had been sent away for Terceira, was a gross exaggeration, for there were only four vessels. To return to the case of Spain, it had been truly said that she ought not to be permitted to receive Portuguese deserters, and make use of them for the annoyance of Portugal. But that she did receive and arm them was undoubted; and it was equally clear that efforts were made by the government of that country to combine the influence of a corresponding faction in both countries, in order to promote disturbances in Portugal. But he did not think that case at all in point in the present instance, or that if the two cases were similar, there existed ground for interference in the latter; or that it afforded a dignus vindice nodus. This was not a case in which a neutral country should step forward. He believed it all originated in a little pique and offence taken by Ministers about the arms; and that if they had been sent out in a merchantman instead of a Brazilian frigate, we should not have heard a word on the subject or seen an act done. He saw by the manner of noble Lords at this moment, that they drew a great and broad distinction between the use of a king's ship and a merchantman for this purpose; but he was talking of the matter as it affected Portugal. If the Queen of Portugal had arms at Terceira, did it matter how they got there? But Don Miguel would say to us, "You knew very well that there were arms at Terceira, and yet you sent out the constitutionalists thither: this is a ground for a declaration of war." If the noble Duke happened to be travelling in a neutral country, would he not think it hard if a belligerent were to say "Don't let that great man go; I know he will have the command of an army on the frontier, which is prepared by my opponent, and only waits his arrival to commence operations against me,—therefore don't let him pass; he is a host in himself—the army is nothing without him; and recollect, if you do allow him to join the army, I will go to war with you." Now this was pretty much the case of the men and the arms in the present instance—the arms were at Terceira, and we who ought to have acted as neutrals would not allow the men to land lest they should use them. Would Don Miguel have picked a quarrel with us because these unarmed men left our shores for Terceira? Had he done so? The noble Duke said on a former evening that other governments had not done their duty—if they had, this obstacle at Terceira would not have existed. Yet the noble Earl said he was willing to be tried by public opinion—of course he did not include the opinions of governments "which had not done their duty," and would hardly appeal to such a tribunal. The language employed on that occasion appeared to him rather extraordinary. He himself had been sometimes rebuked (he hoped without much foundation) for using too warm and intemperate language when speaking of acts of ministers of which he had disapproved; but it was a different thing for an individual to state his opinion with respect to the conduct of a Minister, and for a Minister to bring a charge against other countries of not having done their duty in an important matter. Ministers appeared impartial in expressing unfavourable opinions upon governments in some cases, though they did not always act impartially between them. The noble Earl described a prince, to whom his acts were more favourable than his language (and with respect to whom there seemed at one time tolerably good ground for a supposition that he would be recognized by this country, but he (Lord Holland) believed that idea had now gone by, and for very odd reasons too). Speaking of this potentate, the. noble Lord described him as false, cruel, and cowardly; and then a sort of attack was made upon another branch of the House. But probably noble Lords thought there was nothing wonderful in this; the family were all very odd sort of people! and perhaps one brother did not appear much better in their eyes than the other. Ministers said, "We have been endeavouring these two years to reconcile these two persons: we began the negotiation separately, and we are now carrying it on in conjunction with other states: the negotiation is in some sense going on, and in some sense it is standing still; it is a negotiation to a certain extent, and to a certain extent it is not a negotiation." The whole matter seemed, from the statements of the noble Earl, to be in a most vague and unintelligible condition, having nothing about it more extraordinary than the fact, that the noble Earl regarded our being on very bad terms with both parties as a considerable advantage. Being in bad odour with both sides might prove our justice and impartiality; but such a circumstance was rather inconvenient when we wished to act as mediators, and make peace between them. It appeared, indeed, which was probably the consequence of our peculiar relation to both parties, that