Lords Sitting of 19 February 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. County Works Presentment (Ireland); Drainage, &c. {Ireland); Charitable Trusts.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Dacre, from Exeter, for an Inquiry into the Proceedings of the Anti-Com-Law League.—From the New Ross Electoral Division of the Ross Poor Law Union, for an equal Rate in all the Electoral Divisions of a Poor Law Union.—By Lord Rosebery, from the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council, of Linlithgow, for the immediate Abolition of the Corn Laws.—By Lord Redesdale, from Landowners, Tenant Farmers, and others, of Northumberland, for Protection of the Agricultural Interest.—By Lord Southampton, from Landowners, Tenant Farmers, Labourers, and others, of Byfield, and several other places, in favour of the Corn Laws.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE.
LORD DACRE, in presenting a petition from Exeter, for inquiry into the proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League, in inducing parties resident at a distance to purchase 40 s. freeholds in counties, observed that the present was not the time to enter into a discussion on the general subject; but he could not help reminding their Lordships, that in 1829 so great were the evils in Ireland produced by the 40 s. freeholders, that the Legislature were compelled to get rid of them; and, therefore, the proceedings of the League, in the creation of these votes, could not be too much condemned. He did not mean to say that the acts of the Anti-Corn-Law League in this respect were not legal, as they had the authority of almost the first law officer in this country (Lord Chief Justice Tindal); but he considered that if they were in accordance with the letter of the law, they were not in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. He considered, therefore, that this petition was worthy of the attention of their Lordships.
LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that this was the second time this Session that the noble Lord had called attention to the proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League; and he, as a member of the League, agreed with the prayer of the petition for an inquiry. The League courted inquiry. Every thing that had been done by the League was fair and above-board. As to the League's getting hold of the counties, he could assure the noble Lord that he need not be alarmed about the minute subdivision of land caused by the creation of 40 s. freeholds. Men of all parties and classes had bought them. If the noble Lord wished to open the whole question of the Reform Bill, he (Lord Kinnaird) should be glad to go into it with him; but when they talked of creating large numbers of 40 s. freeholders, the nomination boroughs must not be forgotten, which were so openly controlled by Peers of that House. He maintained that the League were acting legally and constitutionally in giving facilities to persons who wished to acquire votes; and they were only doing what had been done by others for worse ends. Why, there was the town of Buckingham, where the proprietor, using the most legal means, could return any Member he chose to the Lower House; and the same thing was done in many other cases by noble Lords on both sides of the House, as both parties were well known to have their nomination
1148
boroughs. The Anti-Corn-Law League was quite willing and prepared to go into the whole question; and he, as an individual, should rejoice in such an inquiry, as preparatory to a better reform of Parliament. In present circumstances, if those who were called protectionists or monopolists went to the constituencies, his firm conviction was, that, from their power over nomination boroughs, and other influences, they might return a party adverse to free trade; but if they did so they might depend upon it that nothing would be more likely to raise into existence illegal or unconstitutional bodies, instead of such safe and legal associations as they now found in the Anti-Corn-Law League.
LORD REDESDALE, in presenting a petition from Northumberland, praying that protection might not be removed from agriculture, said that, in his opinion, the proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League, in regard to registration, were directly unconstitutional, although, according to the strict letter of the law, they were legal. The Constitution of this country required that the population and property of each electoral district should return Members to represent that district in Parliament; and the Legislature had more than once interfered to prevent the disturbance of that right by strangers. When, therefore, he saw a body saying that Liverpool and Manchester should secure the representation of Cheshire, he called that an interference with the rights of the people of Cheshire. When, again, he saw the same body, in one of their printed addresses, saying that the inhabitants of London ought to secure Hertfordshire, because it was near to London, he called that an unconstitutional interference with the electors of Hertfordshire. If the Legislature neglected to do something to put a stop to this undue interference with the election of Members of Parliament, they would have clubs and knots of persons constantly interfering with the constituencies of England, contrary to their privileges and to the spirit of the Constitution. The Anti-Corn-Law League were worse than the Duke of Bedford, in making the celebrated fagot votes in Huntingdonshire. He created on his property in that county more votes than belonged to it, though still within the range of law; but it was held, nevertheless, to be an undue interference with the electors of Huntingdon. But, under the operations of the League, they might have parties whose interests were solely the interests of Manchester, and not

1149
