HL Deb 05 August 1834 vol 25 cc941-60
The Marquess of Londonderry

said, that, when last their Lordships' attention was directed to the state of the foreign policy of the country, the noble Duke who brought forward the subject thought it necessary to apologize for its introduction,—and how much more necessary was it that he should do so at this late period of the Session; and, when he considered the immeasurable distance between him and his noble friend, in the weight and influence which his noble friend brought to every subject he touched, how much more necessary was it that he should apologize when stating his humble opinion upon the state of our foreign affairs, and of the measures which his Majesty's Ministers had taken in that department? However, to that memorable debate he could refer for an authority which, at least with the noble Lords opposite, would justify him in calling the attention of their Lordships to the subject. He found, on looking to the records of what then passed, that the noble Earl then at the head of his Majesty's Government stated, that he held whatever related to the foreign interests of the country second in importance to no question, whether of agriculture, commerce, manufactures, or any other domestic subject. He, therefore, hoped the House would pardon him, if he deemed it his duty to state his views upon a matter of so much importance. In the few observations with which he should introduce the subject to their Lordships, he should take, first, a general view of our foreign affairs,—and afterwards take into consideration the particular Treaties to which this country had recently been made a party. The noble Earl to whom he had alluded, in that farewell address to their Lordships as a Minister of the Crown,—which, he was sure, no one of their Lordships had heard without the deepest sympathy and respect,—had claimed, in reference to the question of foreign policy, great merit to his Government for having preserved the peace of Europe for three years and a half. As that noble Earl was not in his place, he did not wish to say anything discourteous towards him. On the contrary, he was most anxious to avoid anything calculated to affect the feelings of that great man, whose situation at the present moment it was painful indeed to contemplate, writhing as was his noble mind under the political treachery which had broken it down; and of whom it might well be said by the noble Lord opposite, as was said by Mark Antony of Cæsar— ingratitude, more strong than traitor's arms, Quite vanquish'd him, Then burst his mighty heart. Feeling thus, he was far from being disposed to indulge in any unkind feeling towards the noble Earl upon this occasion. And he was the more inclined to impose such a restraint upon himself upon that occasion, because his noble friend near him (the Duke of Wellington) did, in the manly arid straightforward manner which so distinguished all his conduct, follow the noble Earl upon that occasion with such comments on the course of foreign policy pursued by the late Government, as was demanded by the necessity of the noble Earl's statement. But the speech of the noble Earl was followed by a more unqualified panegyric of their own foreign policy from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who, after he had claimed credit to the Government for preserving peace, added, 'I will, if any succeeding 'Government shall preserve peace for 'three years and a half longer, give them 'still greater credit for doing so.' Yes, and well he might! When his Majesty's Ministers had, by their partial measures, effected a momentary settlement without laying down any solid basis of peace, and in so doing had entirely upset all that was established in Europe in 1815, well might the noble and learned Lord say, that no Government which succeeded his would be able to steer such a course as should keep the peace of the world unbroken for any long period to come. Let their Lordships look at what had occurred in those quarters where they said that their own arrangements had been completed. Was it in Belgium that the peace of the world had been so firmly settled? Would any one say, when they looked at the system of protocols and the endless mismanagement of the Belgian question, that the Government were entitled to the credit of statesmanlike views? Let any one only recollect the circumstances of the Belgian insurrection, and how could he doubt that if the Government had only acted with anything like firmness in maintaining the first protocol in less than six weeks the question would have been settled? But their eternal vacillation produced at first only protracted negotiations, and in the end that lamentable siege, and that waste of blood and treasure, which had still left the dispute as far as ever from being settled. He should not dwell upon these points farther. He should do no more than refer their Lordships to the fact, that the French were still in possession of those two magnificent points, Ancona and Algiers. The Government might say they had preserved peace; but upon what terms? Had they called France to account for the occupation of Algiers contrary to her express engagements! He would not travel into the East, because he was not willing, when their Lordships had no information before them, to touch upon subjects of a delicate character; but this he would say, that, as far as they could see into the affairs of Russia, there had been a most blameable want of courtesy towards the Russian government, which was perfectly indefensible. A noble Earl, it was well known, had been appointed upon a special mission to that Court; but with what success they had never learnt. It was certain, however, that in point of courtesy, this