the French minister had all the business to himself at Rio de Janeiro; and perhaps it was quite as well that it should be so, for with all his talent for negotiation it was probable the noble Viscount (Strangford) would find himself somewhat at a loss if he went to Don Pedro, and said, "You must make peace with Don Miguel, for we think you much such another fellow as he; we have called him a usurper, and we have likewise accused you of great crimes; so we think you may go together." Really, the subject would be amusing if it were not an important one, requiring the attentive consideration of every British statesman, and a fit subject for the serious consideration of Parliament. When England had lost her hold, as he feared she had, on the affections of the Portuguese people, who had formerly looked up to her with hope and gratitude, he feared there were others ready enough to take advantage of that circumstance. He did see elsewhere the manifestation of a strong disposition to take a more decided course in the cause of liberty and legitimacy (for in this case they happened to be united) than we were prepared to take. Whichever party succeeded in the struggle which the madness of the government of France was now producing in that country, either would have an opportunity of marking, in a manner not to be mistaken, how much more it was the open and decided friend of Portugal than was this country. He did not wish to throw out illiberal reflections and insinuations against the government of France, in whatever hands it might eventually be placed, but still he had so much of the John Bull Englishman about him, though unable to give into the mean dirty jealousy of refusing to do justice to France, that he wished the Government carefully to refrain from the adoption of any course which would have the effect of giving that country a chance of acquiring an ascendancy over Portugal, which, if the opportunity were afforded, he would not say that it was not its duty to secure. At the same time, to do the French government justice, it was only fair to say, that in all the changes which had taken place since the peace, it had shown every disposition to leave us to act for ourselves in our own concerns, direct or indirect; but if we spurned from us our natural friends, and through connivance or neglect allowed our natural enemies to triumph, offering no resistance to a connection between Spain and Portugal, France would not fail to avail herself of opportunities, which British statesmen ought not to afford her. Look at the situation of Europe at the present moment,—observe that in the Mediterranean France was likely enough to reap a harvest of glory and honour such as had usually been reserved for the British flag. See England every where falling into the rank of a second-rate power: contrast the situation in which she now stood with that which she occupied when the Duke of Wellington was placed at the head of the Administration, and there was nothing cheering or consolatory in the prospect! The only two powers now in existence in Europe were the great military power of Russia, and the power of public opinion in the west of Europe. Both of these were with us in 1827: he feared they were both against us now. He should vote for the present Motion, because, if carried, it might tend to retard the completion of this fatal decline. If agreed to, it might be useful to the Government and the country, as expressing some sympathy with the past sufferings of the individuals referred to in the Motion, and possibly such an expression of their Lordships' opinions might afford some guarantee against the occur- rence of like transactions in future. Let their Lordships add their sympathy to that of the nation, which was roused in favour of the Portuguese refugees, and if aided by Parliament, would acquire twice its force. It was well known that if the noble Duke (Wellington) sometimes unfortunately followed a narrow course, he could turn round in a short time and free himself and the country from the mischief entailed by persisting in it. He hoped and trusted such might be the case upon the present occasion. A light might have broken in on the noble Duke from some quarter or other within the last two months (he hoped it had) which might perhaps show him that it would be better, he did not say to prepare for war, but to support the interests of Donna Maria with more energy, sincerity, and decision than before. Conceiving this Motion to be one which contained statements incontrovertible in point of fact, and strong allegations in favour of sound principles; seeing that it proposed to vindicate the honour of the country, that it was dictated by feelings which did great credit to the noble mover, believing it would be advantageous in a public point of view, and that to adopt it would be neither unseasonable nor improper, he felt great pleasure in saying "Content."