those of Huntingdon, coming forward and swamping the people of Huntingdon in the election of a Member of Parliament, so that the general interests of that county were, by these means, left unrepresented. If they went on in this way, the consequence might be that one interest would obtain the representation of every constituency in the kingdom. If Parliament did not give a strong expression of its will in regard to this matter — unless the practice should naturally drop—("Hear.") He understood the meaning of that "hear," and would refer to it again; but in the meantime, he must say that, unless the Legislature interfered, the consequence would be, that Parliament would cease to be the most important body in the country. A great deal that was going on in Ireland and in this country had a tendency to lower Parliament in the eyes of the country; especially the House of Commons, as that branch of the Legislature was more affected by it than that to which their Lordships belonged. People would begin to look to the proceedings of other bodies more than to Parliament; and in process of time would learn to say that they did not care about the House of Commons, but would rather look to such bodies as the Anti-Corn-Law League, or the Repeal Association, who could counteract the decisions of Parliament. He must say, therefore, that unless this evil was watched, there was a process going on in this country, and in Ireland particularly — for it began there — that would tend in effect to alter the whole Constitution of the country. That such a state of things should be going on without Parliament interfering—without calling forth the attention of those whose peculiar duty it was to watch over the interests of the country—without any interference on the part of the Government, was not very creditable to the parties concerned. As to the evil dropping, he knew what noble Lords opposite meant by that. It just amounted to this—that if they gave those people what they asked, they would drop their undue practices. Now, was this the way to meet such a course as that followed by those parties? No. It might be said that the people were with them, and that what they asked, therefore, should be conceded; but if it was so, why did they not let the people alone? The effect of conceding the objects which the Anti-Corn-Law League and the Repeal Association demanded, would just be to encourage any other body of agitators that might choose
1150
to arise. He repeated that the practice of the League was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and could never be followed either for a good or bad purpose, without evil resulting from it.
LORD KINNAIRDwas not lawyer enough to know what might be the constitutional rule in this matter; but this he know, that the practice complained of was followed by all parties. One of the watchwords of the party to which the noble Lord belonged was, "Register! register! register!" Well, the League attended to the registrations, and made legal votes for that purpose in a way much more legal than was followed by proprietors to an enormous extent in Scotland. He agreed with the noble Lord that this was an abuse, and he was quite ready to go into the whole matter, and have the entire abuse reformed. But he thought that the Anti-Corn-Law League were in the mean time justified in adopting the same legal means with others for the promotion of their object; and he would tell the noble Lord that, if the repeal of the Corn Laws was carried immediately, the Anti-Corn-Law League would be dissolved. It would not be continued for any other purpose, the sole object of the association being to obtain the repeal of the Corn Laws. Perhaps the knowledge of this fact might somewhat relieve the mind of the noble Lord.
EARL GREYobserved, that whatever party first commenced the practice of increasing the constituency far beyond what a country naturally should have, he must say that he concurred with the noble Lord opposite in thinking that the existence of such a party embodied as the Anti-Corn-Law League was a serious evil. But when he said it was a serious evil, he must also say that he thought it was only a symptom of a still greater and still more serious evil, and that was, the existence of a state of the law which a large proportion of the intelligent people of this country felt to be an intolerable grievance—a grievance against which they found it necessary to take even such means as these for relieving themselves. The noble Lord had said, and said truly, that the manner in which these things were gone about, both in this country and in Ireland, and in respect to Irish affairs, was calculated to lower the authority of Parliament: he cordially concurred with him in that view. But he would ask, what was the cure they ought to apply to such evils? It was not by adopting any coercive means to prevent such manifestations of

1151
opinion—it was not by adopting any law to prevent the existence of the Catholic Association, or the Anti-Corn-Law League, or preventing the purchase of property to make votes for those not resident in a county—it was not by any machinery of that kind they could formally grapple with this evil; but it was by Parliament taking the lead of public opinion, instead of lagging in the rear—not waiting to be driven by the loudly-expressed wishes of the community to make necessary reforms—not waiting to be compelled by the voice of public opinion that had been roused into agitation by the long continuance of a great grievance and abuse. It was by looking beforehand—by taking timely care to remedy evils before they were felt to be intolerable—it was by Parliament again performing its ancient duty of leading public opinion, instead of waiting to be driven by that opinion, that they could hope to put an end to those evils of which the noble Lord complained. No man could see more strongly than he did the inconvenience of all the great changes of modern times being deferred, till they were passed, not as matters flowing from the judgment of Parliament, but from necessity. He thought they incurred high responsibility who prevented the public from having sooner understood what was required, for having used their influence to perpetuate ancient prejudices and unsound opinions. Those who had done so, misguided, no doubt, themselves; and, shortsighted as to the consequences that were about to follow, it was they, and not the party of the League or the party of the Catholic Association, who were responsible for the great evils that might result from the course complained of by the noble Lord.