Government had entirely failed according to the usual practice observed towards a friendly power. His Imperial Majesty was known to have had reasons for wishing that his Majesty's government would not press upon him one particular nomination as the Minister at his Court. He believed there was no instance in which such a request had ever before been made and not conceded, However, the pertinacity and obstinacy with which that appointment had been pressed had led to the extraordinary circumstance of one of the Powers of the first rank being represented in this country by a Chargé d' Affaires only, and he believed that it would continue to be so as long as the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs continued in that office. He should not enter, upon the present occasion, into the relations of the Turkish and the Russian governments, but this he would say, that if we had been justified in taking a separate and distinct line from the other parties to the Treaty of Vienna with regard to Belgium, Russia was perfectly justified in taking her own line with regard to Turkey without at all making that communication of her intentions, which under other circumstances, might be expected from her. We could not, with our present policy, expect the same confidence from the Powers which we had deserted, or look to them for the same co-operation as when we treated them with courtesy and acted in conjunction with them. If we had, unfortunately, by our policy become more alienated from those Powers with which we were formerly on friendly terms—if Austria and Prussia, as well as Russia, were impressed with the belief that Great Britain, instead of being that Conservative, that bienfaisant Power as before, which always exercised her influence in maintaining the peace of Europe and the rights of nations as they had been settled by Treaty—if, on the contrary, they now believed her to be inoculated with that virus of revolutionary liberty which they felt to be inimical to their interests and to their safety, it could not he expected that they would keep up that close alliance with her, through which she had exercised so happy an influence upon the peace of the world, but which, unfortunately, from the course his Majesty's Government had now taken it would be impossible for her to exercise again. But if they had forfeited the friendship or the cordiality of the governments of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, what new alliances had they formed to make up for the loss? They had that great and powerful ally Louis Phillippe, who had, undoubtedly, given them his full confidence, and not without reason. Then they had the Donnas Maria and Isabel; Leopold, King of the Belgians, and King Otho. Besides these, they had all the propagandists of Germany and all the liberals of Italy as their firm allies. With respect to a firm alliance between this country and France, it would be far from him not at all times to wish for the closest intimacy and peace with that Power. But he was not prepared to go so far as to consider her before all other nations; neither could he go along with the encomiums which had been passed upon her days of July and their results. Would the noble and learned Lord who had eulogised that revolution deny that the King of France's late ordinances were as strong, and, he would say, more despotic, than any which Charles 10th had ever issued? Would any man say, when making the most cruel observations upon Charles 10th and his ordinances, and upon his Ministers who were now shut up in their dungeons, would any man say, that Louis Philippe stood exonerated from the same crimes? Any man who had studied the political history of France, and the character of her people, must see that France could not be governed but by the strong arm of power. Upon this principle Louis Philippe had, undoubtedly, showed himself more accomplished in the art of governing the French than his predecessors had unfortunately been. He knew that the secret was to keep 60,000 troops in the capital, and govern by his armies as Napoleon did. Would any noble Lord after the experience of the last two years say, that it was possible to govern France upon the Juste Milieu system? Must not every Government in France be compelled to choose between the conservative and the destructive principle, and follow out his choice? He thought this had been clearly proved by the French, and we should soon here have to take a leaf out of their book, and adopt one course or the other in earnest. He hoped their Lordships would now see the necessity of coming to an early decision upon this choice and declaring it in the face of Europe, so that the other Powers might know what to expect. With respect to the Treaty which had been recently laid upon the Table, although he was reluctant to make use of harsh expressions in characterising it, yet he must say, that he could not conceive anything so base or atrocious as the conduct which this country had pursued towards Portugal. It must be remembered, that we had been pledged to a most distinct and positive neutrality in the Portuguese quarrel. That House, their Lordships would not forget, had agreed to Address his Majesty to that effect, after the most able and eloquent speech of his noble friend, and his Majesty in reply solemnly declared, that neutrality should be strictly observed. That declaration went forth, and was known to the people of Portugal, and had naturally encouraged the Miguelite party to spend their last resources in keeping up the struggle. Had that pledge been kept? If Great Britain had not interfered to the assistance of the one party, and in opposition to the other, would any man say, that Don Miguel would not now have been