Lords Sitting of 5 May 1848

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Jewish Disabilities. 2a Indemnity.
Royal Assent —Election Recognisances.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Builders, Plumbers, and Glaziers of the Port of London, against the Navigation Laws—From the Members of several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for an Extension of the Privileges of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order.—From the Nottingham Order of Odd Fellows, for the Insertion of a Clause in the Provident Associations Fraud Prevention Bill, by which their Surplus Capital may be Invested in the Savings Banks.—From the Mayor and Corporation of Dublin, for a Comprehensive and Equitable Tenant Right in Ireland.—From Streatham, Ewell, and Langton, and several other Places, against the Admission of Jews into Parliament.—From a Number of Persons of the Jewish Religion, and Others, at Edinburgh, and other Places, in Favour of the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—From Treforest, against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays.—From several Charitable Institutions in Ayr, praying to be relieved from the Payment of Legacy Duty.

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SPAIN.
LORD STANLEY: My Lords, I now rise, not without some reluctance, in the performance of that which appears to me to be an imperative public duty, for the purpose of calling your Lordships' attention to, and moving for, the production of a correspondence which has been printed in all the public papers of this metropolis, the genuineness of which I wish, though I cannot entertain a hope, that Her Majesty's Government may have it in their power to impugn; the propriety of which I think it will be somewhat difficult to defend and vindicate; but with respect to which it is due to Her Majesty's Ministers themselves and to the country that they should have an opportunity of stating publicly whatever they may be able to state in explanation or extenuation of that which appears to me not to be capable of justification; also I think it desirable that your Lordships should have in your individual, if not in your collective, capacity an opportunity of expressing the sentiments with which the perusal of that correspondence has inspired you. My Lords, I make this Motion in no spirit of hostility to Her Ma-
672
jesty's Government. I am not desirous to add to the many and great embarrassments by which their course has been and is surrounded: for the noble Viscount himself, whose conduct it is my painful duty to be compelled to impugn upon this occasion, I entertain personally no feelings but those of sincere respect and regard. But your Lordships are aware that this is not the first time that I have felt myself compelled to entertain and to express the opinion that the noble Viscount's administration of the foreign affairs of this country has been marked by a spirit and an animus which has often led him into the adoption of measures detrimental to the interests of this country, which interests I am sure he is earnestly and sincerely desirous of supporting. My Lords, it appears to me that, upon this occasion, as upon others, there are two ruling and fixed ideas with regard to the administration of foreign affairs of this country which have taken possession of the mind of the noble Viscount. The one, an exaggerated and overstrained jealousy of the influence—as he chooses to consider it, the "rival influence"—of France in the other Courts of Europe and the world; and the other, a morbid desire for interfering and intermeddling, with a view, no doubt, in his judgment, to the promotion of British interests, with those purely internal concerns of other countries which I hold it to be the first duty of a British Minister most sedulously to abstain from disturbing. And when those two objects are combined—when at one and the same time the noble Viscount has had an opportunity of interfering in the internal affairs of another country, and also by that interference of establishing an English party and English influence, in opposition to a French party and French influence, the temptation has at all times been found by the noble Viscount to be absolutely irresistible, and in such a case there can be no hope that he will abstain from such interference. For my own part, I have not been brought up in the diplomatic school, and perhaps do not look with that reverence and respect with which I ought to look upon several of those points which appear to be the principal objects to which the efforts and sometimes the intrigues of Ministers in foreign Courts are directed. I do not consider, though I know that many of them do—I do not consider that it can be a matter of serious import to the permanent influence or interests of this country that one Minister should be sup-

673
planted by court intrigue, or by the influence of a foreign party in another country; least of all do I consider that it can ever be for the advantage or for the permanent interest; of this country, that the resignation of one Minister, or the appointment of another, should be owing to the open intervention, and much less to the secret intervention, of the British Government. I know no interest which this country has to promote in foreign courts by such means; I know no advantage that is to be gained by the admission of what is called "British influence." I do not for a moment hesitate to admit the great importance to this country and to the world that we should maintain friendly relations with all the principal courts and countries of Europe. I do not hesitate to admit the great importance of our being on such terms with all the leading Powers of Europe and the world, as that our motives should not be misconstrued; that our prosperity and well-being should not be looked upon with jealousy and suspicion; or that our intervention, when a necessity should arise, should be looked upon with disfavour: but I believe, with a full desire to maintain and uphold British influence in the courts and countries of Europe, that that influence is best maintained and upheld by abstaining sedulously and carefully from interfering in any the slightest degree with the purely domestic concerns of other countries. And, my Lords, if that be true of any country—if it be true of every country—I say that it is emphatically and peculiarly true of that country to which my present. Motion most particularly refers—that it is most particularly true of the most jealous and the proudest country in the world—that it is most emphatically true of Spain. My Lords, I know of no interest that this country has except that the other nations of the world should be wealthy, flourishing, peaceful, contented, increasing in commercial prosperity, and able thereby to tend to our own prosperity and advantage as a, commercial people. It ought to be known, my Lords, we have no ambition for foreign conquest—we have no desire to extend the sway of our empire, which is already wide enough to satisfy the wildest ambition. We desire to be respected and looked up to—we desire to conduct our own affairs to the honour and prosperity of our country; but we have no desire, at least we ought to have no desire, to interfere with the internal arrangements of other coun-
674
tries. My Lords, in the course of the last Session of Parliament, I took the liberty of calling your Lordships' attention, and of stating the objections which I entertained, to the interference which Her Majesty's Government had thought it wise and prudent to interpose in the internal affairs of Portugal. Your Lordships did not concur, indeed, in the objections which I entertained, and which I then ventured to express; but forgive me if I say that the subsequent course of affairs in that country have not shaken the opinions which I then entertained, but have, on the contrary, gone far to confirm some of the predictions which I then took the liberty to hazard. It is true that by your intervention you put down an insurrection in Portugal—it is true that you established the Sovereign of Portugal on her throne—and it is true that the ground of your defence of that interference was again jealousy of the intervention of France; for we were told that if we did not interfere in the affairs of Portugal, France and Spain would interfere without us. My Lords, I ventured to doubt the fact—I ventured to doubt whether France had the slightest idea of interfering in the internal affairs of Portugal; and I felt no doubt whatever, if, in compliance with the obligations of treaties, you had declared to Spain that you would not tolerate her interference with Portugal, that that declaration would have met with that respect from Spain which it would have had a right, to command. But, my Lords, that intervention restored the Sovereign of Portugal, and at the same time you declared to the people of Portugal that you guaranteed to them, upon the faith of England, certain conditions, certain constitutional rights, for which those people were then successfully in arms. I ask your Lordships, I ask Her Majesty's Government, can they say that those guarantees have been acted up to? Can they say that the Queen of Portugal has fulfilled the engagements upon the condition of which she gained the support and armed intervention of England? and I ask whether you can say that by that intervention, accompanied as it was by considerable expense—happily by no expense of blood, but by considerable expenditure of money in transmission of forces to Spain, and attended as it was by the sacrifice of constitutional principles—I ask whether the result has been that you have increased your influence in Portugal, or added to the favour with which this country was regarded by the

675
people of Portugal? Why, my Lords, in the course of the present Session of Parliament you have done nothing but interfere. I speak not of Greece, because the circumstances of that country, and the position in which it stands in relation to France and this country, are very peculiar; but I will venture to call your Lordships' attention to your interference and its result in the case of the States of Italy. Her Majesty's Government thought it right to despatch a Privy Councillor to Italy, and Her Majesty was consequently deprived of the advice of that noble person; but we were consoled for his loss by being told that whilst all Italy was in a state of fervid excitement, Lord Minto was to be the presiding genius; that he was to be the man "to ride on the whirlwind and direct the storm;" that he was the person who, armed with the authority of England, was to control and moderate the violent spirits of Italy; that he was the person to prevent the effusion of blood; that he was the person who was to watch over the constitutional rights and the growing liberties of Italy, and to take care that they did not pass beyond the limits which you, in your wisdom, had determined for them. I ask, what has been the result of that mission? Do you believe that your influence in Italy has been increased by it? Do you believe that you can point to one part of Italy and say, if it were competent for you to form a judgment of the limits to which Italian liberties should be carried, that you have possessed the power, either with the princes or the people, to fix those limits or to guide the storm which has been raised? I admit that it was not the desire of Her Majesty's Ministers that the kingdom of the Two Sicilies should be separated by a civil war. I know not, indeed, what British object was at stake; I know not what it mattered to British interests whether there should be one, or two, or no Parliament at all, administering the affairs of the kingdom of Naples. I know no British interest which was to be affected, or to be improved there; yet there you have thought fit to interfere; and, in the presence and under the mediation of your Ambassador, sent specially, and accredited, as he was stated to be, to all the Sovereigns of Italy, excepting only the Court of Rome, what are the results that have been obtained? A constitution has indeed been extorted from the King of Naples, with regard to his Neapolitan ter-
676
ritory—a free, liberal constitution, forsooth—of which one of the leading articles, adopted under the mediation, and I presume with the sanction, of the British Minister, was this, that in the Neapolitan dominions, under the new Liberal constitution, no religion but the Roman Catholic should be tolerated. In the presence of your Ambassador Sicily has revolted, and is engaged at this moment in a successful civil war against a King to whom your Ambassador was accredited. I presume that was not by your desire, or with your advice, but your influence has manifestly failed to prevent it. To Rome the noble Earl was not accredited, as there were certain diplomatic constitutional difficulties which stood in the way; and, if I mistake not, for the removal of those difficulties your Lordships were told, two months ago, that the immediate passing of an Act was necessary, and that it was unreasonable to ask for even a week's delay in this House in the removal of those diplomatic constitutional difficulties which it was so indispensably necessary at once to remove. If it were so, some change must have come over us since, for from that time to this I have heard no more of it. In the other House of Parliament I have heard no voice raised with regard to that Bill, which the Government assured us it was so necessary for us to pass without delay, but which necessity, I thought at the time, scarcely could be proved. To the See of Rome, however, if the noble Earl was not accredited, at all events your advice and influence extended. You thought it necessary to warn the Emperor of Austria against the invasion of your faithful Ally the King of Sardinia. You thought it necessary to say, that such an invasion would not be looked upon by this country with indifference; and you say that you have held similar language to your faithful Ally the King of Sardinia with regard to the invasion of, or the interference with, other countries; yet it does so happen, though all the influence of the British Government is now in Italy accredited to and advising every State in Italy, that, contrary to your advice, and to that which you declare to be essential to the maintenance of public liberty, the King of Sardinia, the Pope, and the Grand Duke of Tuscany, one and all, in the presence of your Ambassador, are actively engaged in an unprovoked invasion of a foreign and friendly Power. That is the result of your intervention in Italy—there is the consequence of med-

677
dling with matters purely Italian—there is the
result of your mission, and of the cries and vivas for Italian independence. And do you believe that whilst your advice has been slighted in Italy, and your influence has not, prevailed in carrying your own views into effect—do you believe that you really have established yourselves in the minds and affections of the people of Italy in such a manner as to give you any weight in future political or commercial negotiations with that country? I confess, my Lords, that I doubt it exceedingly; and I firmly believe that the greatest danger which at this moment threatens the peace of Europe would arise from Austria—temporarily, at all events—succeeding in re-establishing her power in a portion of the Milanese dominions; and if Austria should so succeed, it is not to you, the moderators of the storm, and the directors and controllers of the liberties of Europe, that the Milanese will have recourse. You will be outbidden in the race of popularity. It is not to you that revolutionary Italy will turn, but to that Republican France which does not hesitate to declare her sympathy with oppressed nationality. It is to her, and not to you, that in such an event application will be made; and whatever popularity with the revolutionists of Italy you may think you have gained, by fomenting and encouraging them in their attemps to obtain a more liberal form of government, that popularity will at once be lost with that class the moment you cease to go the full length which they desire, and it will be embraced by the first nation which is willing to do that from which you shrink. My Lords, I make these observations because I see in the correspondence to which I am about to call your attention a continuance of the same system of interference in matters in which you have no concern whatever, by which you only wound the pride of the nation with which you interfere, and by which, so far from promoting British interests and British influence, you actually are countervailing your own intentions, you are damaging and defeating your own legitimate influence, and probably giving an influence in those countries to the very Power against which you seek to establish yourselves. Now, I have said that if such an intervention and course of proceeding are obnoxions to any country, they are peculiarly so to a country like Spain; and I believe I might add, that if there be one man in Spain who possesses more of the proud and sensi-
678
tive feelings of a Spaniard than another upon the subject of foreign intervention and foreign dictation, that man is the very Minister to whom the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has thought fit to address that very short and pithy letter to which I am about to call your Lordships' attention. I am about to read that letter to your Lordships; and you will observe that the noble Viscount does not think it necessary to use any circumlocution of language—that he does not think it necessary to preface the demands which his Minister is instructed to make by any phrase which might have a tendency to render the substance of that letter appear a little less discourteous. The noble Viscount proceeds at once in medias res, and on the 16th March, from the Foreign Office, if this letter be genuine, he is supposed to have used this language:—
"TO THE RIGHT HON. HENRY LYTTON BULWER,
"Foreign Office, March 16, 1848.
"Sir—I have to recommend you to advise the Spanish Government to adopt a legal and constitutional system. The recent downfall of the King of the French, and of his family, and the expulsion of his Ministers, ought to indicate to the Spanish Court and Government the danger to which they expose themselves, in endeavouring to govern a country in a manner opposed to the sentiments and opinions of the nation; and the catastrophe which has just occurred in France is sufficient to show that even a numerous and well-disciplined army offers only an insufficient defence to the Crown when the system followed by the Crown is not in harmony with the general system of the country.
"The Queen of Spain would act wisely in the present critical state of affairs if she were to strengthen her Executive Government by widening the bases on which the administration reposes, and in calling to her councils some of the men in whom the liberal party places confidence.—I have the honour to be, &c.
"PALMERSTON."
I know not, my Lords, what your Lordships may think of this extraordinary production; but I confess that the oftener I read it, and the more I consider it, the more am I at an absolute loss to understand what possible views the noble Viscount could have proposed to his own mind, what imaginable motive he could have had, or what conceivable effect he anticipated in writing such a letter. I know not which most to condemn—the subject, peculiarly domestic, upon which the interference took place; the arguments, peculiarly offensive, by which that interference is supported; or the tone, of not usual courtesy, in which the recommendations of Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary

679
are conveyed to the Minister of an independent Government. But, my Lords, we should not do justice to this production if we looked at it by itself, without reference to the position in which Spain and England, and more especially the existing Minister of Spain, our Ambassador to the Court of Spain, and our Secretary of Foreign Affairs, have stood for a period of twelve months; nor without looking, moreover, at the condition in which Spain stood at the particular moment. I will venture to say, and I will prove it to your Lordships, that the position of Spain at that particular moment rendered interference (at all times—indecent I was about to say, but—unfitting), peculiarly inappropriate at the time and under the circumstances. I must, in relation to this part of the subject, be permitted to carry your Lordships back to the period when my noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) quitted office. That was at a time when negotiations were going on which were then considered of the greatest importance for the future peace and tranquillity of Europe, relative to the marriage of the young Queen of Spain. I shall not attempt to conceal from your Lordships or from myself that at that time, and before the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) succeeded to the administration of Foreign Affairs, there were in Spain two great parties, one of which was supposed to be more or less in the interest of England, and the other more or less in the interest of France. I do not deny that the interests of France and England, with regard to the immediate question, appeared to be somewhat different; but I will venture to say that at the moment when my noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) quitted the Foreign Office, there was the most perfect and cordial harmony upon that subject between the Governments of England and France. There was, on the part of both Governments, a determination to press no pretensions which, whether justly or unjustly, might offend the susceptibilities or exite the national jealousy of the people and Government of Spain; and I believe that if my noble Friend had continued in office, that difficult negotiation would have been terminated to the perfect satisfaction of both one and the other, and, moreover, to the effectual maintenance of the peace and tranquillity of Europe. Unfortunately, the noble Viscount succeeded to office; and from that moment—it might be his fault, or it might be his misfortune—instead of
680
a mutual and frank understanding between the two Governments, jealousy, mistrust, misapprehension, and a want of confidence, took the place of cordial understanding and unreserved communication. The French Government believed, rightly or wrongly, that the noble Viscount had ulterior objects in view, and that he was disposed to depart from any arrangements the basis of which had been established between themselves and my noble Friend; the Government of France, therefore, thought themselves at liberty to depart from those arrangements too. Thus, under the influence of joint misunderstanding and mistrust, the noble Viscount found himself outwitted by the Government of France; and he was not very moderate in the expression of the resentment he felt at having been so outwitted. I am not about to enter into a discussion upon the merits of the arrangement, or the policy to which it led. I am not about to express any approbation of it. On the contrary, with the noble .Viscount, I reprobate the policy by which the happiness of the young Sovereign of Spain, and of Spain itself, was sacrificed to the view of supporting the interest and enouraging the aggrandizement of a particular dynasty. It would be useless to go back to those circumstances; and doubtless it would be also ungenerous to advert to them at a time when the dynasty so sought to be aggrandized by admission into another supplementary kingdom, has, by the retributive hand of Providence, been not only deprived of that sovereignty, but of the very throne on which it was thought by itself and Europe to be permanently established. Connected with this matter, there is, however, one topic to which I shall advert, because I hope that I shall obtain an authoritative contradiction from Her Majesty's Government of a rumour which I would fain believe to be unfounded. The rumour was, that when the Infanta of Spain, the Duchess de Montpensier, a refugee from the country of her adoption, took refuge in this country, and it was intended that from this country she should return to that which was her natural home, objections were raised on the part of Her Majesty's Government; and that that opportunity was taken for showing resentment at that marriage—that objections were taken to the direct passage of the young Infanta, in her peculiar situation, to Spain. I would fain hope there is no truth in this rumour. Whatever might have been the objections to that

681
marriage, whatever the objections to a union in defiance of treaties, or too great affinity between the Crowns of Spain and France, circumstances had, in the meantime, removed our objections upon the grounds of policy and prudence. And whatever might have been the previous conduct, I can never cease to think, if any objections were then made, that it was a golden opportunity lost for pursuing a course at once generous and frank from this country towards the sister of the Queen of Spain returning to her native land, a refugee from the country of her adoption, by not expressing disapproval of the elevation of the Duke de Montpensier to be her husband. I say, then, that from the moment of that marriage, although Narvaez was not Minister of Spain at that time, there was the greatest jealousy existing between the Government of England and the Government of Spain. Whether truly or falsely I know not, but the Government of Spain was supposed to be under the influence of the Moderado party—the party of France; and, whether truly or falsely, it was believed by the Government of Spain, the existing Government of Spain, that the Government here, and the representative of it at Madrid, were politically mixed up and connected with their opponents, the Progressista party, by whose assistance they were desirous of overthrowing the existing dynasty. I ask, then, with this impression upon the mind of the Government of Spain (whether it be well founded or not, that it existed there is no doubt), did it not occur to the noble Viscount at the head of Foreign Affairs, that of all persons to give advice with regard to the management of the internal affairs of Spain, and as to the adoption of any particular course by an independent Government, he, from his supposed connexion with the Progressista party, should have been the very last person to offer it? Did it not occur to him that there was a possibility of its not being received? Did it not occur to him that if he wished to render that possible which was before impossible, he should have conveyed the intimation of his desire through some other medium less likely to be offensive than that of Mr. Lytton Bulwer, our Minister at Madrid? Even if the two Governments had been upon the most friendly, instead of the most cold and hostile terms—even if the despatch had proceeded from one who was believed to have the interest of Spain deeply at heart, I cannot conceive how such a letter—so addressed, so word-
682
ed, and so communicated—should not offend the susceptibilities and wound the natural pride of Spaniards. "I have to recommend you to advise the Spanish Government to adopt a legal and constitutional system!" Why, what right has England to advise Spain to adopt a legal, a constitutional, or any other system? What right has this country to interfere with the Government of Spain, and to assume that the people of Spain are not satisfied with the Government under which they live? What right have we to interfere if the people of Spain chose a republic, a limited monarchy, or an unlimited monarchy, or an absolute despotism? And what are the motives assigned by the noble Viscount for tendering this advice? The extinction of domestic jealousies and the introduction of harmony among different sections, for the purpose of promoting the welfare and the prosperity of Spain? No, none of these; but the motive on which the noble Viscount recommends his advice is the basest which can possibly be suggesed to a high-spirited Government, for it refers to their fears, and tells them that they ought to adopt the course which he points out, lest they, too, should partake in that fate which he characterises as "the recent downfall of the King of the French, and of his family, and the expulsion of his Ministers." "These," he says, "ought to indicate to the Spanish Court and Government the danger to which they expose themselves"—not the "country," but "themselves"—"by endeavouring to govern a country in a manner opposed to the sentiments and opinions of the nation;" that is, according to the system which they thought just, wise, and expedient. If the words of this letter had not been offensive—if the means of its communication had been the most friendly possible—if the object had been most legitimate, to recommend that object by references, not to the advantage of the country, but to the possible personal danger threatening those who ventured to disregard the advice—against this kind of advice every high and honourable mind would naturally rebel. But the fact is, that at the moment this advice was tendered, there was no sort of occasion for giving it. I know not what led the noble Viscount to think that moment peculiarly appropriate to convey to the Spanish Government his views with regard to the party in power, and to express his opinion that if the Queen of Spain widened the bases on which the administration reposed she would strengthen her

683
Executive Government. But the fact is, as stated in the answer of the Duke de Sotomayor, that at the period at which the noble Viscount wrote, there was not the slightest indication of discontent or dissatisfaction. No doubt there had been discontent and dissatisfaction: that the existing Government had put down; but at the moment the noble Viscount wrote, there was no violation of legal or constitutional rights. The Cortes were in full and free sitting; the press was entirely free; there was no exceptional law in operation; and according to the laws and constitution of Spain all was regular. Many might be of opinion that the constitution was not sufficiently liberal; but at the moment at which Lord Palmerston thought fit to address this emphatic, terse, and decided recommendation to the Spanish Government to adopt a legal and constitutional system, the Government of Spain was walking strictly in the path and according to the letter of the constitution and law of Spain, and had exhibited no intention of violating either the one or the other. You find, then, that this document has been certainly ill-timed and inappropriate. It appears, however, that circumstances had materially changed between the period at which the noble Viscount wrote the letter, and the period at which it was presented to the Spanish Government. It is dated the 16th March. As your Lordships are aware, on the 24th March, after the date of this letter, and consequently after the time at which the noble Viscount thought it necessary to warn the Government of Spain of the dangers to which they exposed themselves in endeavouring to govern the country against the sentiments and wishes of the nation, stimulated no doubt by the example of a successful revolution in France, there was an émeute in Madrid, and an insurrection against the existing Government. But so far from that insurrection threatening the Government of Spain with any greater danger than your Lordships were threatened by the Chartist movement on the 10th April, it was put down with very little loss of life, and with very little difficulty. It was effectually subdued. The Spanish Government, therefore, had surmounted the dangers to which the noble Viscount, on the 16th March, thought it necessary to advert. Your Lordships will pardon me for adding, that I do not understand what was the cause of the delay which took place on the part of Mr. Lytton Bulwer in communicating to the Spanish Government the instructions he had re-

684
ceived. Those instructions were certainly received by Mr. Bulwer about the 23rd or 24th March, about the very period at which the insurrection broke out, and which the Government subdued; but it was not delivered till some time afterwards. Mr. Bulwer, I think, might have hesitated, under the circumstances of an insurrection having been put down. The observations of the noble Viscount were indeed singularly inappropriate, and, under the altered circumstances, he might have waited for fresh instructions. Whether fresh instructions reached him in the meantime I know not; but, at all events, it was not until the 7th of April following—not till three weeks after the letter had been written, and a fortnight after its receipt—that Mr. Bulwer addressed to the Spanish Government a letter in fulfilment of the directions he had received from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to which I will now venture to direct your Lordships' attention:—
"TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE DUKE DE SOTOMAYOR.
"English Embassy in Spain, Madrid,
April 7, 1848.
"Sir—I enclose for your Excellency the copy of some remarks which Lord Palmerston has lately addressed to me; and I cannot but express to you all the desire which I feel that the Government of Her Catholic Majesty should deem it fit to return without delay to the ordinary forms of the Government established in Spain, by convoking the Cortes and by giving them explanations calculated to efface the impressions occasioned, both in the kingdom and abroad, by the arrest and apparent intention to banish several citizens (amongst whom are to be found some of the most distinguished members of the Cortes), and who up to the present moment have neither been tried nor accused of any offence.
"Your Excellency, will, I am sure, permit me to remind you that what especially distinguished the cause of Queen Isabella from that of her royal competitor, was the promise of constitutional liberty inscribed on the banner of her Catholic Majesty.
"It is certain that that circumstance powerfully contributed to obtain the sympathy and support of Great Britain in favour of Her Majesty, and consequently your Excellency cannot be surprised at the sentiments which I express here, supposing even that the general situation of Europe, and the universal tendency of public opinion did not prove most clearly, that at present the firmest guarantees of a throne are to be found in the national liberty, and in the enlightened justice which are dispensed under its authority.
"I avail myself of this occasion to renew to your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.
"H. L. BULWER."
Here the British Minister applies himself to the Government of Spain, which had just then succeeded in putting down an insurrection, and expresses his opinion as to

685
the time and circumstances under which the Cortes should be convoked, exceptional measures revoked, and explanations given. Let me ask your Lordships to imagine what would be the indignation of every man in this country—what would have been the indignation of your Lordships—if our own Government had been so appealed to? You have just passed a temporary Bill restricting the liberty of the subject in Ireland. What would your Lordships say if any Foreign Minister in this country were to presume for one moment to address a letter to the Prime Minister, and tell him that in his own judgment it was must expedient to revoke that exceptional measure; and that now that the Chartist insurrection had gone into nothing, and the Irish threatened insurrection had even more ludicrously failed, it was the opinion of his Government, of France, Spain, and others, that the time had come for a return to the ordinary course of the law? You departed from your usual policy in that one instance very wisely and prudently. When it pleased the people of France to change their form of government, and substitute a republic for a monarchy, I cannot believe that that change commanded the sympathies of Her Majesty's Government; I cannot believe they looked with favour upon that change as likely to tend to the advancement of the internal prosperity of France, or the security of the peace of Europe. But what did you do? Why, without hesitation, you admitted the right of each country to choose its own form of government. When France changed from a monarchy to a republic, you at once acknowledged the republic as a change with which you had nothing to do; you dealt with the Government de facto, and declined to express any opinion upon the changes which the people of France had thought fit to make. It is perfectly possible that Her Majesty's Government might not view with favour the conservative Administration in France which preceded the Republic; but did the noble Viscount, or any other Member of the Government, ever dream of sending an intimation to M. Guizot, that in their judgment the King should widen the basis on which his Government rested, by the admission of M. Thiers and M. Odillon Barrot? If they had ventured to address any French Minister on such a subject, it is not necessary for me to suggest what would have been the probable tone of the reply; and I doubt whether a Bri-
686
tish Minister accredited to France would ever be found ready to communicate such a message. What, then, is the ground upon which you sanction the principle of non-interference with regard to France? You loaded with an extravagant, or at all events a sufficient, amount of praise the answer which M. Lamartine gave to the deputation from Ireland; you applauded the determination of the Provisional Government of France not to interfere in the affairs of this country; and you expressed your determination not to interfere with the affairs of the Provisional Government of France. Why, then, I would ask, do Her Majesty's Government act so differently to France from what they do to Italy, Portugal, and Spain? Is it because France is great and powerful, and because Italy, Spain, and Portugal are weak? Is it because it was safe to interfere with the one, and not so safe to interfere with the other? I know not to what to attribute the inconsistency in the course the Government are pursuing, if not to that motive. I think the tone of Lord Palmerston's note was sufficiently offensive to the pride and dignity of Spaniards; but there are one or two circumstances yet remaining to be stated in order to fill up the cup of indignity and offensiveness. I have referred already to the motives on which Lord Palmerston founded his recommendation to the Ministry of Spain. Listen to the motives on which Mr. Bulwer, in supporting that recommendation, rests his advice to the Crown of Spain to return to constitutional courses:—
"Your Excellency will, I am sure, permit me to remind you, that what especially distinguished the cause of Queen Isabella from that of her Royal Competitor was the promise of constitutional liberty inscribed on the banner of Her Catholic Majesty. It is certain that that circumstance powerfully contributed to obtain the sympathy and support of Great Britain in favour of Her Majesty; and, consequently, your Excellency cannot be surprised at the sentiments which I express here, supposing even that the general situation of Europe and the universal tendency of public opinion did not prove most clearly that at present the firmest guarantees of a throne are to be found in the national liberty and in the enlightened justice which are dispensed under its authority."
It may be that the fact which especially distinguished the cause of Queen Isabella from that of her competitor, was the liberal principles and the promises of free government held out by the one, as compared with the other; and that these enlisted the sympathy of the British Government in her favour. But a British statesman has no

687
right in such matters to be guided by his sympathies. He is bound to act upon principles of right and reason, and not upon his fancies or theories, or predilections which he may entertain for one particular form of government over another. But granting it to be the case that the Queen of Spain is indebted for her throne to the co-operation and assistance she derived from England; the Queen of Spain, if she has a single grain of spirit in her, would forfeit that aid and the throne itself, if for the assistance so given we were admitted to dictate to her in the exercise of her independent administration of the affairs of her own country. It was, to say the least, ungenerous, unwise, impolitic, and offensive, at such a moment and in such a case to press compliance with the wishes of the British Government upon the ground that the throne of the Queen was secured owing to the support of British arms. This country rendered greater services to Spain than that, under the conduct of my noble and gallant Friend (the Duke of Wellington). It was not, however, to support either one party or another; it was not to support this or that Minister, or this or that interest, that Great Britain poured forth her treasure and her blood like water. It was to secure the safety of a people struggling in war for their national independence; it was to rescue Spain from foreign aggression, and place her, as we wished to see her, in the position of an independent and powerful nation. I think I know my noble and gallant Friend well; and I will venture to say that, sooner than avail himself of these splendid services—compared with which the assistance to Queen Isabella was as a straw in the balance—to obtain compliance with some British object by a reminder of those services, my noble and gallant Friend would have cut off his right hand. To make this offensive communication more offensive still, there was another extraordinary circumstance, which I hope is capable of explanation. I confess that I cannot understand it. If we are to believe the Duke of Sotomayor it would appear, that whilst there was this delay in acting upon the instructions of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and communicating the advice he was desirous of giving, there was also a violation of all official etiquette, not to say of common courtesy, by communicating it first to the Spanish people through the medium of the Spanish press. If we are to believe the statement of the Duke de Sotomayor,
688
before that communication was made to him he was aware of it by its publication, in substance, if not in extenso, in a Spanish newspaper, and that newspaper notorious for its opposition to the existing Government. This, my Lords, may have been owing to carelessness or gross negligence. I trust it was nothing worse. At all events, your Lordships will not be surprised that—coupled with all the circumstances to which I have referred, addressed at such a time and under such circumstances, to perhaps the proudest and haughtiest Minister that Spain ever saw—this additional circumstance tended to confirm a belief in the mind of the Spanish Government that the British Minister was engaged in an intrigue against the existence of the Government to which he was accredited. That, I think, may reasonably excuse the language which the Duke de Sotomayor has held in his note, which I hold in my hand. I will not read that note. I have read it myself, and I am sure that your Lordships have also, with feelings of shame and regret to think that in consequence of such an uncalled-for and most unjustifiable interference, the noble Viscount should have brought down upon himself, and through him upon this country, such a rebuff as, I believe, no Foreign Minister was ever compelled to submit to before—to think that a despatch which had been communicated to it foreign Minister by order of our Foreign Secretary should be returned as unworthy of the sender, and as inconsistent with the dignity of the people to whom it was addressed; and with a further declaration that if, at any other time, communications of a similar kind should be made, those communications will be returned unnoticed and unanswered.
"Pudet hæc opprobria nobis Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli."
My Lords, we cannot, because we ought not, to resent this language. Strong as it may seem, it is no stronger than we would have applied in our own case to any Minister who should venture to insult us in the way our Minister for Foreign Affairs has insulted the Government of Spain. I know not what course Her Majesty's Ministers intend to pursue on this subject. I can well believe that this correspondence was not communicated to the Cabinet previous to its being sent off. I will do the noble Lord at the head of the Government the justice to believe he had not seen it. I do not believe that either

689
the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) or the noble Earl (Earl Grey) saw it before it appeared in the papers. I cannot, therefore, believe that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take upon themselves the personal and individual responsibility of lending their sanction to the language and tone of the letter to which I have called your Lordships' attention. Still less do I believe that it was more than a fortuitous coincidence, that just at the moment this communication was made, and this answer received, Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer's name should have appeared as the recipient of a high and distinguished honour on the part of Her Majesty, in conferring upon him the decoration of the second class of the Civil Order of the Bath. I do not believe this was intended. [The Marquess of LANSDOWNE: No!] I rejoice to hear it, and I hope the explanation will go forth to the public in order, so far at all events, to satisfy the people of Spain, that it was not an honour conferred for the purpose of marking Her Majesty's sense, and the sense of the Government, of the course pursued by Mr. Bulwer. What further course Her Majesty's Government may pursue—what notice, if any, they will take of the letter of the Duke of Sotomayor—whether Mr. Lytton Bulwer is to continue his functions at a Court where his advice is so peculiarly unacceptable—I shall not attempt to divine. I do venture, however, to express my belief, without knowing whether it be consistent with diplomatic usage or not, but knowing what course a man of honour in private life would take under such circumstances, that the course most worthy of a great nation to take would be a frank and fair admission that the interference was unwarrantable, the advice undeserved, and to at once withdraw the offensive expressions. I believe, in such a case, you might safely trust to
Castilian honour and Castilian generosity for an immediate and an unequivocal withdrawal of all that might be offensive in the reply which the Duke of Sotomayor felt it his duty to make. I have now to move, in terms of my notice, for copies of the correspondence between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Government of Spain. I have thought it the most convenient course to bring this question before your Lordships by moving for these returns, rather than make it the subject of a substantive proposition; but if Her Majesty's Government feel that there is any risk of injury being done to
690
the public service by the publication of those papers—if they think their production could interfere with the amicable settlement of this affair, and would diminish the probabilities of bringing about a better understanding between the Courts of Spain and of this country in reference to this unfortunate misunderstanding, the noble Marquess has only to intimate that such is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, and I shall abstain from pressing for the production of the correspondence, which, so far as it has found its way to the public eye, I have read with feelings of regret and of shame for the position in which it has placed the Government of this country.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not mean to follow the noble Lord at length through the lively comment in which he has conveyed his views upon this subject to your Lordships. Indeed, I might dispense with entering into any lengthened reply on those topics to which he has referred, inasmuch as I have been commanded by Her Majesty to lay on the table of your Lordships' House, on this day, the very correspondence which forms the subject of the noble Lord's Motion. I might, therefore, without any disrespect to the noble Lord, or without any disrespect to this House, abstain altogether from any observations on the speech of the noble Lord, and refer your Lordships at once to these papers which I am about to lay on the table, and which will be immediately in your Lordships' hands, and will speak for themselves in giving the most perfect elucidation of all the facts which the noble Lord has made the subject of his comments. But I do owe it to the character of Her Majesty's Government—I do owe it to the importance of placing this transaction in its true and correct light—not to allow this occasion to pass away without some observations on what has fallen from the noble Lord, and without, in some way, putting your Lordships in possession at once of the correct state of the facts, as they will be found to exist from the papers which I now lay before you. It is quite true that a communication was made at the period mentioned—the date the noble Lord has correctly stated—by my noble Friend at the head of the department of Foreign Affairs, to Mr. Bulwer, the Minister from this country at the Court of Spain, on the subject of what appeared to be the internal state of that country. But here, in the very outset, the noble Lord sought

691
to give effect to bis statement, by alleging, with great emphasis, that this was a communication ordered to be made directly to the Spanish Government. My answer to that is a simple denial. The letter was not ordered to be communicated to the Spanish Government. It was a communication made by my noble Friend at the head of the department for Foreign Affairs, to the representative of Great Britain in Spain, instructing him as to the language which he was to hold in his communications on the internal affairs of that country with the Spanish Government. But how was he directed to hold that communication? The noble Lord has been led astray by his ignorance—a very natural ignorance under the circumstance—of the real state of matters, because he has been guided, doubtless, in making his statement, by the version which he has seen in the public prints of this transaction. Now, these instructions to Mr. Bulwer have been undoubtedly published, I know not how—I know not by what means they were communicated, or by what authority they got into the French newspapers; but I apprehend that the noble Lord had other means, in making his statement, of knowing the contents of them except through that publication. In that version the document has been given nearly verbatim, with the exception of a few words. But these few words make the whole difference on the charge which the noble Lord has brought forward. It is, as the noble Lord well knows, easy by omitting a few words, or by adding a few words, to alter very materially the sense and colour of any document; and in a public despatch a very slight omission or admission, indeed, may alter the whole letter, character, and sense of that despatch. We all know that for the purpose of getting up a grievance, or of showing one under any Government, it is not unusual—and there are great artists in those matters—to put in words, or to suppress words that alter a document or statement, which shall pretend to explain words in one case, or are necessary to its correct understanding in the other; and even in transactions between Government and Government, it is not uncommon to give a colour that is desired to a transaction by omitting particular portions. I do not know who the persons may have been who have so acted in this instance. I am far from believing that the Duke of Sotomayor himself had any part in making the document public—
692
I believe him to be incapable of any such act; but whoever was the correspondent of the French newspaper, a version of the despatch was published, which by the suppression of a few words had the effect of creating an impression that the despatch was directed to be laid before the Spanish Government, and of inducing such a construction as has been put upon it, but which is not at all borne out by the words of the original despatch. Your Lordships, when you come to see that despatch, will find that it sets out directly, and in very explicit terms, by directing Mr. Bulwer to convey his sentiments to the Spanish Government when an opportunity occurred for so doing, thereby directly contradicting the assertion that it was intended that the despatch should be laid before the Spanish Government. My noble Friend near me (the Marquess of Clanricarde) adds, that the despatch was marked "confidential;" but whether that were so or not, the manner in which the document opened obviously implied that it was not to be conveyed to the Spanish Government, but that it was an instruction for Mr. Bulwer's private guidance alone. Then, I say, that these expressions, on which the noble Lord dwells so much, need not have been scanned with that rigorous accuracy, with that care and consideration, which, I admit with him, would be due in a communication made directly, I will not say to so proud a Government as the noble Lord says that of Spain is, but to any Government, because towards any Government, great or small, proud or humble, it is right that we should address our communications in the terms of respect that are consistent with the maintenance of those relations which the law of nations and the law of policy prescribes from one State towards another. But I say, this despatch was intended, as will appear to your Lordships if you look into the papers that are laid before you, obviously for Mr. Bulwer's individual guidance; and this obviously explains that which the noble Lord thinks requires explanation, viz., the omission of Mr. Bulwer to transmit this note at the date when it was received. Mr. Bulwer chose the moment which he thought most proper for laying the instructions which he had received before the Spanish Government, as he was directed to do; had he been ordered to communicate it, he would have done so the next day. I will not say that he absolutely followed the instructions which he received, because he

693
certainly did more than the language of the despatch pointed out, by communicating the very expressions that had been used by my noble Friend to himself. The noble Lord will ask, why were those instructions communicated to the Spanish Government in that precise form? I am quite prepared to say, that, framing my judgment in this country, and ignorant of the precise position in which Mr. Bulwer found himself, I do lament that in the exercise of what Mr. Bulwer thought a sound discretion, he should have forwarded that communication to the Spanish Government. Mr. Bulwer, doubtless, acted on his own judgment. I have no means of knowing all the circumstances that prompted a most able and meritorious public servant—well acquainted with the country in which he had lived for years, and with the policy of that country—to take that step; and in the absence of such knowledge, I feel that I have no right to condemn any decision to which he has come in the exercise of his discretion. But the communication of this despatch was the exercise of a discretion left to him, on the part of Mr. Bulwer, and it was not the result of any directions from any noble Friend at the head of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, all the imputations cast upon my noble Friend on the subject fall to the ground. When we come to another part of the noble Lord's observations—I mean with regard to the interference of this country in the affairs of Spain—what do we find? I beg to call attention to what the nature of that interference is. It consists simply in giving counsel and advice to the Spanish Government—to a Government which has been in the habit of asking the advice and which has frequently sought the assistance of the British Government, and which was therefore undoubtedly in a situation to receive in a friendly spirit any advice that was tendered with a view to its advantage. Was that advice offered in a spirit of hostility to the Government or the constitution of Spain? No. It was given for the purpose of explaining the view which was taken of transactions occurring in Spain by the Government of this country, in order that the Government of Spain might not hereafter be taken by surprise at any course taken by this country—I will not say of hostility to Spain, because hostility to Spain is out of the question—but an interruption of that good understanding with Spain, which Spain herself must feel is essential to her prosperity. I do conceive
694
that the Spanish Government would have some reason to complain, if they, at no distant time, asked for assistance from this country—if, for instance, they were to ask whether the British Government still considered the Quadruple Treaty to be in force, I conceive that in such a case they would have cause to complain if they had not been previously put in possession of the views of this country with regard to steps that we thought had altered their position with regard to us. Would it have been right for us to have waited until the moment when assistance was demanded from us, to refuse the assistance that otherwise would have been given, and which, intimately connected as the noble Lord himself had been with the Quadruple Treaty, he must be desirous of seeing afforded?
LORD STANLEY explained that he had been a party to the Tripartite Treaty, but not to the Quadruple Treaty?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: The object both of the Tripartite and Quadruple Treaties was to promote a constitutional as opposed to a despotical Government.. When the noble Lord makes a comparison between the two countries, and says, "What should we have thought in England if a demand were made by Spain that Her Majesty should change Her course of domestic policy, or should not put down certain insurrections, or not undertake certain steps that Spain thought necessary?" But does the noble Lord not admit that if Spain had been in the position that we were—indebted to her for assistance and advice—she might very well have tendered her advice to us? And if arbitrary proceedings were taken here—if, for instance, a great number of eminent persons in Parliament, including the noble Lord himself, were to be suddenly arrested, would it for a moment be held that there is the slightest similarity between the right of Spain to interfere in such a case, and that of Great Britain to offer her advice under similar circumstances in Spain? But anything like direct interference has been avoided: the advice offered has not been tendered in any hostile spirit, but under a deliberate and sincere conviction that a liberal course of policy was the best for Spain herself—advice, moreover, which it appears from these papers themselves Spain was at entire liberty to adopt or reject. With regard to the services rendered by this country to Spain, I quite agree with the noble Lord, that it is the last ground on which we

695
should claim any right of interference with that Power. There were some other points in the noble Lord's speech in which I think that he might have spared some of his observations; but there is one point which I undoubtedly feel indebted to him for having mentioned, as it enables me to give it a distinct contradiction. I allude to the supposition which the noble Lord scarcely permitted himself to indulge in, that Mr. Bulwer, previously to communicating this note to the Spanish Government conveying the sentiments of the Government of England, had taken a step which, I agree with the noble Lord, would be most improper in any country—that he had caused the note, or the substance of it, to be printed in a newspaper before presenting it to the Spanish Minister. The only fact on which this allegation can rest is a paragraph which appeared in the Clamor Publico, indicating an opinion entertained by them that the British Government would express her opinion on the transactions that had taken place. Why, at the time that this paragraph was published, the note had not been determined on, and had not been written; and I am distinctly authorised, from a statement which has been received from Mr. Bulwer himself, to say, that no intimation whatever with regard to the note, or any intended note, had at the time been given. The paragraph was, in fact, one of those assertions which, right or wrong, newspapers in all countries will sometimes indulge in, and which, in respect to Mr. Bulwer, had on other occasions been most recklessly indulged in. Some of these assertions may turn out to be true, and others to be entirely false. The supposition in the present instance had no foundation but the mere accident of the paragraph being inserted shortly before the note was written; and surely such a ground is not sufficient to found a charge against Mr. Bulwer of the grossest of all improprieties, that of communicating a despatch, not to the party for whom it was intended, but to a hostile press. The character of the charge must be a sufficient refutation; but in addition, and in justice to Mr. Bulwer, I can assure your Lordships that Mr. Bulwer has written to say that he has made no such communication, and what will, no doubt, be considered satisfactory by the noble Lord, I believe that by this time the Duke of Sotomayor himself is fully convinced of the falsehood of this statement, inasmuch as I understand that
696
Mr. Bulwer has recently received a letter from him acquitting him of any such misconduct. But, undoubtedly, the rumour has existed which has reached the ears of the noble Lord, and it, no doubt, originated in some such spirit as conceived the suppression of words in the despatch. In the same spirit has been originated a rumour which formed another of the points to which the noble Lord alluded. It has been confidently asserted that two members of an illustrious family, entitled to the more consideration from the misfortune in which they have been involved, have been treated with disrespect by the Sovereign of this realm. I desire most emphatically to say that no such disrespect was intended—that no such disrespect was shown. Her Majesty's Ministers had no intention of giving any advice to their Sovereign on the subject. In the exercise of that generosity of feeling which belongs to Her at all times, and which has been peculiarly displayed in the present awful situation of the world, in which so many persons, illustrious by their position and by their character, have been forced to resort to this country, Her Majesty manifested towards them only those feelings of kindness and consideration for which she is distinguished. It did so happen that the Duke and Duchess of Montpensier, who had been previously received by Her Majesty, and who had experienced those attentions which were shown by Her Majesty to them, in common with their family, and all those to whom I have alluded, had omitted the usual etiquette observed on such occasions, by visiting Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace, without having given any previous notice of their intention to do so, at a moment when it was not convenient for Her Majesty to receive them. Naturally on such an occasion, and at such an interview, Her Majesty would be accompanied and attended by his Royal Highness Prince Albert, or by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and it appears that my noble Friend had, in point of fact, been summoned from the Privy Council to appear immediately at the Palace.
LORD STANLEY was afraid that he had been misunderstood by his noble Friend. He never intended to reflect in the slightest degree on the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers, or upon any one, with regard to the circumstance to which the noble Lord alluded. What he did advert to was, that there had been an objec-

697
tion taken by the Ministry to the Duke and Duchess de Montpensier going directly to Spain.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I certainly understood the noble Lord to allude to a circumstance that has been very industriously rumoured; and I may state to the noble Lord that even if he had not referred to the subject, I fully intended myself to do so, because I conceived that for the honour of Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Government, it was expedient that the most distinct and peremptory denial should be given to these rumours. As to the Duke and Duchess of Montpensier going to Spain immediately from this country, we certainly would have no right to raise any objection to their doing so. I now come to that part of the noble Lord's speech in which he alluded to the general spirit of interference in which Her Majesty's Government, and particularly my noble Friend at the head of Foreign Affairs, as he thinks, are in the habit of indulging. I deny that there exists any spirit of interference on the part of the Government of this country with a view to induce other Powers to alter their form of government, or in any way unduly to interfere with the policy which they may choose to pursue. The only principle of interference that has been acted upon by the Government of this country in the affairs of Spain, or of the world, is to use the weight and the influence which this country has, and ought to have, in the affairs of the world, in whatever way they can be most effectually exerted for the purpose of producing or maintaining the peace of the world. That is the only principle which has governed the foreign policy of this country; and, notwithstanding all that has fallen from the noble Lord—notwithstanding that I perfectly admit with him that the awful consequences of that great change which has taken place in Europe, as affecting the relations between States, have not been, and could not be, resisted by the policy of Her Majesty's Government, or by any interference which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could have exercised; still I do assert, and it is susceptible of proof, that my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office has been at various periods, and more especially during the last year, a means of delaying, if not of altogether averting those disputes, and differences, and wars, under the apprehension of which we are now labouring. The
698
noble Lord reverted to the mission of my noble Friend the Earl of Minto in Italy; but when the noble Lord assumes that that mission has been entirely ineffectual—when he assumes that that mission has had for its effect the encouragement of the pretensions of the popular parties, so as to render them more unreasonable than they otherwise would have been in their claims upon the Governments—I can refer, on the other hand, to the testimony of every one of those Italian Governments, to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, to the King of Sardinia, to the Pope—as far as the laws of this country would permit my noble Friend to communicate with him—and, above all, to the King of Naples; all of whom would give testimony to the benefits which they have derived from Lord Minto's presence, and from the advice given by him, and solicited from him, to the extent of urging him even to say in one place, when he was about going to another. As to the proceedings of Lord Minto in Naples, I may say, that he would not have gone to Sicily at all, but for the solicitations of the King of Naples; and since that time, the successes of the Sicilian Army, which have been even greater than could have been anticipated, aided, as they undoubtedly were, by the events that have occurred in France and in other countries, have been such as to have rendered it impossible, I will not say for Lord Minto, but for any Government or any country, however powerful, to reconcile the two countries. At the same time, that the events in France undoubtedly affected the public mind of that country, as they did more or less every other country, to such a degree as to make it impossible for any negotiators, or any country, however impartial, to reconcile the differences between the two countries, is a fact that cannot be disputed. I say, however, my Lords, that this country has become known to all countries as desirous of preserving the peace of the world, and maintaining the relations that ought to subsist between Sovereigns and their people; and I am able to say that, to a certain extent, those exertions have been successful, though they have not in certain countries been permanent. This country has exerted her influence for the preservation of the peace and harmony of every part of the world; wherever her mediation can be instrumental for the prevention of war, that mediation will be freely offered; and it has in more than one instance been

699
sought for and accepted. Such has hitherto been the principle on which this country has acted; but I trust that she will continue, as she ever ought to do, to respect the constitutions and dignity of all other States; while she never forgets her concern in the great interests of humanity, connected as they are with the prosperity of other countries and the peace of the world. I trust that she will not fail to exert the influence she possesses to preserve that peace whenever an opportunity occurs to offer her friendly mediation. Thus much I have thought it right to say, as I conceive it essentially necessary that it should be known that such have hitherto been, and such are now, the principles and objects of this country. We never seek for any advantage by foreign aggression, nor do we desire to interfere with the independence and dignity of any one country; but we feel that we have an interest which is common to all—that of seeing peace and tranquillity preserved throughout the world. Our wish is, amid all the stormy events that are passing around us, to take care that they shall pass by, if possible, without affecting the relations subsisting between one State and another, or the commerce and interchange of commodities so necessary to the prosperity of all. That is, I repeat, the policy of this country, and to that policy we mean to adhere; but I most emphatically deny that we have been actuated by any desire to push the interference of England with the affairs of any State beyond due and legitimate bounds. I trust that the noble Lord will not think it necessary to persevere in his Motion, as the papers will in due time be laid on the table of the House.
LORD BROUGHAM said, that he rejoiced that his noble Friend had brought forward this Motion, because it had given his noble Friend who had just sat down an opportunity of stating what the real facts of the case were as regarded the Spanish correspondence. The important words mentioned by the noble Marquess being omitted in the note, as published, presented the matter under a totally different aspect, and put an end to the complaint as to the wording of the despatch, and the tone which was remarked as prevailing in it. He most heartily deplored the unsound discretion displayed by Mr. Bulwer, who had thought fit, in the teeth of his instructions, to lay these instructions themselves before the Duke of Sotomayor, instead of taking his course
700
according to the advice there laid down. He should at once enter his protest against the doctrine, not one indeed which was professed by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), but which was extensively adopted by some out of doors, that circumstanced as England was towards Spain, the former Power should not have a right, nay, should not have rather a duty to perform towards the latter, in giving good advice, useful advice, friendly advice, advice as to the course she ought to pursue, in regulating her internal affairs. Giving such advice was no breach of good feeling—it was no breach of the principle of non-intervention—it should cause no interruption to the good intelligence existing with Spain. On the contrary, it would be following up that good intelligence between the two Powers, and the not giving such advice might even lead to a breach of the amity and good understanding existing between them. He (Lord Brougham) recollected the Duke de Broglie, then Minister of France, repeatedly telling him in the year 1834–5, that there was no person with whom he liked freely to discuss, not merely general political matters, but domestic affairs, more than his noble Friend, the late Lord Granville, who, he said, was the best and safest counsellor he ever had known. He (Lord Brougham) entirely agreed in this eulogy of Lord Granville; hardly ever had he known a man of sounder judgment and calmer temper, or one in all respects of more value as an adviser. There was nothing offensive, but the contrary, in the giving of good advice upon such matters. But the manner of conveying it had much to do with its success. When Lord Palmerston recommended Mr. Bulwer, "if a fitting opportunity offers" to do so-and-so, he did not mean that it was to be when Mr. Bulwer should have the rare opportunity of being possessed of a clean sheet of white writing paper, and a tolerably good pen, and a spoonful of ink. That was not, certainly, what Lord Palmerston meant; but that his opportunity would be when a conversation might be conveniently and naturally introduced, whilst he should be in private interview with the Spanish Minister; that it should be when he had an opportunity of speaking with the Minister of Spain, and talking over the matter in that delicate and discreet way which was likely to effect his object without giving offence. Instead of this course being opposed to the principle

701
of non-intervention, he could easily see how such a step could be wisely and properly taken with any country whatever, even as he had said with France, notwithstanding all the habitual jealousy of England prevailing there. But much more safely, and even beneficially, might such friendly advice be tendered to Spain. Holding most religiously by the great principle of non-intervention, but still having the sense to see the distinction between non-intervention and not interfering at all, he must say that, had he been in Lord Palmerston's position in the months of December and January last, he should have felt it his bounden duty, as the friend of peace, as an enemy of revolution, and, above all, as the friend of France, to have given Lord Normanby a suggestion that he ought strongly to recommend a certain course of conduct as likely to prevent the jeopardy which he saw approaching the institutions and the monarchy of France. He (Lord Brougham) knew that such advice was given, though not by Lord Palmerston—he heartily wished it had been followed—and he knew that that advice was not regarded as a piece of intervention, or as an insult. If he was speaking in the presence of any of the distinguished persons who then governed France, as peradventure he was—[M. Guizot was at this time in the House, standing near the steps of the Throne]—he was sure he would have their cordial agreement when he said that such advice had been kindly and respectfully tendered, and that it was not regarded as an insult or indignity offered to France, or as showing anything but the most lively feeling of affection towards the monarchy and the institutions of the kingdom, and towards its inhabitants. If such advice had been sent over from Downing-street—not sent to be tumbled into the French Foreign Office—not bodily, and in substance, to be thrown before the French Government, but to be refined and passed through one of those strainers which would make it more acceptable—in short, had that been done which would have made all the difference between a thing spoken and a thing which was hardly to be named in the reading of a depatch, giving it all the charm which was to be gained in conversation, with the addition of qualifications, and all sorts of courtesies and salvos, and repudiation of all ideas of interference, and deprecation of all thoughts of dictation—had such been done, hs was satisfied that much good
702
might have resulted from it, while there would have been no possibility of the proceeding being misapprehended. Now, if this could have been done in France, how much more so in Spain, especially considering the relations we stood in with the Spanish Government. He held that, so far from this advice to Spain being inconsistent with the position which we held towards that country, or with that delicacy which we ought to exercise towards her—as the noble Lord seemed to think—it followed as a natural consequence of the amity that existed between the two countries, and the relations between them. But it would have been the height of indelicacy to have given such advice in the way in which Mr. Bulwer had given it. One thing he could not help commenting upon. He should say, with all respect to the Provisional Government of France, that he could not but regard it as a specimen, of bad feeling—of singular bad feeling—towards this country on the part of that Government, that they should have published the correspondence, omitting the paragraphs, the omission of which made an entire change in the meaning of the suggestions.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE said, it was not in a Government paper that the correspondence had originally appeared. It was in an Opposition paper.
LORD BROUGHAM said, that made all the difference. He had been under the impression that it had appeared in a Ministerial paper. But he had never before seen a case in which the omission of a few words had made so great a difference in the meaning of a document. But the Duke de Sotomayor had distinctly stated, in his reply to Mr. Bulwer, that the substance of that very despatch had appeared in a Spanish Opposition paper in anticipation, and some days before it had been formally communicated, and that it had been delayed in Mr. Bulwer's office some time. Now, he thought this likely, because he knew that there existed a communication between his embassy and the press—a communication which was much to be reprobated. If their Lordships would compare the dates of certain papers which had been published in a London newspaper in the month of July, 1846, they would find that a most confidential communication upon one of the most delicate subjects had been obtained, and that communication, by a comparison of the dates of the time and place, they would find must have been sent over to the

703
London paper before it reached the hands of the Spanish Minister, or at the very same instant. It was, therefore, plain that it—not the despatch in full, but an abstract of it—had been sent for insertion in the columns of the London newspaper, from Madrid, before or at the very time it was sent to the Spanish Minister. He (Lord Brougham) did not mean to say that there was a gentleman connected with the press attached to the embassy, but it certainly appeared that there was some sort of connexion by which those papers, even confidential ones, came to be published. As to the differences upon the subject before their Lordships, he could not tell which was the more correct, the Duke de Sotomayor or his Friend the noble Marquess, until he should have seen the despatch. With regard to the promotion of Mr. Bulwer to the Order of the Bath, he happened to know that it had not been recently resolved upon, but that it had been determined on some months before. At the same time he must say, that if the question had not been already determined, he should have advised his noble Friend, as the giving of these decorations was not absolutely necessary—as our diplomatists were not starving for want of honours—that no great harm would have been done by deferring for some months the reward for Mr. Bulwer's general conduct, in order that it might not appear to be given as a reward of his late achievement. Having mentioned this new order, he must add that he disapproved very much of the introduction, now for the first time, of these decorations into our social system, for whereas there was no gentleman of mark or consideration abroad, whether he was French, or German, or Italian, or Spanish, who went to any place of public resort without one or more ribbons dangling at his buttonhole, the English gentleman used aforetime to be distinguished by the absence of what we considered those paltry decorations; and the Order of the Bath was almost exclusively confined to our soldiers and sailors. Orders of knighthood were connected with and inseparable from monarchical and aristocratic institutions; but he (Lord Brougham) objected to the general and prevailing distribution of those honours, which would consequently soon become a distinction of no merit, and unworthy to be sought after. As to the desire for them in France, it was such that, although the Provisional Government had succeeded in overthrowing the monar-
704
chy, and in decreeing the destruction of titles of nobility, he should be much surprised if the Republic could effect such a conquest over French love for decorations as to dispense with them. They had put down the monarchy but not the titles of nobility, which were as universally used in France at the present moment as they had been before the revolution. For one of the only two carriages which he had met during a journey of 600 miles in that unhappy country, a journey between the Var and the Seine, was occupied by General Thiard, who was going as representative of the French Republic to the Swiss Confederation, and he was called "Count" at every inn and posthouse along the road, while he flourished a three-coloured flag from his carriage.
LORD STANLEY, after what his Friend the noble Marquess had said, and the explanation he had given—and his noble Friend having promised to produce the papers he had mentioned—would not trouble their Lordships further by pressing his Motion; he shouuld therefore withdraw it.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
[The Marquess of Lansdowne shortly after delivered the correspondence between the British Government and the Government of Spain.]
House adjourned.