LORD ASHBURTONobserved, that the noble Lord opposite took it for granted that all public opinion was good; that any views which were opposed to public opinion must be wrong; and that, therefore, the latter should be adopted. If public opinion in this case was with the Anti-Corn-Law League, what necessity was there for creating fictitious votes to carry Members in Lancashire and Cheshire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire? He regarded the course pursued by the League as fraught with disastrous consequences to the country. It was an evil with which Government could not be dealing rightly unless it proposed some measure to check and stop it.
Petition to be laid on the Table.

AFFAIRS OF THE RIO DE LA PLATA.
LORD BEAUMONTrose to move, that the correspondence which had taken place between the Government of this country and of France with respect to the Rio de la Plata should be laid before their Lordships. In making this Motion, he hoped the House would allow him, as briefly as he could, to trace the chief events which had happened in the Rio de la Plata, with the object of showing that the noble Earl at the head of the Department for Foreign Affairs, had not only adopted an impolitic course, but one which was at variance with the principles adopted by this country, and also at variance with its former practice. Their Lordships were aware that at the termination of the war between Brazil and the Argentine Confederation, in 1828, a Convention was made, by which the province of the Banda Oriental was constituted an independent State, under the title of the Republic of Uruguay. He wished their Lordships to pay particular attention to this Convention, because it was mentioned by the noble Lord (Earl of Aberdeen) in the instructions sent by him to Mr. Ouseley; and it was also referred to as an excuse for the conduct of the Cabinet of Brazil on a late occasion. The terms of that Convention were, that Uruguay should be maintained as an independent State, and that its independence should be guaranteed by the parties who signed that Treaty. There was an article in the Treaty which provided that in case of rebellion against the legitimate Government of Monte Video, the contracting parties should aid the Government in putting that rebellion down. The obligation of assisting the lawful President of Monte Video in maintaining his authority, was by this Convention imposed on Buenos Ayres for five years after the establishment of the new republic. The only names, however, appended to the Treaty were those of the representatives of Buenos Ayres and Brazil. England only recommending peace, and her name not being affixed to the Treaty, therefore took no obligation upon herself to support the legitimate Government of Uruguay. England was a mediating, not a guaranteeing Power: she therefore imposed on herself no obligation, and obtained no right. Subsequently to that period, particularly in 1829, and the following years, a sanguinary civil war raged in the Argentine Confederation between the Unitarians and Federalist party. General Rosas was one of the chiefs of the Federalists, and General

1153
Lavalle one of the leaders of the Unitarians. General Lavalle, after assassinating the Governor of Buenos Ayres, and attempting to assassinate Rosas, became president; but he was afterwards obliged to capitulate to General Rosas, who became president of Buenos Ayres in his stead, and who had done more than any other person to establish the rule of law and justice in that country. In consequence of the defeat of their party, the Unitarians, in 1829, fled in great numbers to the Banda Oriental, and took up their abode in Monte Video. They carried on a war with the Federalist party in Buenos Ayres, and invaded their territories from time to time, but were again and again defeated. In 1837, a misunderstanding took place between France and Buenos Ayres, and the French blockaded the town. At that time General Oribe was at the head of the Government of Monte Video, and the French applied to him for his co-operation in the blockade; but Oribe refused to depart in any degree from the position which he had assumed, and determined to maintain the Convention which had been made in 1828. Very fortunately, however, for the French, during that time a party was raised up against Oribe. This party consisted of the Unitarians who had fled from Buenos Ayres, and strangers who had come to reside in the Republic of Uruguay. At the head of this party was General Riveira, and he succeeded in driving Oribe out of Monte Video, became president of the Republic of Uruguay, and assisted the French in their blockade of Buenos Ayres. Subsequently to this, in 1840, the French thought proper to make peace with General Rosas; and in the treaty of peace Rosas agreed to respect the Convention of 1828, and the independence of Monte Video. General Riveira, however, and his party did not come to terms of peace with Buenos Ayres, but continued to invade the country of the Argentine Confederation at the head of a band of Unitarians. Riveira was subsequently defeated, and in a short time Oribe succeeded in passing between Riveira and Monte Video. Oribe afterwards invaded the Banda Oriental country, which he did for the sole purpose, as he declared in his proclamation, of recovering his legitimate authority. General Rosas gave Oribe assistance, acting in the spirit of the Convention of 1828, which bound him to assist the legitimate Government of Monte Video in regaining its authority. Oribe gained possession of the whole territory of Uruguay,
1154