The Duke of Wellington

observed, however anxious he might have been that noble Lords should have an opportunity of discussing the affair of Terceira, that had certainly been afforded them, both in this and the last Session of Parliament. That was he believed the fourth time it had been under discussion, and he conceived that every objection which had been introduced had been plainly and satisfactorily answered; but he must say, that a more extraordinary mode of bringing forward the discussion than that which had been resorted to on this occasion had never occurred in any instance whatsoever. The noble Lords who supported this Motion, after admitting that this country had a right to remain neutral,—after admitting that Great Britain had a fair and just right to remain neutral, or to adopt either of the two courses which were open to her with respect to these contending parties,— those noble Lords now stood forward and certainly did pronounce the most severe and the most uncalled-for invectives against his Majesty's Ministers, for pursuing that line of conduct to which they had thought proper to adhere. He would assert, that after the affair of Oporto, if they had previously entertained any doubt of the propriety of remaining neutral, they must have been convinced that neutrality was the only course they could pursue, unless they sent out an army to Portugal, to conquer that country for Donna Maria, and to uphold the new Portuguese constitution. He was at the same time perfectly convinced, if any such project had been laid before their Lordships, that they would at once have rejected it, and looked upon such a proceeding as one unworthy of this country. He would contend, that those who took the course which was now complained of,—those who supported a system of neutrality,—did so because they saw that the whole kingdom of Portugal, civil as well as military, was adverse to the party which wished to interfere with the then existing state of things; but with this fact in evidence before them, the noble Lords came forward and pronounced the most violent invectives against Ministers, because, instead of adopting that sort of proceeding which he had just pointed out, they had deemed it more advisable to remain neutral in the contest. Having determined, then, thus to continue neutral, how did Ministers afterwards act? They did all they could, in the first instance, to save that body of men whose designs had totally failed. They were received in this country in the best possible manner; but certainly they were not received as a body of troops. Ministers did not know them or recognise them in that capacity. Ministers did not, and could not, know them as a body of troops, sustained and supported by the English creditors of the Portuguese government. Those men, however, with the exception of not being in arms, were, in every other respect, doing all the duties of the military profession and that, too, under the very guns of one of his Majesty's naval arsenals. There they remained for four months; yes, for two months after the period when he was informed, by a person best able to give accurate information on the subject, that these men were organised as a body of troops. His noble friend near him (the Earl of Aberdeen) had stated that the party in Portugal which supported the government of Don Miguel consisted of the decided friends to this country. The fact really was so. He had stated the other night, and he now repeated the statement, that, with the exception of a' very small number of people, this country had not an enemy in Portugal. When Ministers saw that the entire body of the people were in favour of Don Miguel, when they saw that a great body of the population, including many persons of rank and distinction, were the friends of Don Miguel—how were they to act? Why, the first proposition was this—" Shall we give to a body of troops, now collected together in this country, convoy to the Azores?" That proposition was made to Government, and it was very justly refused. Those people were told by him, and it was one of the points much relied on by noble Lords, that they might proceed as individuals to the Azores if they pleased. He certainly might have left out that part of the letter without any detriment to it. But he would ask, did those persons go out as individuals? He contended that they did not. They remained together as a body of troops; and as such, with their officers, they intended to proceed to Terceira. That was the first information which reached him; and on the 15th of October he received further intelligence of the manner in which they were paid. He was told that they were daily increasing in numbers; and that the addition to their numbers included many foreign troops who were engaged in Germany and the Low Countries to join the Portuguese at Plymouth. Was it proper, he would ask their Lordships, that a body of troops, not only Portuguese but Germans, should be allowed to assemble under the guns of the arsenal of Plymouth, for the invasion of Portugal, and that his Majesty's Ministers should take no notice of such a proceeding? Were those men to remain there, while transports were preparing in Plymouth Sound to convey them on a martial expedition, and Ministers to look on without interfering? The subject was maturely considered by Government, and those men were ordered to separate, and to proceed to different places in the neighbourhood. The noble Earl had endeavoured to draw a distinction between those persons assembled at Plymouth, and the Portuguese who took refuge in Spain. He said, that the troops who had thus entered Spain from Portugal were deserters. It was true they were deserters; but it was equally true that there was a special article in existence, with respect to deserters, between the two governments of Spain and Portugal. The noble Earl did not seem to be aware of an arrangement by which it was agreed, that on the giving up of arms on both sides, there should be an end of the question with respect to deserters. The troops, therefore, who took refuge in Spain were precisely in the same situation as the Portuguese troops in this country; and when it was found that those individuals were marched on an expedition hostile to Portugal, a body of troops was at once sent from this country to defend Portugal. But then the noble Lord said, "Ay, but the Portuguese troops in Spain were armed, and the Portuguese troops here were not." But he would very soon show the fallacy of any argument founded upon that point. Here came the question as to the correctness of the assumption of the noble Baron who had spoken last, and whose speech had so much entertained the House. How stood the fact? Why the truth was, that the arms of the Portuguese