governing Portugal? Surely such conduct on the part of a great country like this deserved the description of atrocious, and could be described in no milder language. And the interests of this country had not even been an excuse, or a palliative for her conduct; for while Don Miguel had always, undoubtedly, been well disposed towards the English interests, Don Pedro, immediately upon acquiring the power, had done everything to injure them. He should like to know from his Majesty's Government whether, after all, they regarded the settlement of Portugal to be such as was likely to continue to her the advantages of peace in the Peninsula? The paragraph in the king of France's Speech was very decided upon that subject; but he was at a loss to see the grounds of such an expectation. If their Lordships looked at the different letters from Portugal they would see, from the atrocious murders now committed, that, so far from the present government being popular, there was greater disquietude and commotion in the interior than when the two armies were actually contending in the field. But, besides the assistance actually given to one party, the Ministers had permitted such a violation of the Portuguese territory by the Spaniards, in order, if possible, to seize Don Carlos, as nothing could justify under existing Treaties. He would venture to say, that that act was as gross a breach of neutrality, and as strong a case of violation of Treaties as could be produced in the history of nations. He asked, whether it was the province of the Government of this country to say, whether Don Carlos was the rightful sovereign of Spain or not? He had lately read a pamphlet written by Mr. Walton, whom he believed to be very well-informed upon the subject. From this work the means by which the exclusion of Don Carlos from the Throne had been accomplished would be found to be by no means according to the ancient laws of the Spanish succession, and that it had been brought about by fraud and imposition. If, then, England was to be made a party to that fraud by the Treaty which had been formed, in what endless complications should not we be involved! He should be glad to find that the obligations of the Treaty would be at an end by Don Carlos having been driven out of Portugal. But if that Treaty were to be taken as binding upon this country to be mixed up with the wars of Spain in support of this succession or that succession, the difficulties we should get into with the other Powers of Europe would be endless. The conduct of France with regard to this question ought to be narrowly watched. Looking to history it would be found always to have been the policy of this country to prevent any union or too close alliance between France and Spain. In 1713, Queen Anne came down to Parliament and delivered that splendid Speech in which she recognized the law which Philip 5th established with this very object, with regard to the succession in Spain. The question was, whether Don Carlos could establish his claim and right according to that law; and he called upon his Majesty's Government to say, what right they had to acknowledge this Queen, if it should turn out that the majority of the Spanish people did not believe her to be the rightful heir. They had done this, for the preamble to the Treaty, in his opinion, went to the extent of acknowledging Donna Isabel as the lawful Queen. The Speech of Queen Anne to which he had alluded, contained a passage to which he begged particularly to call their Lordships' attention:—'Nothing, however, has moved me from steadily pursuing, in the first place, the true interest of my own kingdoms; and I have not omitted anything which might procure to all our allies what is due to them by Treaties, and what is necessary for their security. The assuring of the Protestant succession, as by law established, in the House of Hanover, to these kingdoms, being what I have nearest at heart, particular care is taken not only to have that acknowledged in the strongest terms, but to have an additional security by the removal of that person out of the dominions of France who has pretended to disturb this settlement. The apprehension that Spain and the West-Indies might be united to France was the chief inducement to begin this war; and the effectual preventing of such an union was the principle I laid down at the commencement of this Treaty. Former examples, and the late negotiations, sufficiently show how difficult it is to find means to accomplish this work. I would not content myself with such as are speculative, or depend upon Treaties only; I insisted on what is solid, and to have at hand the power of executing what should be agreed. I can, therefore, now tell you, that France is at last brought to offer that the Duke of Anjou shall, for himself and his descendants, renounce for ever all claim to the Crown of France; and, that this important article may be exposed to no hazard, the performance is to accompany the promise. At the same time the succession to the Crown of France is to be declared, after the present Dauphin and his sons, to be in the Duke of Berry and his sons, in the Duke of Orleans and his sons, and so on to the rest of the House of Bourbon. As to Spain and the Indies, the succession to those dominions, after the Duke of Anjou and his children, is to descend to such Prince as shall be agreed upon at the Treaty, for ever excluding the rest of the House of Bourbon. For confirming the renunciations and settlements before mentioned, it is farther offered that they shall be ratified in the most strong and solemn manner, both in France and Spain; and that those kingdoms, as well as all the other Powers engaged in the present war, shall be guarantee to the