finding, when he arrived before Monte Video, that the whole native population of the State were in his favour. Still the town of Monte Video held out against him. In 1842, England offered her mediation between Oribe and Riveira, and, in 1843, France and England offered their joint mediation between the belligerent parties—but their mediation was refused. In 1843, at the instigation of Viscount Abrantes, they thought fit to interfere. Now, it must be borne in mind, that at that time General Oribe represented the lawful Government of Monte Video. Oribe was in possession of the whole country, except the town of Monte Video itself. Riveira had been defeated in the field; and the party who were cooped up in the town consisted of Italians, French, and Unitarians, only one hundred and fifty natives being in arms against Oribe, and that number had since that time been reduced to fifty natives. At that moment England interfered. For what purpose? Not surely to prevent the effusion of blood, because, had they not then interfered, Oribe would have recovered his power; permanent peace would have been established between Buenos Ayres and Monte Video; and at the same time, according to the bound words of General Rosas, the integrity of the Republic of Uruguay would have been secured. The intervention had prevented that happy result, and had caused the continuance of horrors which before they had tried to prevent, whilst in the distant provinces of the Argentine Confederation it caused the renewal of that frightful war known as the war between the Federalists and the Unitarians. Inspired by the hopes which the intervention raised, General Paz was allowed by the Brazilian Government to traverse their territories and invade Corrientes, a province of the Argentine republic, in which province, as well as in Entrerios, he was endeavouring to raise a revolt against the Government of General Rosas. If, therefore, the cessation of this effusion of blood was the noble Earl's object, this measure had tended to produce the very opposite effect, as peace had been prevented, and a new war commenced, in consequence of the intervention. Another object which had been put forward by the noble Earl for that intervention was the opening of the River Parana, and the other tributaries of the River Plate. Undoubtedly such an opening up of those rivers would be most desirable for the interests of British commerce. But the opening of the River

1155
Parana depended essentially upon General Rosas, as it ran through a territory both sides of which belonged to him. We could not force a country, contrary to its own desire, to open up its rivers; because, if we insisted upon going up the River Parana, we should be establishing a most dangerous precedent, and the Americans might just as well insist on going down the St. Lawrence. Again, England's intervention was not to prevent a war between nation and nation, but a war between a faction in Monte Video and the remainder of the State—it was purely an internal war. The inconvenient consequences of that intervention seemed to have struck the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government; for he said in the House of Commons, in May, 1844—
"Let the House only look at the consequences of such a precedent as that of a neutral State, greatly superior in power, interfering forcibly in the foreign relations, and therefore necessarily in the internal government, of another State. Such a right did not exist by the law of nations; and, if such a step were taken, other powerful States might likewise interfere."
That was just what the noble Lord did in the Republic of Uruguay. Then, again, he should wish to know whether there had been a Convention between England and France to regulate their strange interference. He believed that there had been no Convention. Yet could anything be more contrary to the practice of nations, or more dangerous in its nature as a precedent, than that two powerful States should interfere with States like those of South America, where the minds of people were naturally led to believe that self-interest and aggrandizement were the sole grounds for an intervention where there was no Convention to which they could appeal—no positive act or instrument—beyond an instruction to our Minister, which could be shown to prove that there was no such intention. There might be some understanding between the noble Earl and the French Government; but, if so, let the noble Earl produce the Papers. Instructions sent out to our Minister, and instructions to the French Minister, were not sufficient; for it had been the invariable practice on similar occasions to guarantee all by a Convention. He repeated, he should like to know whether the noble Earl had taken the step he had taken to protect British commerce. Why, it was ruinous to British commerce, as the noble Earl would soon find out from the ruined merchants of Buenos Ayres; and the object
1156
could only be to support an armed rebellious faction in Monte Video, consisting of Italians, French, and Unitarians, who had purchased and sold the public property, and who were, through their lying instruments, the press, raising up every kind of evil passion. For them had the noble Earl interfered against Buenos Ayres and against General Rosas, who could alone give us command of the River Plate, and in whose power alone it was to advance the interests of British commerce. Let their Lordships look for an instant to the instructions which the noble Earl had sent out to Mr. Ouseley, the only document which the noble Earl had produced to explain his extraordinary conduct. In the first instance, amongst other general instructions, the noble Earl stated that the determination of Her Majesty's Government to put a termination to the war was shared in by the Government of France, and that it was the intention of the two countries to unite their influence, and, if need be, their force for that purpose. The noble Earl said he