troops who had left this country had absolutely gone before them. And in his letter of the 22nd of September, to the Marquis of Palmella, he stated that the arms of those troops had already been sent abroad. It was the fact that he then pointed out the mode in which those arms were sent out of the country, and the trick that was played in order to effect that object. Arms and ammunition were secured at Terceira by means of the trick which he had described in that very letter. It was explicitly stated in that letter, that the troops remaining in the town of Plymouth, commanded by General Stubbs, contrary to his Majesty's prohibition, had already sent their arms to Terceira. The fact was correct; it was as he had stated, the arms of those persons were on the spot before they left this country. Arms were ready when they arrived there to enable them to carry on operations at the Azores, contrary to the avowed neutrality of this country. The next point to which he would draw their Lordships' attention was one which those who spoke in support of the Motion appeared to have left out of the discussion, but which was, nevertheless, worthy of notice. He wished their Lordships to examine the papers, and to mark the moment when orders were given for a British force to proceed to Terceira, to prevent the scheme from being carried into execution which Ministers were perfectly aware was in contemplation. Fair notice was given to the Marquis of Palmella, and he was earnestly entreated not to suffer that scheme to be carried into execution. Not only was he advised not to give a sanction to these troops for carrying into effect the hostile purpose, which was admitted by him in the course of the correspondence to be in agitation; but when measures were taken to oppose and to prevent it, full notice of them was given to him. The question then came to this—if Ministers thought it necessary that those troops should be dispersed—if they deemed it necessary to give notice that they would prevent the execution of that hostile purpose which they knew was contemplated,—whether they could find any other and better mode of acting than that which they had adopted? That was the first question. He knew that they might have made those people disperse by means of force, and he thought that they would have been justified in doing so; but he asked whether that would be considered a discreet and wise exercise of authority? Suppose they resisted, he knew not what their Lordships would have thought of that. If, again, they were dispersed over the country, how were they to be treated? Were they to be dealt with in the same manner as the Germans, who some time ago were proceeding to Brazil? Were they to be thrown on the bounty of the country for a twelvemonth, as had been the case with the Germans, because the Brazilian minister would not provide for them, and they were finally sent away at the expense of this country? Was that the way in which they were to be dispersed? Then, he wanted to know from their Lordships, if Ministers were not to do this, what they were to do?—how they were to proceed? But the noble Lord said, that this Government might have prevented them from going to Terceira. To that he would answer, that they went out of port under false appearances; and when they went out thus, how was Government to prevent them? They declared that they were going to Rio Janeiro, a step which his Majesty's Government could not prevent. At one time, the Portuguese minister said, they were proceeding to Terceira, and at another, he named Rio Janeiro as their place of destination. Government at once declared to those parties, that if they attempted to proceed to Terceira or Portugal, they would certainly be intercepted; but they left this country under the false pretence that they were going to Rio Janeiro. Then it was demanded of Ministers, when these men adopted a false pretence, why his Majesty's Government did not act? But surely their Lordships must see that Ministers could do nothing but take the step which they had taken. Then they came to the consideration of the law of nations. He believed that it was allowed by the law of nations, where the neutrality of a country was actually violated, for that country to interfere with those by whom it had been violated. He was of opinion, that it was competent to any power to prevent a scheme from being carried into effect which was connected with a violation of neutrality. In ordinary cases, perhaps, direct intervention might be considered a violation of the law of nations; but he contended that circumstances might occur which would render that intervention justifiable; and, in his opinion such circumstances were disclosed in this case. He admitted with the noble Lord, that it was a very important point, and deserved their Lordships' consideration, whether this infraction of our neutrality was one which ought to have induced his Majesty's Ministers to take such a step as they had done. Now, with respect to Terceira, he would only say, that it was a very important station in a commercial point of view, especially as it respected ships coming from the westward or southward. He was well aware of the statements made by the noble Baron as to the strength and importance of that place; but the argument which the noble Baron had raised on that point cut both ways. As it was a strong and important place, it might be fit for the friends of Donna Maria to possess it; but it also involved a point of very serious interest with reference to the power of England, and to her commerce and navigation, because he felt strongly the importance of not allowing Don Pedro, the Emperor of Brazil, now that the two governments were divided, from coming, by any means, into the possession of any of the ancient dominions of Portugal. He therefore said it was the policy of this country—and good policy also—not to allow him to become possessed of Terceira, if they could possibly prevent it. With respect to the blockade of Oporto, it appeared to him, that in recognizing it Ministers had only done their duty. It was a blockade de facto by a power having possession of naval means to support that blockade; and according to all rules on which this country had acted, it was a blockade which the British Government had a right to respect. But not only were Ministers blamed for respecting that blockade, but they were also censured for not having instituted a blockade themselves. But after what had occurred at Lisbon and Oporto, there could be no ground for such a proceeding. The different motions on this subject were all of a similar character. None of them were calculated to produce public benefit; and on this, as on former occasions, he would meet the Motion with a negative.