same. The nature of this proposal is such that it executes itself: the interest of Spain is to support it, and in France the persons to whom that succession is to belong will be ready and powerful enough to vindicate their own right. France and Spain are now more effectually divided than ever; and thus, by the blessing of God, will a real balance of power be fixed in Europe, and remain liable to as few accidents as human affairs can be exempted from.' That was the Speech which Queen Anne made in 1713, on the occasion to which he referred; and after such a settlement of the succession to the Crown of Spain, he should like to know whether the other Powers of Europe were cognizant of the change that had taken place, and if they concurred with the Government of this country in acknowledging the present Queen of Spain to be the rightful sovereign of that country? His belief was, that the very reverse was the case, and this he thought might he inferred from the Address delivered by the Queen Regent to the Cortes. Her Majesty seemed greatly alarmed at her situation in reference to the other Powers of Europe; and she said that, although her government had been acknowledged by England and France, no such recognition had taken place on the part of any of the other Powers. He therefore submitted that his Majesty's Ministers were bound to give some explanation of the circumstances connected with this Treaty, which, though of such paramount importance in every point of view, had been laid upon their Lordships' Table not only without documents to explain it, but without any official statement whatever to show the object which had led to its formation, and this too after the protestations which had been made on the part of the Government that they intended to remain neutral with respect to the internal affairs of other nations. Under such circumstances he felt that he had a right to call upon the advisers of the Crown to give their Lordships the explanation for which he now sought, notwithstanding the declaration of the noble Viscount the other night, that he would not reply to the questions which were then put to him. He hoped, however, that the noble Viscount would pursue a line of foreign policy different from that which his noble predecessor had adopted. The noble Earl had more than once declared in his place in that House, that the Government of which he was the head, would act strictly in accordance with the principle of non-intervention: but had he done so? No; for, so far from observing neutrality, this Treaty, almost the last net of the noble Earl's official life, had more of the ingredients of intervention in it than was to be found in any other Treaty which had ever come under his observation. He would not trouble their Lordships with any further remarks upon the subject of this Treaty, but he at the same time thought it right to assure their Lordships, that he had ventured upon his present task, not only without solicitation, without consultation with any party, but solely and exclusively from the desire which he entertained of having the matter discussed and deliberated upon with that degree of attention which its high importance seemed to him to require. He must say, that he disapproved of the foreign policy of the present Government as much as he approved of that of his noble friend (Lord Aberdeen) whom he did not then see in his place. But, passing from this part of the case, he would, with their Lordships' indulgence, offer a very few comments upon the boasted economy of the present Government as compared with that of the noble Duke; and for the purpose of this comparison he would select that branch of the foreign expenditure which related to Secret Service for a period of three years. It should be recollected that the present was a time of profound peace, when there could be little or no necessity for foreign Secret Service; and, therefore, that the expenditure of the present Government under this head should, if there were any difference, be less, and not more, than that of the Government of the noble Duke. He had moved for a Return on this subject, and he could not help thinking that the comparison would not only be regarded as curious, but would be looked upon with surprise by the country. In the three years preceding the retirement from office of the noble Duke, namely, 1828, 1829, and 1830, the amount expended by his Government in foreign missions was 8,569l., while in the two succeeding years, viz. 1831 and 1832—no Return for 1833 having been made—of Earl Grey's Administration no less a sum than 22,064l. was spent on special foreign missions. Here then was a difference of nearly 14,000l. against the present Administration. Moreover it was not a little curious that the foreign Secret Service of the present Government, for a period of three years, had cost the country between 80,000l. and 90,000l., notwithstanding the boasts of economy which had been made, and the obloquy which had been thrown on his noble friend, for his alleged lavish expenditure of the public money. These were facts which were incontrovertible, and with which the public should be made acquainted in order to prove to them, that the present was by no means so economical an Administration as they were led to believe. Without, however, occupying their Lordships' attention further, he should conclude by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before their Lordships' House Copies or Extracts of all such Communications or Information as had led to the negotiations for, and conclusion of the Treaty between his Majesty and the Queen Regent of Spain, the King of the French, and the Duke of Braganza, the Regent of Portugal, signed at London on the 22nd of April, 1834."