did not deny the right of Buenos Ayres to wage war like any other independent Power, so long as that war should be conducted according to the law of nations, and the practice of civilized men. "But," said the noble Earl, "the war in which the Argentine arms are at present engaged is waged against a State the independence of which Great Britain is virtually bound to uphold." That, however, was not the case; for, instead of being a declaration of war against the Argentine State, this war had been commenced to support the independence of the Argentine State against a mere faction of foreigners. He continued—"and the object of that war is to place the domestic Government of Monte Video in hands other than those to which the consent of the State has entrusted it." How could that be? Was not the election of Oribe a lawful election? He had all the people with him—fifty only of the natives had opposed him; and what did the noble Earl recommend as the means of establishing the lawful power of Monte Video, there being then two Presidents—Oribe, elected lawfully by the people, and Riveira, elected by a faction? Why, the noble Lord said, in his instructions to Mr. Ouseley—
"With the view, therefore, of setting at rest all jealousy on this score, it might perhaps be well that the conditions of peace should include on one side the removal of General Oribe from the Monte Videan territory, and, on the other, that any political refugees or other persons, whose presence in

1157
Monte Video may be a reasonable source of disquietude to the Buenos Ayrean Government, should seek an asylum elsewhere. Amongst these General Riveira would, no doubt, be included."
The noble Earl, with the view of sustaining lawful authority, would send away all the lawful authorities that ever had existed. In such a case, what Government could go on? He (Lord Beaumont) was sure he could not imagine, unless, indeed, it was intended to place in power that very bad band of foreigners which now ruled the town of Monte Video. It seemed, however, that the noble Earl had, since that period, seen the error into which he had fallen; for, in his second despatch, dated November 5th, 1845, nearly nine months after the date of his first despatch, he quite abandoned the idea of sending away both Governments. That second despatch was directly at variance with the instructions in the first; and recent events were directly at variance with the instructions of the second; so that a scene of confusion and a succession of contradictions were enacted and put forward, by the diplomatic agents of the two countries that interfered, which might well puzzle the belligerent Powers. We were not acting as neutrals, and we did not profess to be allies. The conclusion, therefore, that the natives of Buenos Ayres and the Oriental State out of the walls of Monte Video came to was, that we were looking to ulterior objects of self-interest. For all these proceedings and unconstitutional interventions he (Lord Beaumont) felt it but justice to say that he entirely blamed the Government at home, and that he threw no blame whatever upon the diplomatic agents employed. Before he sat down, he must observe that he did not appear there as an apologist for General Rosas, nor did he wish to palliate in the least the charges which had been brought against him for his cruelties; but he did say that they had been enormously exaggerated: and not only that, but he would assert that, if they judged General Rosas according to the scale of morals and opinions in that country, they would find that he stood forward far superior, and in a much more favourable light, than most of the persons who had risen to power in that country. He felt convinced that, when the noble Earl recollected what had taken place in Guatemala, Venzuela, Mexico, and all those republics, he would see that, though General Rosas was not spotless, yet that he had rivals in his sanguinary habits, and rivals who far
1158
surpassed him in the monstrosity of their practices towards their fellow subjects. He certainly must say, that he never was more shocked in his life than by reading a publication put forward at Monte Video as the life and history of General Rosas; but he believed the whole to be an utter fabrication. With these remarks, he hoped that the Correspondence for which he moved would be laid upon the Table of the House.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, that he had been so long accustomed to find the attention of his noble Friend opposite exclusively directed to the condition of the eastern part of Europe, and especially to questions connected with the interests and rights of the Turkish Empire, that he hoped he might consider this excursion to the Western world as some indication that, as far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, the noble Lord had left all matters in the East in a tolerably satisfactory situation. The noble Lord had stigmatized very strongly the intervention of England and France in the affairs of La Plata, and had described it as entirely unnecessary and unjust. Now he ventured to think, that if ever there was a case in which a proceeding of this kind was justifiable, it was the case to which the noble Lord had called their Lordships' attention. The principles and objects of the intervention were explained in the instructions, a copy of which was now lying on their Lordships' Table. Their Lordships would recollect that for several years a most destructive war had existed in La Plata, carried on and accompanied by atrocities revolting to humanity—a war which in truth had no national object whatever, or any intelligible and public ground, but which was founded entirely on personal hatred and party rancour. It was very rarely indeed that any war could be just and wise; but this war was not only wicked, but was among the most senseless that ever afflicted mankind. During the whole course of this war the object of Great Britain had been to arrest its progress if possible. In 1841, the noble Lord who preceded him in office directed her Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres to press the mediation of Great Britain on that Government, with a view of putting an end to the hostilities then carried on. That offer was refused, though it had been earnestly sought by the opposite party at Monte Video. In the following year, he (Lord Aberdeen) thought an opportunity had arisen, when, by the united proposal of England and France to mediate between the parties,