Lord Goderich

said, the noble Lord opposite had complained that the present was now the third or fourth time when this subject had been brought under the consideration of their Lordships; and he seemed to urge that as a reason for not acceding to the Motion. Now, he could not help feeling, when he considered the circumstances in which their Lordships were placed with respect to this question, that those circumstances justified his noble friend in again expressing his opinion. At the close of the last Session of Parliament, his Majesty was advised to lay before their Lordships certain papers explanatory of the course which his Majesty had been counselled to pursue. At that time his noble friend, the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, challenged inquiry on this subject; but it was then totally impossible for any noble Lord to stir one step in the business, because Parliament rose, he believed, the day after those papers were produced. In the next Session, the question of Portugal formed part of the matter contained in his Majesty's Speech, and when the Address was moved, the subject of Terceira was noticed as a matter of great importance in itself, but of still greater importance when viewed in reference to our communications with Portugal. But what said the noble Duke on that occasion? He made it a matter of complaint that, the subject was brought forward on the first night of the Session, when he had not had time to refresh his memory. It was, therefore, unreasonable for him to object to the Question now, when it was introduced as a substantive Motion. The time which had elapsed might perhaps have lessened the interest attached to the subject; but certainly it did appear to him that nothing could be more reasonable or proper, when his Majesty's advisers had laid before Parliament their views on a certain question, than for any noble Lord to bring that question under the consideration of the House. He did not mean to go at length into this subject, but having looked to it with all that coolness and deliberation which his noble friend had recommended, he could see no reason for coming to any other conclusion than that which he had formerly stated. His noble friend and the noble Duke had applied themselves to show that in the earliest parts of this transaction they had taken the most proper course. They told their Lordships that the Portuguese at Plymouth had formed themselves into battalions, that they had become a regular military body, and that, although without arms, they were, strictly speaking, troops, and were arrayed here contrary to the law of England. He admitted, and he had always so expressed himself, that Ministers had a right to say to them that they should not remain in such a posture in this country. But that was no answer for what was done afterwards. Ministers might declare to them, "You cannot remain here as a regimented body:" but they had no right, power, or authority, to put them to death after they had left this country. A neutral might undoubtedly tell persons who were at variance with a power to which that neutral was bound by pacific ties, to leave his territory as fast as they could. It was not in our power to direct a body of hostile persons to march over a frontier, in consequence of our insulated situation. We might, however, send them away; and we had no right afterwards to pursue them all over the world. Suppose there was a war in France, and that some of the belligerent parties went into the Netherlands. The King of the Netherlands might declare, "My neutrality will not allow me to suffer you to remain here menacing the country from which you have fled. You must depart from it." They might then proceed to Prussia: and if Prussia did not allow them to stop there, but drove them back again to the Netherlands, leaving them no mode of escape except by sea, would it be right, when they were placed in that state, for the King of the Netherlands to chase them all over the globe? There was no doctrine in the law of nations so preposterous and absurd as that. But the noble Duke stated, that he had told the Marquis Palmella that he had no objection to those persons going abroad as individuals; but with that candour which distinguished every thing the noble Duke said, he had admitted that this was an unfortunate expression, and he was sorry that he had used it.