Viscount Melbourne

gave the noble Marquess full credit for his assertion, that he brought this Motion forward not only without solicitation, but without concert or understanding with any other Member of their Lordships' House. Indeed, there could be no doubt that the fact was so, because the noble Marquess had on a former occasion intimated to their Lordships the course which he meant to pursue, having declared, that if no one else should bring the subject forward he would. The noble Marquess had taken the opportunity of paying a high and deserved compliment to the noble Duke (Duke of Wellington); but it did not strike the noble Marquess, that when the noble Duke, who had at least an equal attachment to the honour and interests of the empire, who had a better knowledge of the subject, and greater weight in the House, did not feel it necessary to bring forward such a Motion, did it not, he repeated, strike the noble Marquess that his Motion might, by possibility, especially under present circumstances, be neither wise, timely, nor discreet. The noble Marquess had divided his speech into several parts. He had made a long rambling statement as to the general affairs of Europe, and had concluded with the quadrupartite treaty. But really the speech was so desultory, the various subjects were treated in so superficial a manner, tam, leviter, tam negligenter, that he appealed to their Lordships whether it was fair or decent to enter, on such a challenge, into a detailed exposition of our relations with the various countries enumerated. The noble Marquess had asked, whether Belgium was settled? Why France kept Algiers? Whether there was any probability that a Minister would be appointed by the Court of Russia?—all which he thought the noble Marquess could answer, and knew he could answer, just as well as himself. The noble Marquess had just as much knowledge on these points as he possessed, and, therefore, he would ask their Lordships, whether it were right to indulge in such a general discussion as had been begun by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had talked of the alliance between this country and France, and that too in stronger terms than he would have used. The noble Marquess said, that it was in every way desirable, that the closest intimacy should be formed between the two countries, but, at the same time, thought that no undue preference should be shown to France over other nations, and in these sentiments he entirely agreed. That was, in fact, his opinion, although he must confess he would not have expressed himself with as much warmth as the noble Marquess had evinced; but it was quite evident, that the Government of France had recently, from some cause or other, gained especial favour in the noble Marquess's eyes, or he never would have eulogised it. The noble Marquess seemed to complain, that the state of Portugal was unsettled. From his own letters he bad learned (the noble Marquess said) that the interior of that country was more disturbed now—was the scene of more atrocious murders at the present moment—than while civil war actually prevailed. If such a state of things existed, was it to be much wondered at? He trusted, however, that even if the statement of the noble Marquess were correct, the affairs of Portugal would before long settle, and that a stable Government would be established in that country. A nation that had been convulsed and distracted by civil war, as Portugal had been, could not be expected to settle down at once from a state of discord and disquiet to a state of peace, security, and stability. But his Majesty's Ministers were blamed by the noble Marquess for having suffered Portugal to be invaded by a Spanish army. Now, what were the circumstances under which that invasion took place? The claimant of the throne of Spain had taken refuge in Portugal, and around him were collected the band of disaffected persons by whom his pretensions were encouraged. It was clear, that while he occupied such a position, there could be no security for the Spanish government, but still no attempt at invasion was made until after Don Miguel had more than once rejected the respectful applications which were made to him to deliver the Pretender up. If ever, therefore, one country had a right to enter another for its own protection, Spain possessed that right in the instance referred to. An absolute necessity existed for the course pursued by the Spanish government; and, that being the case, was it not the duty of the Government of Great Britain to take care that the intervention took place under the conditions of a Treaty which would limit the parties from doing more than was really necessary for the accomplishment of the object which they had in view? This, in fact, was the main ground upon which this treaty proceeded; but upon it the noble Marquess had not rested a single argument or made a single observation. The noble Marquess had told them, that his Majesty's Ministers were bound to consider, whether Don Carlos was the legitimate sovereign of Spain or not; but, on that point, he could not agree with the noble Marquess. His Majesty's Government had nothing whatever to do with the consideration of any such question; on the contrary, it was their duty to take for granted that which had been decided, not only by the king of Spain, but by the Cortes. The king of Spain and the Cortes had settled the question of succession, and it therefore formed no part of the duty of the British Government to enter upon an inquiry respecting the Salic Law. It was sufficient for them that the right of the Queen was established de jure, and that she was recognized as the Sovereign by all the authorities of the Spanish nation. It was upon this principle that the Government of this country had acted, and this was the principle on which they were prepared to justify their conduct. With respect to what the noble Marquess had said relative to queen Anne and the politics of that day, he must say, that he could not, for the life of him, perceive its drift, or how the two circumstances were connected. It was then apprehended, that danger might arise from an union of the Crowns in the same individual; but there was not at present the remotest chance of any such event occurring. He did not know whether he had left any of the observations of the noble Marquess unanswered, but with respect to the comparison which the noble Marquess had drawn of the amount of public money expended in foreign secret service during the two periods he had mentioned, there surely must be some mistake; for if he were rightly informed, that branch of the public expenditure had diminished rather than increased, as compared with former years.