1159
there appeared some prospect of attaining that object. That joint mediation was strongly urged on the contending parties, and was accepted readily by the Monte Videans, but it was again rejected by the Buenos Ayreans. That was in the autumn of 1842. The Government of Buenos Ayres was then told, that though we acquiesced in that decision, yet it was impossible for us indefinitely to permit a sanguinary warfare of this kind to continue, and the interests of British commerce to be continually interrupted and impeded. For two years following, however, Her Majesty's Government took no step in this matter. The war continued, and its horrors increased daily, as well as the injury to British commerce. Not a month passed in which he (Lord Aberdeen) was not attacked in every quarter as guilty of the most culpable apathy and indifference to British commerce, and neglect of British interests. Petitions were presented to both Houses of Parliament on this subject. Still, however, he felt that it required strong grounds to interfere with the free exercise of power by an independent State, even when that power was employed in a manner so senseless and barbarous. As the Buenos Ayreans, however, persevered in their course, at the end of two years representations came to Her Majesty's Government from all quarters on this subject, and at last also from the Government of Brazil. The noble Lord seemed to think that that Government went out of its sphere in interfering at all in the matter; but it was a neighbouring Power interested in the tranquillity of the River Plate, and preventing the peace of its frontier provinces from being disturbed or threatened by these hostilities; and it was moreover a party to the Convention of August, 1828—the Government of Brazil urging on the Cabinets of London and Paris, through the Viscount D'Abrantes, the necessity of a prompt and effective interference in order to put an end to the war. Under these circumstances, the Governments of England and France, having concerted together, determined to offer mediation a third time, for the purpose of effecting pacification in that part of the world; and, if that offer were refused, to attempt by coercive measures to attain that object. Accordingly, there was a special mission on the part of this country and of France. The instructions sent to Her Majesty's Minister had been laid on their Lordships' Table, and those sent to the French Minister,
1160
which were strictly analogous, were in like manner laid before the French Chambers. They appeared to him (Lord Aberdeen) to express no hostile views against General Rosas, or Buenos Ayres. On the contrary, nothing could be more clear than the spirit of impartiality which pervaded the whole course adopted by England and France throughout the transactions. Every means was employed to induce the Government of Buenos Ayres to accept the offer of mediation, but they again refused to adopt any proposal until they had annihilated, as they said, those "sanguinary Unitarians." The Government of Buenos Ayres, as appeared by the papers published by them, were evidently misled by the reports of their agents. They thought that the union of England and France in this matter was not sincere—that the two countries distrusted each other—and that they had separate objects in view—and much art was employed to sow misunderstanding and dissension between them. But the Government of Buenos Ayres must at length have discovered that England and France were united in this object in a manner perfectly disinterested, and that their only motive was to establish peace in these countries which had been so long desolated by this cruel warfare. The Government of Buenos Ayres were also misled by the unauthorized interference of the Agent of the United States, the Government of which, however, had since explained its policy, and disavowed the whole of his proceeding. The object of this interference on the part of England and France was very simple. It was peace, and peace alone, preserving the independent existence of the Republic of Uruguay. It was true that, as the noble Lord says, we were not parties to the Convention which established the State of Uruguay, and this country had not guaranteed the independent existence of that republic; yet that State was created under our mediation, and therefore it was impossible for us to be indifferent to its destruction. The same was the case with the French Government; which in making peace with the Buenos Ayrean Government in 1840, not only recognised but secured the independent existence of Uruguay. It was, therefore, impossible to allow Rosas to become possessed of both sides of the River Plate, as he would had no interference taken place. With respect to General Oribe, there was no objection, on the part of this country, to his election as president of the Republic of Uruguay, if such was the

1161