The Duke of Wellington

.— I said, it would have been just as well if I had not used it. I did not say unfortunate.

Lord Goderich

.—Well, that was sufficient for his argument. It did appear to him that the whole proceeding was hasty, inconsiderate, and irregular. And, in his opinion, it arose from the manner in which that correspondence was conducted. They were told to go away from this country as individuals, but they were never told how or in what manner they were to go. They went away in British ships, and were exposed to consequences by the British Government to which they ought not to have been liable. But their Lordships were told, that the course taken with respect to the Portuguese who had escaped to Spain, was the same which Ministers had adopted in this case. It was true the troops were sent back by Spain, but they were armed first and, he believed that they were armed by the Captains-general in Salamanca and Ciudad Rodrigo. Thus, then, a casus fœderis arose, which peremptorily called on this country to defend Portugal from impending aggression. The circumstances of the two cases were perfectly distinct; and it appeared to him to be most extraordinary that Government should resort to such an argument to justify their conduct. Then the noble Duke said, that notice was given to the Portuguese, that they should not go to Terceira. But what law did they violate by going there? Did they violate the municipal law of England by proceeding thither? He contended that they did not. But suppose they did, then the course taken with respect to them appeared still worse; because, if they had violated the laws of England, they were stronger for their own vindication than the law of nations, and under it they might have been brought to trial and punished. It could not be said that we had not the power to prosecute them. If the Ministers stated that, they at once admitted that these men were not violating any law. If that were the case, then he would ask, why should those people be put to death who had not earned that punishment in any way? That he took to be the strong part of the case. Towards the close of his speech, the noble Duke had adverted to one point, which seemed to him to give the whole transac- tion a new character. The noble Duke observed, that it would be a very great misfortune if Don Pedro got possession of any of the ancient dominions of Portugal. Now it was not for him to enter into a speculative argument on this subject. Though he might be of opinion that it would not be right for Don Pedro to possess Terceira or the Azores, still the observation of the noble Duke led him to think that the conduct of the Government was rather influenced by that view, than by any strong feeling on the score of neutrality. That he was afraid was the reason which had led to this result. He could not, of course, dive into the motives of Ministers; but unless something of that kind had influenced them, the observation of the noble Duke had nothing to do with the merits of the case. The question was, whether it was consistent with the law of nations that we should take on ourselves to exercise this extensive authority on the high seas, and within the jurisdiction of that very sovereign whose subjects those people were? Knowing how much this country was interested in regulating all her actions on the strictest principles of justice, and seeing that by pursuing such a course as that which had been adopted by Ministers in this instance we were likely to involve the country in difficulties from which we could not extricate ourselves, he could not avoid supporting the Motion of his noble friend.