The Marquess of Londonderry

The noble Viscount may, if he pleases, look at the statement of the figures to which I referred.

Viscount Melbourne

He was assured on good authority that there must be a mistake, though he was not able not having seen the documents to detect it. With respect to the Motion of the noble Marquess it was extremely large; it called for the production of 'copies of all such documents or information as had led to this Treaty.' It would be highly inconvenient to accede to a proposition like this; but, although he meant to resist the Motion, he was satisfied, that if the whole of the facts were disclosed they would only tend to the justification of the Government in the course which they had taken. In a correspondence of the kind, however, there were always matters relating to other Powers which it would not be proper to divulge; and upon this ground alone, if there were no other, he would confidently rest his hope that the House would not entertain a Motion like the present. But the noble Marquess had made out no case; he had shown no reason why the position in which those Powers stood and the circumstances in which they felt themselves placed did not justify such a treaty, and until the noble Marquess had made out some such case it was plain he was not entitled to the production of the correspondence. If the treaty had failed in the accomplishment of its object then the House would have a right to call for the explanation demanded by the noble Marquess; but as it had not failed, as no treaty had ever before been so certainly, entirely, and speedily successful in the attainment of its object as this, he must say not content to the noble Marquess's Motion.

The Duke of Wellington

said, that if he had no other reason to induce him to refrain from taking part in the present debate, he had a sufficient motive in the conviction which he entertained, that at the present moment a discussion upon foreign affairs was untimely, and, therefore, he thought that the present Motion should not have been brought forward just now. It was a fact, that the public attached at present no importance to the present discussion. They were more anxious about the internal situation of this country—of England—and much as this subject might have interested them some years ago, it had not, he thought, the same attraction at present. He should possibly have avoided addressing their Lordships at all on the present occasion, were it not for the concluding words of the noble Viscount who had just addressed the House. In what he had to say he should leave out of question altogether those topics, however interesting, to which his noble friend had addressed himself in the first instance, and he should confine himself to the treaty on which his noble friend had moved for information, and to those topics immediately connected with it. It always appeared to him, that if ever there was a transaction inconsistent with the policy of Great Britain, it was the present treaty. The object of the policy of Great Britain, from the most ancient times, had been to keep the two Powers of the Peninsula independent of each other, and both independent of France. The object of the present treaty was to make them both dependent on each other, and both dependent upon France. The treaty which lay upon their Lordships' Table, was, of all others he had ever seen, the most opposed to the political system upon which this country had ever acted. Besides, that treaty, in fact, tended to introduce foreign arms into Portugal, and it tended to introduce foreign arms into Spain; and for what purpose? Not for the purpose of interference in the internal government of those countries—not of interference casually, but for the purpose of perpetual interference in the internal affairs of those countries. That treaty was not only opposed to all the policy of this country, but it was also opposed to the declaration of non-interference with the civil affairs of other countries. The noble Viscount had said, over and over again, that we never had any intention of interfering with the internal affairs of Portugal, and the answer of his Majesty to an address of their Lordships on the same subject declared that everything had been done to preserve neutrality. In fact, no principle had been laid down more distinctly than this, that we were not to interfere in the affairs of Portugal, yet, in defiance of this, we had not only interfered, but had got allies to join with us in that interference. According to the noble Viscount's speech the Spaniards had been prohibited from entering Potugal, when Ferdinand wished to render assistance to Don Miguel; and in the same speech he admitted that the invasion of Portugal by the Spaniards was the principal object of the treaty. Yet see what inconsistency there was in such statements. Why, the Spaniards had entered Portugal six months before the treaty was signed, yet they were told that it was in consequence of the treaty that the Spanish troops entered Portugal. He should be glad, however, to know the meaning of the treaty. The preamble contained an extraordinary number of objects in it, and it appeared to be the object of the four Powers to settle the governments of Spain and Portugal, although, as he understood the noble Viscount, the