will of the people; and there was no intention to support General Riviera or any one else. If, therefore, General Oribe had the whole country with him, let him send away the troops of General Rosas, and be elected President of Uruguay. To this there would be no objection on the part of England and France. But at present General Oribe was the lieutenant of Rosas, commanding the latter's troops, and forced on the country at the head of the Argentine army. As long as this was the case, it was ludicrous to talk of the independence of the Republic of Uruguay. He would now say a word in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord with respect to the opening of the tributary river of Parana. That, no doubt, was a great object; and, some day or other, he hoped that it would be accomplished lawfully and peaceably; but, on this subject, he had only to repeat the sentiment he had already expressed in that House, that we could not pretend to exercise any right of navigation with repect to the river Parana, both banks of which were within the Argentine Republic. To do so would be contrary to constant practice and the principles of nations. What might happen if peace were not established, and events should take an unfortunate turn, was another question; but, at present, they were negotiating with this State, with which they were not at war. It was true that a blockade of Buenos Ayres had been established; but that act, though approaching to a condition of hostilities, was not necessarily a state of war. This country was not at war with Buenos Ayres; and he trusted that it would continue in peace with that State, and that it would not be long before their mutual relations were re-established. Very recently General Rosas had made fresh proposals, which, though not in their present state admissible, might possibly lead to an amicable adjustment. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the noble Lord would not think proper to press for Papers, the production of which could not contribute to any such end, but might prove exceedingly michievous. He (Lord Aberdeen) hoped that the noble Lord would comprehend the discretion which prevented him from entering into a description of the character of the Buenos Ayrean Government, and of the person at its head. He thought that it would be unbecoming in him were he to do anything which could militate against that hope which he entertained of living in peace and terms of friendship with that State, as had been the case
1162
for so many years. If the Government of that State could only bring themselves to entertain the same love of peace as animated the Government of England, and ought to animate all mankind, there would not be the reason which existed at present to complain of their conduct. He trusted that the noble Lord would not, under the circumstances, press for the production of the Papers.
LORD COLCHESTER, having in the course of his public duty visited the countries under discussion, and having been personally acquainted with some of the individuals named in the debate, wished to address a few observations to the House. He perfectly concurred in the objects of the noble Earl (Aberdeen) as stated in his instructions to Mr. Ouseley, viz., to effect a cessation of hostilities between the two parties in the River Plate, and to secure peace throughout the State of Uruguay; but he feared the means adopted were not those best calculated to effect the purpose. The noble Earl stated, that the war carried on by the Government of Buenos Ayres was one without any national object; but this appeared to him (Lord Colchester) to be a misapprehension. In 1828, when General Rosas forced General Lavalle and the other chiefs of the Unitarian party to exile themselves from Buenos Ayres, they took refuge in the State of Uruguay, and from that time to the present had carried on a war from thence against the Government of Buenos Ayres whenever any chance of success offered itself. It was therefore an object of great importance to the security of the Government of Buenos Ayres to have in the Republic of Uruguay, not a dependent, but a friendly State. Such was their object in assisting General Oribe to recover his authority in that State; and he (Lord Colchester) did not apprehend any danger to the independence of the Republic of Uruguay from the restoration of General Oribe, as it was owing to his wish to maintain that independence that he had lost his office as President of that Republic. When France, in the year 1838, in prosecution of certain claims against Buenos Ayres, established a blockade of that port, her officers were desirous of using the port of Mont Video for the purpose of condemning and selling their prizes: this General Oribe resisted as involving him in a breach of neutrality. In consequence a revolution was got up, and Oribe was deposed; and in a public document he accused the French Consul

1163
of being a party to the plot. Oribe then retired to Buenos Ayres, and his successor, General Riveira, agreed to all the wishes of the French, and joined them in the war against Buenos Ayres. In 1840 the state of public affairs in Europe induced the French to come to terms with Buenos Ayres, and their forces quitted the River Plate. Riveira still continued the war, but was defeated in several actions; and Oribe, with the assistance of a Buenos Ayrean army, re-entered the Republic of Uruguay, and succeeded in gaining possession of all the open country, and invested the city of Monte Video by land, while a Buenos Ayrean fleet blockaded it by sea; and if France and England had not interfered, it must in all probability have soon fallen. The defence of the city of Monte Video had been represented as showing the feeling of the people of the Republic of Uruguay against the return of General Oribe; but how was this population composed? Of about 24,000 inhabitants, there were, according to Mr. Mallalieu, 5,500 