The Lord Chancellor

expressed his anxious desire to say a few words on this subject. He was perfectly ready, after all the attacks which had been made, to declare his responsibility for the advice which he had given with respect to the matter in question. He would state to their Lordships, as shortly as possible, the grounds on which he had given his advice,—which, as it appeared to him, was perfectly proper. So far from the conduct of Ministers being blameable, he thought that if they had taken a different course they would have been subject to the just censure of the country. One noble. Lord, who spoke early on the Question, wished to confine it to what the noble Baron called the last catastrophe; but the noble Baron thought it was better to take a wider range, and he availed himself of that privilege to a most extensive degree, for very little of his speech was restricted to that point. The noble Lord having confined himself so little to this portion of the subject, showed a consciousness on his part, that he did not feel himself so strong on that particular circumstance as he could have wished. Now he thought the course chalked out by the noble Baron, in not confining himself to the last catastrophe, was correct; because he was of opinion, that they ought to look to all that had gone before it, and to go step by step in order to convince the country that Ministers had violated no public duty, but that they were imperatively called on to pursue that policy which they had adopted. There was one principle which had been thrown out and suggested in the course of this argument, from which they could not swerve, — namely, that the situation in which this country stood called upon them to maintain a strict line of neutrality between the two disputing parties. Whether that was good policy or not he would not argue. All he would say was, that it was the policy which the present Government, as well as the governments which preceded it, had laid down. If that were correct, then he thought it followed from the premises that the course which Ministers took was perfectly proper. In the first instance it was material to consider what was the conduct of the parties. The noble Baron said that Ministers laid down neutrality as the principle which they meant to act on; but he insinuated that our feeling was not impartial,—that it was all on one side. Now he would refer to facts, and he would do so to show that this charge was totally destitute of foundation. This country afforded a refuge to those individuals who were so unfortunate as to be worsted in the struggle which took place in Portugal; and means were afforded them to facilitate their arrival here. For some time after they were settled at Plymouth no notice was taken of them; but at length it was found that those 3,000 refugees who took shelter in this country had assumed a military character, and that they were paid by the Marquis of Palmella out of funds provided by the Marquis Barbacena. It appeared that General Stubbs had gone down from London to command them, and they had all the character of a military body. As the noble Viscount had said, we could know of no such persons as Portuguese troops in this country; and it was therefore determined, either that they should be divided in cantonments, the officers being separated from the men, or else that they should leave the country. Could Ministers, he would ask, pursue any oilier line of conduct consistently with the dignity and security of the country? Was it ever heard of or known, that a body of troops, disciplined in this country without the knowledge of Government, had been suffered to remain here? It was necessary for the character of Ministers that a stop should be put to such a system. But besides these Portuguese, Ministers learned that there was a body of 200 or 300 Germans recruiting on the Continent, who were to come to this country, and finally to embark with the Portuguese force, for which purpose they had transports in the harbour of Plymouth. He would not depend on any statement of his own, but he would refer to the language of the Marquis Palmella himself, who admitted that the appearance of these troops would excite fear amongst one party, and give confidence to the other. What did he say? Why that this levy of troops would create dismay amongst one party, and give pleasure and delight to the other. As to the law of nations, no one could doubt what he was about to state,— namely, that a body of troops belonging to one of the belligerent parties, and going to a neutral state, could not be allowed to remain there for the avowed object of opposing one party or of supporting another. Such a proceeding could not be tolerated; and on that principle they had acted with respect to Portugal. What was the next step? Why, the Marquis Rarbacena applied for permission—to do what? To embark these men for Terceira: and for what purpose? Why, to give succour to one of the contending parties: for, in considering this case, they must take the whole of the Portuguese dominions as being engaged in the struggle. The Martinis Barbacena wished to proceed there, under a British convoy, to strengthen the young Queen's party. But he asked, if they had consented to that, would they not have been breaking their neutrality? And could any man, if such a project were allowed, attempt to argue that this country had acted fairly? The next proposition was, to send these troops to Rio Janeiro, and Ministers were asked, would they give a guarantee that they should not be molested? They would not give a guarantee, but they offered a convoy; and he doubted much whether they had a right to do so. There was, however, an express arrangement that those persons should go to Rio Janeiro, and not to Terceira; but that engagement had been broken. It was said that all this was harmless, as they were unarmed men. But that argument was altogether untenable, because, as they were organized, they had no right to go there; and he asked what did it matter whether their arms were at Terceira or in this country? When they said they would go to Rio Janeiro, and not to Terceira, be maintained that we had a right to keep them to their promise. They received ample notice, when off Terceira, that they would not be permitted to land. They were desired not to approach, and one or two shots were fired to warn them off; and it was not till they were approaching Praia, that the gun was fired which was attended with such melancholy consequences. The consequences must, however, rest with those who were guilty of the gross breach of faith which he had stated. These were the facts placed in the narrowest compass, and those facts justified him in asserting, that from the beginning to the end good faith was maintained with these parties. Government was willing that they should proceed to Brazil, and it was not until they adopted a contrary course that steps were taken to make them adhere to their engagement. No public right was violated, and therefore there was no occasion for the Motion of the noble Lord.