expulsion of Don Carlos from Spain was its only object. But a very remarkable circumstance had occurred, which showed that the treaty had some object in contemplation beyond this, and this was the mode and date of this treaty. By the concluding article of the treaty it was arranged that the ratifications of the respective Powers should be exchanged within one month after the treaty was concluded, and be delivered in London; but on the 4th of June the noble Earl came down to the House and stated, that the ratifications had not been thus exchanged. The regency of Portugal had returned their instrument of ratification without the preamble, and it was necessary on account of this irregularity to have another signed; but, instead of directing this ratification to be exchanged, as the treaty required, at London, His Majesty sent his ratification to Lisbon, whereas they ought to have been exchanged in London. Now, before this could have been done, Don Carlos and Don Miguel had both retired from Portugal; and if ever there was a treaty useless for any purpose, it was this, which had for its object the expulsion of Don Carlos from Portugal, when he had actually left the country. But if by this treaty we were really to interfere in the internal management of the two countries of the Peninsula, all he could say was, that we were entering upon a series of operations of which no two Peers in that House would see the conclusion. He thought that it was not desirable that we should enter into an alliance with France to interfere with the internal management of these two countries, and not only without the concurrence but against the inclination of the other Powers of Europe. He was sorry to say, that England had now lost the position which she formerly occupied in the councils of Europe, the great influential and benevolent position which enabled her not only to preserve peace by her advice, but to preserve harmony and a good understanding between other Powers. He would not enter into the consideration of the Salic law; His Majesty had thought proper to acknowledge Isabella 2nd, the daughter of Ferdinand, in preference to another relation. For the events which placed her on the throne Ministers ought to have been prepared, and by settling the succession of the crown of Portugal, as they might have done, they would have averted the consequences of civil war in both countries.

The Marquess of Lansdown

said, he would not follow the noble Marquess through all the different topics adverted to in his speech, but would confine himself to the treaty on which the noble Duke had rested his chief argument, and before he went further he must say, that the interpretation given to the treaty by the noble Duke was the very reverse of what its plain and direct meaning implied. He was quite sure that, on a review of the treaty, the House would form the same conclusion; and he would ask the noble puke what other purposes the treaty could have in view than the settlement of the dispute without interference, or interference only in case of a concurrence of circumstances which could not be avoided? The treaty, in fact, was formed, in order to prevent any evil consequences from interference with the internal affairs of either country. As to the charge that we interfered with the internal management of Portugal, he would only refer the noble Duke to the policy which this country had constantly pursued during the dispute between the two brothers. Application had been made again and again, on the part of Don Pedro, for assistance, and what followed?—Constant refusal and repeated declarations, that while the contest was carried on between Don Pedro and Don Miguel only, it was impossible this country could interfere. The noble Duke said, the treaty was formed for the purpose of invading Portugal, and then adverted to the circumstance of this coun- try refusing to permit Ferdinand to send troops into Spain to assist Don Miguel; but did not the noble Duke see the immense difference between the two circumstances? Nothing, in fact, was done by this country or Spain till the pretender to the throne of that country had entered Portugal, and then it became the duty of England to interfere. Could any man deny, that if Ferdinand had been allowed to interfere in the affairs of Portugal, that the effect of such an interference might have been injurious to the independence of the country? And again he would ask, could it be denied that if Don Carlos, by connecting himself with the usurper of the throne of Portugal, had been successful, the effect of this would have been to overturn the government of Spain? Would any man, therefore, deny, that it was just to eject Don Carlos? Would any man deny that, under the sinister and portentous aspect of the whole circumstances of the case, it was not the duty and policy of this country to interfere? The treaty was intended to apply only on the contingency of Don Carlos quitting Spain for Portugal; but when he left that country the object of it ceased. In fact, the whole plan and object of the treaty had been eminently successful, because it had accomplished its object and nothing more. Another complaint had been made against the alliance with this country and France; but any one on reading the treaty would see that especial care had been taken to arrange the mode of interference in such a way as should be consistent with the policy of England. The noble Duke and those on his side of the House depended much on dates, but others also had dates, and when the noble Duke told them that the treaty was useless, he would only say, in reply, that the treaty was agreed to on the 24th of May, and on the 20th of June Don Miguel surrendered at Santarem and Don Carlos was obliged to take shelter on the shores of this country. He would only allude to one point further. The noble Duke opposite had adverted to a matter already well known to the public—he meant the informality in the mode in which the treaty was finished. No doubt such informality had occurred, but he was authorized in saying, in addition to what had been declared at the time, that the informality in the omission of the preamble was unintentional on the part of the government of Portugal, and that it was not in consequence of any objection on the part of that government to comply with every provision contained in that treaty. But the noble Duke had also blamed the noble Lord at the head of the foreign affairs for having committed his Majesty's Government, by sending to Lisbon that treaty without first obtaining a sufficient security against the chance of what had been termed the mala fides of the Portuguese government. His noble friend had, in point of fact, exchanged declarations with the Representatives of all parties in this country, that unless the preamble was agreed to in the form in which it was originally proposed, while assent was given to the other terms only, the whole treaty should have no effect whatever; so that his Majesty's Government had not in the smallest degree committed itself in that transaction. On all these grounds he thought the treaty in question had been most wisely concluded. That it had caused great benefit was apparent from the effects which had immediately followed. When the noble Duke adverted to the present state of Europe, and to the policy pursued by his Majesty's Government, he had represented that this country could not longer occupy that proud situation among European states which had enabled her to maintain the peace of Europe. He must answer, that the peace of Europe had been maintained—that the prophecies to the contrary, which for the last four years had from time to time been made, were falsified—that the prognostication that the march of French troops into Belgium was with a view to their permanency in that country was manifestly erroneous, from the fact that the pacification and the settlement of the disputes between Holland and Belgium would have now been accomplished but for the vacillation, not of England, but of other Powers, whom, despite their vacillation, the authority of England, judiciously displayed, had deterred from presuming to interfere with that course of policy which had been successfully directed to the maintenance of the peace and tranquillity of Europe. It was his firm belief that peace and tranquillity would continue by an adherence to the same course of policy. The noble Earl who had introduced this discussion had adverted, in terms which he knew not whether they were designed for compliment or satire on his Majesty's Government, to the connection existing between this country and France. But whether the noble Earl meant to be complimentary or satirical, he would say, that his Majesty's Government had never interfered with the internal government of France under Charles 10th, because it thought that Government arbitrary; nor would it interfere with the internal government of that country under Louis Philippe, because it conceived it to be more constitutional, or, in the new language of compliment adopted by the noble Earl, more unconstitutional. He would, however, remind the noble Earl, who seemed to see nothing to distinguish the government of Louis Philippe from that of Charles 10th, that under the latter a series of acts were performed in direct violation of the law, and without the sanction of the Representative Chambers of the country, whilst, on the other hand, all the acts of Louis Philippe had been performed under the powers granted to him by law, and had been approved by those chambers which lawfully represent the sense of the people of that country. It was not, however, upon questions of the internal government of France that he built the policy of a strict alliance and intercourse between the two countries. He did believe that, while that alliance and intercourse continued on the happy foundation upon which it had hitherto stood, (and that there was every disposition on the part of France for its continuance was apparent from the recent speech of the king of France,) the peace of Europe, which it was the common object of both to preserve, would be more effectually and certainly maintained than by any other course that could be followed.

The Marquess of Londonderry

, in reply, repeated, that France had domineered over and subjugated the Councils of this country in the transaction to which he had called the attention of their Lordships. He rejoiced that he had done so, because the discussion had elicited the fact, that the object of the treaty having been accomplished is was now at an end.

Motion negatived without a division.