natives, and immigrants from Spain; 1,000 Unitarian refugees from Buenos Ayres; and the remaining 17,000 French and Italians; and these foreigners were not merely peaceful merchants and traders, for out of the armed force of 5,000, 3,000 were French and Italians. The natives, therefore, did not constitute more than one-fourth of the population of the city, which in point of fact was in the hands of foreigners. Now with respect to the joint interference of France and England, it was doubtless advantageous to the tranquillity of Europe when these two great countries could act in concert on questions of general policy; but in this particular case he (Lord Colchester) feared that the conduct of French agents and French subjects had disqualified France from holding the character of an impartial mediator. The original deposition of General Oribe was to serve French interests; French subjects had enrolled themselves in considerable force to oppose his return; and when at length summoned by the French Government to lay down their arms, they did so only in appearance, to resume them immediately under the flag of Monte Video. He (Lord Colchester) feared, the interference of France, under these circumstances, not likely to be favourably viewed by Buenos Ayres. He was glad to hear the statement made by the noble Earl (Aberdeen) of the present views of Her Majesty's Government towards
1164
General Oribe, and trusted that when they became generally known they would tend much towards an amicable settlement of the question, as they appeared so much more just to that individual than those contained in the instructions to Mr. Ouseley. The noble Earl had stated as another reason for our interference, the injury done to our commerce by this war in the River Plate. He (Lord Colchester) believed this interruption had not extended beyond the single port of Monte Video; and though we had now re-opened that traffic, had we not produced a much greater interruption to our commerce by our own blockade of the port of Buenos Ayres? The noble Earl had spoken of this blockade as the only act of coercion used by us towards Buenos Ayres; but had we not heard of actual hostilities in the River Parana? Had not blood been shed there? and, considering the haughty spirit of the Spanish race, might they not find themselves involved in a long and expensive contest? Buenos Ayres was protected by its shoals from an attack by ships; and even should they land forces to take the city, fatal experience had shown them that gallantry alone might not ensure success in such an operation. The character of General Rosas having been alluded to in the debate, he (Lord Colchester) would state that Rosas was a gentleman of old family and large landed possessions, who had taken little share in public affairs till after the murder of Governor Dorrego in 1828, when he was summoned to place himself at the head of the Federal party against General Lavalle and his adherents, and succeeded in driving them out of the republic. When he (Lord Colchester) was in the River Plate in 1830 and 1831, he could state that General Rosas had not been guilty of any of those cruelties since attributed to him: of what might have since occurred he could not state anything of his own knowledge; and seeing the conduct of Spaniards towards each other during the civil wars in the mother country, he feared there might be truth in some of the acts imputed to Rosas; but he firmly believed that many were altogether untrue, and more exaggerated, or performed by those who, nominally under his orders, were not really under his control; and that the character of General Rosas would hereafter stand as high as that of many of those among his countrymen who enjoyed great reputation, though their otherwise fair fame had been tarnished by unjustifiable

1165
severities, or cruel retaliations on their opponents.
LORD BEAUMONTexpressed great satisfaction with the speech just made by the noble Earl. The observations he had made with regard to the prospects of peace, and the final settlement of the question, would do very great good when they became known in that quarter of the world. The body of strangers referred to by his noble Friend had, according to the last information which he (Lord Beaumont) had received, not laid down their arms. He had been furnished with a list of the; regiments, and could produce documents showing they were all European settlers; and therefore, until the foreign residents were forced to become neutral, the noble Earl could not expect Oribe to dismiss his auxiliaries. He should not, however, press his Motion.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: I must, ask the noble Lord one question, He stated that General Oribe was the first President:—now, I beg the noble Lord's pardon; to my certain knowledge General Riveira was the first President. Therefore, there may be two claimants to that office.
LORD BEAUMONTwould answer the noble Duke's question. General Riveira had served his time as President, and there was a new election for the Presidency. Oribe was elected according to the form prescribed. The duration of the office was limited the same as in the States of America. He had not fulfilled the time which, according to the Constitution, he was entitled to hold the Presidency, when, by means of the French intervention, a party was raised under General Riveira and General Lavalle, which upset the Presidency of General Oribe. He then took refuge within Buenos Ayres, with the intention of recovering his lost authority. They followed him to Buenos Ayres, and undoubtedly assisted to carry war to the very gates of that city; and it was in the retreat from that place that General Lavalle lost his life.
The Motion was then by leave withdrawn.
House adjourned.