Lord Holland

, in explanation, said, that his motive for not alluding more at length to the point adverted to by the noble and learned Lord, did not arise from any feeling of its weakness or want of importance. The noble Duke had charged him with having omitted the point of notice. He did not intend to have done so. But he would now trespass on their Lordships' indulgence to say a few words in answer to that point. He would suppose that the noble Duke, instead of prosecuting Mr. Alexander, had given him notice, that if he should write another inflammatory article he would give him a drubbing, and that upon Alexander writing such an article he had given him a drubbing: would the noble Duke have been justified in thus taking the law into his own hands? It appeared to him that the two cases were not very dissimilar

The Lord Chancellor

said, that in the Terceira case the parties had professed to submit to the wishes of our Government, and therefore had no right to complain of the consequences resulting from their breach of faith.

The Earl of Carnarvon

denied that the Marquis of Palmella had given any distinct pledge that the troops should go to the Brazils, and not to Terceira. On the contrary, it appeared that the Marquis had acted throughout with perfect candour and good faith. Their Lordships were told that this country was entitled to maintain its principle of neutrality, and to exact attention to it on the part of those who had found an asylum here. That was the case while they were in this country; but that principle gave us no right to make a hostile attack on these unfortunate people for the purpose of driving them from their own shores. When they had got to those shores they were entirely out of our jurisdiction. But it was said, that they had sent arms before them, which were ready to be put into their hands when they arrived in the island. Was it clear that such was the fact? Certainly he found no satisfactory evidence of it. The noble Duke feared to keep them here as a body. That was rather an extraordinary fear on the part of the noble Duke; but it appeared that he feared as much to allow them to go hence as a body. The noble Duke wanted them to disperse; but they preferred, naturally, to leave the country; for, if they should be dispersed, they must starve, as the subscriptions would then, probably, cease, and their subsistence depended on their remaining as a body. The real question had been always blinked by the Ministers; which was not whether they had a right to expel the refugees from our own ports, but whether they had a right to pursue them from one quarter of the globe to another. While hero, Ministers might have a right to control their proceedings and motions; but what had that to do with the act of driving them, by a hostile attack, from their own shores? That was the point in which the Ministers had violated the law of nations. Well, but, said the Ministers, perhaps we did act contrary to the law of nations, but then we had a right to do so, since they violated their promise. He did not think that they had violated their promise; but if they had, that gave the Ministers no right to violate the law of nations. Suppose they had violated their promise, were they the only one of the two parties who had done so? Was there not a much more grievous violation of promise on the part of Miguel? He was one of those who thought at one time that this question of neutrality had been sufficiently discussed, but he thanked the noble Marquis for bringing it forward again; for it was now so manifest that the neutrality had not been preserved, that the question might be considered as at rest for ever. We had violated that neutrality in opposition to that side which both our honour and interest required us to support, and the Ministers justified the course by a kind of special-pleading arguments. He should vote for the Motion, because he considered that the Ministers, by their conduct, had put an end to all the hopes of the loyal party, and had sacrificed both the interest and the honour of the country.

The Duke of Wellington

explained, that he was apprehensive of the consequences, in case the troops had refused to obey the order to disperse; and therefore had felt a disinclination to issue such an order: with respect to what had fallen from the noble Baron as to the notice, he must say, that he had twice given them notice that they must not go to Terceira.

Their Lordships then divided, and the numbers were—Content, present 21; proxies 10; total 31. Not-content, present 61; proxies 65; total 126. Majority 95.

Against this decision the following Protest was subsequently entered on their Lordships' journals: