HL Deb 08 May 1848 vol 98 cc744-58

LORD STANLEY said, he was compelled to interpose for a few moments between their Lordships and the business before them, for the purpose of calling their attention again to the subject of discussion on Friday last. Since then the Government had laid upon the table the correspondence with the Spanish Government, which was referred to upon that occasion, and their Lordships had had an opportunity of perusing it. He had no intention of making any specific Motion on the subject, unless it were necessary that he should do so as a matter of form, in which case he would conclude with a Motion for a return of Papers; but he hoped he should not be considered as unduly trespassing on their Lordships' time, if, after perusing that correspondence, he ventured to offer some observations as to the impression which that correspondence had produced on his own mind. In regard to that which had at first appeared to be the leading feature of the case, namely, the publication through the columns of an Opposition journal, either by the authority, or with the connivance, or by the negligence of the British Minister, of the despatch of the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, before it had been presented to the Spanish Government, he could not believe, after reading the letter of Mr. Bulwer to the Duke de Sotomayor, that that despatch, or anything approaching to it, had found its way into a Spanish Opposition paper; and he believed that the Duke de Sotomayor himself must now be satisfied that he was mistaken in this respect. He believed, moreover, that there had been no mutilation of that document whatever, and that it was a verbatim copy of that which was transmitted to the Spanish Government. The letter of Lord Palmerston began— Sir—I have to instruct you to recommend earnestly to the Spanish Government and to the Queen-Mother, if you have an opportunity of doing so, the adoption of a legal and constitutional course of government in Spain. Now, the words "opportunity of doing so" clearly were not intended to apply to anything more than making a communication to the Queen-Mother; and Lord Palmerston's instructions to Mr. Bulwer were to recommend a certain course to the Spanish Government, and to the Queen-Mother also, if he had an opportunity of doing so. At the same time the noble Marquess appeared to have been under a singular error the other day. He admitted the original publication of this letter in some improper manner; he did not know how the French newspaper got hold of it, and suppressed material words. If they were to believe the statement of the newspaper itself, the first time this correspondence appeared in the columns of thePresse was on the 24th April; but the date of its appearance in theClamor Publico, as stated in the Duke of Sotomayor's letter, is not the 24th, but the 10th April. It is therefore impossible that the Duke of Sotomayor's letter, remonstrating against the publication of the letter in theClamor Publico, can have any reference to the publication in thePresse. Now, Mr. Bulwer had, in transmitting that instruction to the Spanish Minister, omitted that part of the instruction which applied to the application to be made to the Queen-Mother, and transmitted so much of the remark of Lord Palmerston as desired him to press earnestly on the Spanish Government the views of the British Government. At the same time that this was a point of very inconsiderable importance, he could see the material bearing which it had upon that part of the case; but what he wanted to call their Lordships' attention to, as it appeared upon this correspondence, was the very material discrepancy which ap- peared to have existed—first, between the views of the British Minister in Spain, and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, next, the wide and inexplicable difference of opinion which appeared to exist between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his Colleagues in the Government. Lord Palmerston directed the British Minister in Spain to recommend earnestly to the Spanish Government the adoption of a legal and constitutional course of government in Spain; and then he went on to state the reasons why it was desirable to adopt a legal and constitutional course of government. What was the reply of the Duke of Sotomayor? That at that time Lord Palmerston had no right to make the recommendation, for the Government was constitutional; that at that time the Cortes were sitting; that the press was free; that the course of government was of a conciliatory character; they were strictly following a legal and constitutional course of government. Pressed by that argument, what was the answer of Mr. Bulwer, which they had now for the first time received. He admitted the justice of the answer; he said— It is perfectly true that the remarks I enclosed from Lord Palmerston were written at a time when the Cortes were yet sitting, and when the Government had not as yet committed any of those acts which had recently characterised its conduct, They were, therefore, merely in contemplation of the possibility of such a state of things as his Lordship thought might arrive. But where was the foundation for that assumption in Lord Palmerston's despatch? Lord Palmerston said nothing of the state of things which might arise; he said, "I desire you to impress upon the Spanish Government as soon as you shall have an opportunity;" and of course with reference to the state of things that existed at the time when the instructions were given, and not with reference to a state of things which did not exist, was not existing, and there was no reason to suppose would exist. He gave instructions with reference to the actual and not the future state of things; and Mr. Bulwer was compelled to say, "I admit, then, that it was legal and constitutional; now it is not, and now I take the opportunity of doing that for which, in my judgment, the time has arrived." There was thus a discrepancy between the Minister and the Secretary of State; but the most important fact was this—and it was one upon which their Lordships and the country would expect to have a full and explicit explanation—he meant the difference which had subsisted, and which, so far as they knew, did subsist, in the view taken by the different Members of Government of this same transaction. When he took the liberty the other night of adverting to the correspondence and its tone, he much mistook the noble Marquess; his ears very much deceived him if he did not understand him to rest the whole of the case on this fact, that the letter of the Secretary of State, as a communication to a foreign Government, was an indefensible letter, and one which ought not to have been sent; that, in point of fact, it was a private letter, addressed to the British Minister for his private guidance, and not intended to be shown; and, with every respect to the discretion and experience of Mr. Bulwer, the noble Marquess the President of the Council, speaking on behalf of the Government, said explicitly and frankly to their Lordships, that he lamented the course which had been taken. "Lamenting" was the word used by the noble Marquess; and when the leading Minister in the House of Lords stated that he "laments" the course pursued by the representative of the Crown, it was a way of stating, in his judgment, that the proceeding was not justifiable, and he passed a censure on the course pursued. He (Lord Stanley) had expressed a doubt before, whether the original letter of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been seen, before it was sent, by the noble Marquess, by the noble Earl near him, or by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or other Members of the Government. And, in fact, it appeared, though it would seem almost incredible, that the noble Marquess, when he spoke on Friday night, was not cognisant of the contents of the papers which he was about to lay upon the table of the House. He was not cognisant evidently of the fact, that in the course of that correspondence the conduct of Mr. Bulwer, which the noble Marquess said he "lamented," had received the cordial and entire approbation of Her Majesty's Government. This really appeared to be so incredible, that if he did not bring the whole case before their Lordships, they would think that he was not stating facts. The letter of Sir H. Bulwer was dated the 7th of April, and there was a subsequent despatch of the 11th. Then there was a letter of Lord Palmerston of the 19th, and a despatch of the 20th. The letter of Lord Palmerston of the 19th was very short: it said— Foreign Office, April 19, 1848. Sir—With reference to your despatch of the 10th instant, I have to inform you that Her Majesty's Government approve the language which you held to Queen Christina on the 4th instant, pointing out to Her Majesty the importance of governing Spain by constitutional means; and that Her Majesty's Government likewise approve of the note which you addressed on the 7th instant to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, offering similar counsel to the present Ministers of Her Catholic Majesty.—I am, &c. "PALMERSTON. Their Lordships would observe that Lord Palmerston said, not "I myself, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs," but "Her Majesty's Government," approve of the note which you addressed to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs. He would leave it to the noble Marquess to explain the discrepancies which appeared upon the face of that letter. The letter of the 20th April contained remarks somewhat stronger. The letter of the 11th, from Mr. Bulwer, included also a despatch from the Duke of Sotomayor, in answer to Mr. Bulwer's communication of the 7th; and he must say, that Lord Palmerston's answer to that communication was one of the most extraordinary productions that he had ever read. He commenced— Foreign Office, April 20, 1848. "Sir—I have received your despatch of the 11th instant, with its inclosures, and I have to instruct you to state to the Duke of Sotomayor, that Her Majesty's Government entirely approve the step which you took in making your communication of the 7th inst., and likewise of your note of the 12th. That Her Majesty's Government, however, are not at all offended, either by the sending back of your communication of the 7th of April, or by the angry tone and language of the Duke of Sotomayor's note of the 10th, however they may regret the existence of those feelings in the minds of the Spanish Government, of which the language of his Excellency's note, and the return of yours, were proofs. Here, then, was not only the approval of the Foreign Minister of that of which the noble Marquess disapproved—of that which the noble Marquess said was a proceeding not likely to conciliate the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Spain; but it authorised Mr. Bulwer to inform the Duke of Sotomayor that Her Majesty's Government entirely, wholly, absolutely, fully approved of the steps which he had taken, and thus threw upon Her Majesty's Government the whole responsibility of the language, the time, and the manner of the communication made by Mr. Bulwer. He would not comment upon this remarkable letter, except to say, that, whereas upon the one hand the noble Viscount had taken the course by which he had involved the Government in the responsibility of most offensive proceedings; on the other hand he had evinced the most Christian principle of forbearance and forgiveness; one which he confessed appeared to him to be little consistent with the dignity of a great Power carrying on a diplomatic correspondence with another country. The noble Viscount had had his despatch returned as unworthy to be received: he had such an insult put upon him as no one gentleman could receive from another, and such as he believed no other country had ever before suffered. Not only that, however, but the noble Viscount had told the Duke of Sotomayor that Her Majesty's Government are not at all offended. They get themselves kicked, and then add, "I beg to say, that I entirely approve of the steps by which you have brought that result upon us, and I beg you to tell the person who kicked us that I am not in the least offended by the result." In private life such a procedure would not be tolerated for an instant; in diplomatic life it would be ludicrous were it not melancholy to contemplate. This was the most absurd termination to the most inconceivably imprudent step that he had ever heard. The noble Viscount was not offended at his despatches being returned to him. For a space of twenty-nine lines the noble Viscount supposed cases which had not occurred between Spain and England; and instead of taking the course which such an insulting return of his despatch demanded, the noble Viscount concluded by reminding the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs that under certain circumstances, and unless Great Britain had interfered to maintain the present Queen of Spain upon the Throne, the Minister for Foreign Affairs in that country might himself have been a proscribed exile in a foreign country. This stroke of generosity, he admitted, he had read with the greatest regret. He saw no prospect of a satisfactory issue on the part of the noble Viscount to a correspondence so conducted. He believed it to be his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the facts as they existed on the face of the documents laid before Parliament; and he thought their Lordships had a right to know whether the course and conduct of Mr. Bulwer in presenting this note, as it appeared by the statement of the noble Marquess the other night, was considered an imprudent course by Her Majesty's Government, or whether the no- ble Viscount was justified in stating that it had the entire and cordial approval of Her Majesty's Government.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say, that the noble Lord had not put an entirely correct construction upon what had fallen from him on Friday night. Undoubtedly, judging of the circumstances in this country, he did regret that the communication in question had been made to the Spanish Government. He at the same time stated that he could not but suppose that Mr. Bulwer, from his knowledge of the country, and from his talents in conducting public business, must have had reasons for making that communication at the time he did, which rendered it imperative upon him so to act. Unless Mr. Bulwer had been instructed to convey to the Duke de Sotomayor the approbation of Her Majesty's Government, it would have been equivalent to an expression of the disapprobation of Her Majesty's Government of his conduct, and must have been followed in fact by his recall—a step which Her Majesty's Ministers were not prepared to determine upon, and wisely so, in his opinion, considering the language of the despatch of the Duke de Sotomayor. He knew, however, from what had subsequently taken place, that there had been a removal of all unpleasant feeling between the parties. The noble Lord, in an early part of these proceedings, had stated that this communication was made at a period when violent measures for adopting a more arbitrary form of government had not been taken, and he supposed it was intended to prevent the adoption of those measures; but it might have occurred to the noble Lord that it was intended to give to Mr. Bulwer a discretion, in the exercise of which he might possibly avert the adoption of those measures which were subsequently taken, and which the noble Viscount was justified in apprehending would be taken. There must have been something to lead the noble Viscount to believe that such was the course Spanish proceedings would take; and from the danger of such a course, he was justified in the advice tendered. That advice was in the spirit of goodwill to the Spanish nation, with an anxiety for the peace of that country and the strength of the Government, and not with any desire to interfere in their affairs beyond that of promoting their prosperity. And he again said, after what had taken place between these parties, though the circumstances were, as he fully admitted, of a painful character, yet the result had justified the apprehensions of his noble Friend. But it was a source of satisfaction to him to consider that there was now a spirit of amity between the parties, which he believed had resulted from the line of conduct Mr. Bulwer had pursued. His recall from Spain was not demanded; and he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) therefore trusted that their Lordships would not renew a controversy with respect to the merits of this proceeding, which could only end, on one side or the other, in imputations upon parties that were unnecessary.

The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, your Lordships have heard the explanation of the noble Marquess of the discrepancy which appeared between the declaration he made on Friday night, and that which has been laid before your Lordships in the correspondence, with respect to Mr. Bulwer and the Spanish Government. I do not know that it is necessary to make any observations on the explanation of the noble Marquess further than this—that, if I collect nightly, the noble Marquess still does not share in the entire approbation conveyed in the despatch of the noble Viscount of the steps that had been taken; but I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that it would be most unjust to Mr. Bulwer to abandon him in this matter, for Mr. Bulwer has not only not acted in contradiction to his instructions, but he has acted undoubtedly according to the spirit of those he received. Mr. Bulwer is a most able servant of the Crown, and I have no doubt whatever that he knew perfectly well what he was about when he made that communication to the Duke de Sotomayor: he knew what, indeed, he appears to have felt with perfect confidence, that he should meet with the approbation of this Government; and when the noble Marquess says that the despatch left it to Mr. Bulwer's discretion whether he should make this communication to the Spanish Government, surely he cannot have read the despatch with grammatical correctness, or he would see that the interpretation put upon it by my noble Friend is the only one it would bear if read in the common-sense manner it required. The only omission I see is a comma after the words "Spanish Government." If that were inserted, there would have been no doubt about the matter. Whether, indeed, that ought to have been there or not, I cannot say; but if it had been, no doubt would have remained upon the correct interpretation to be put upon it. The despatch of the noble Viscount says— I have to instruct you to recommend earnestly to the Spanish Government and to the Queen-Mother if you have an opportunity of doing so, the adoption of a legal and constitutional course of government in Spain. Now, Mr. Bulwer had no reason to seek an opportunity of communicating with the Spanish Government. He had a right to communicate with the Spanish Government—it was his duty to do so; but he had no right to approach the Queen-Mother, and therefore he was to seek the opportunity of speaking to Her Majesty; and accordingly Mr. Bulwer in his despatch goes on to say—and this is evidence that he acted under the instructions of the noble Viscount— In conformity with your Lordship's instructions, I took the opportunity of speaking on Tuesday morning with the Queen-Mother. Consequently Mr. Bulwer correctly interpreted this despatch by the communication he made; although he was not in so many words directed to make, he knew that he should be fulfilling the wishes of his chief by making the communication in the manner he did. The noble Marquess says the approbation conveyed to Mr. Bulwer was in order not to give to the Duke de Sotomayor a triumph after the communication he had received. That might be an answer that would do very well if the noble Viscount had received any knowledge of the letters of the Duke de Sotomayor. But your Lordships will see that the approbation was expressed by the noble Viscount before he had any knowledge of the existence of that letter; because the despatch of the 19th of April has no other object than to express the approbation of Her Majesty's Government that Mr. Bulwer made the communication to the Queen-Mother of Spain and to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs; that is solely the object of that despatch; and that despatch was written before the noble Viscount knew that the Duke de Sotomayor had made any answer at all. The reason assigned by the noble Marquess for that sort of approbation which was given to Mr. Bulwer, in order to prevent a triumph to the Duke de Sotomayor, therefore, does not apply in this case. The noble Marquess said the other night, and has repeated to-night, what I heard with satisfaction, that personal communications have been renewed between Mr. Bulwer and the Spanish Minister. I was glad to hear that. I was curious upon the point when I saw these papers; and, although I fully expected to hear that the renewal of friendly communications had been brought about, I certainly could not have anticipated that it would have taken place in the manner in which it appears by these papers it has done. For your Lordships are perhaps scarcely aware how perfectly unprecedented a proceeding this is that has taken place. I have had some experience in these matters. I have had correspondence, occasionally more or less angry, with foreign Governments, though not very often; but that a despatch of a British Secretary of State should be returned by the Minister of a foreign Government as unfit to be retained or received, appears to me to be a thing utterly impossible. I never could have supposed that such a thing was possible. Not only in my experience have I never heard or seen such a thing; but I will venture to say that this is the first time a British Minister ever suffered such an indignity. It is not right to abandon Mr. Bulwer; he has only acted as he was expected to do, and so far as he was instructed it was his duty; but if it had not been for the discussion that has taken place in this House Mr. Bulwer would have had and might have had his approbation in his pocket, but he would have met with the universal disapprobation of the whole country. But now we see by the production of these papers that Mr. Bulwer was not to blame in the communication he made; and, if censure be used, it is not towards Mr. Bulwer, but of course to those who directed that step, which he only took in compliance with the instructions he had received. The next best thing to not having done it, is to confess that we have done wrong; and I fully expected that the suggestion which was thrown out by my noble Friend the other night, and particularly after what we have heard of some communications going on at Madrid on the subject, would have been adopted on the part of the Government, and that by mutual explanations, both these despatches would be cancelled or withdrawn, as has been done in cases where controversies of this description have arisen, and that the matter would be at an end. The whole proceeding does, I must say, appear to me so utterly unsuited to the dignity of this country, that I can hardly conceive that, with the facts before him, any noble Lord could express himself satisfied with the matter as it now stands. I think it quite indispensable that some sort of understanding should be come to with the Spanish Government, with a view to remove the effect of this very objectionable proceeding; because, though we have withdrawn it ourselves, still we are the parties who have received such an insult as I believe was never before inflicted upon the British Government. It appears to me that the reason given in the despatch of the noble Viscount to Mr. Bulwer for the communication he made, that "the recent fall of the King of the French and of his whole family, and the expulsion of his Ministers, ought to teach the Spanish Court and Government how great is the danger of an attempt to govern a country in a manner at variance with the feelings and opinions of the nation," if it means anything, means approbation of the revolution which has recently taken place. But it is not altogether consistent with good feeling or delicacy, in a fortnight after the arrival of this unfortunate Prince and his family in this country, to hold him up in a despatch of this description as a warning to the Spanish Government; and if it means anything, it means that that Prince, not having acted according to the wishes and feelings of the nation, was in consequence deposed, and therefore the Spanish nation should do the same. I think that is perfectly untrue, but it is evidently implied by this. That is palpably untrue; I think, whatever we might have thought of the Government of the King of France, it cannot be said in truth that he was governing contrary to or at variance with the feelings and opinions of the nation. Those feelings and opinions were expressed in the only legitimate way they could be—by majorities in both the Chambers; and there is no reason, notwithstanding what has happened, to say that he was governing in a manner which entitled him to expect the fate which is threatened to the Spanish Government if they follow his example. But suppose this had been said to Narvaez, he might have answered to this example of the King of the French, "If the King of the French had allowed his able and upright and courageous Minister to act as I have done, he would have been on the throne of France now." Narvaez might have attempted to put down a revolution by using those means which, unfortunately for the King of the French, he abstained from using. The example of the King of the French, as a proof of what might be done by firm resistance, was no argument for Narvaez. But I admit that, although this communication was very objectionable, to be made in the tone and manner, and, above all, at the time, which were chosen, yet I still think it could not have been expected to produce such an answer as that which it received. Everything depends on the feeling and actual relation of the party who gives advice. No doubt, as my noble Friend said the other night, I should have had no difficulty, either through Lord Granville or Lord Cowley, in giving any advice to M. Guizot. But, unfortunately, in the case of Spain, ever since the correspondence took place which was produced some time ago, in which the Spanish Government was alluded to in no very measured terms, there has existed a feeling of suspicion and hostility on their part, which has prevented them from receiving any kind of advice from this country, however salutary, without a certain degree of reluctance. The existence of this feeling was well known, and this made it only the more necessary, if we wished to act with them in a friendly manner, to approach them with all that care and delicacy and preparation, which might render it possible to do away with that suspicion and hostility. But, made as that communication was, I confess it almost appears to me that, if not made purposely with the view of its not being accepted, I am quite sure it must have been made without the shadow of a hope that it would be accepted. To propose to such a Minister—who, whatever his merits may be, was known to possess a most imperious temper—to propose to him to tranfer the Government to persons whom he had at that moment actually under an accusation of attempting a revolution in the State—seems to me to be an act so ill advised that it could only be received as it has been. In the present state of the world we cannot but look with the greatest interest on the condition of Spanish affairs. I think, if at the beginning of the convulsions which have recently taken place on the Continent, anybody had thought that resistance to similar outbreaks would have been successful in Spain, he would have been supposed to be more sanguine than his neighbours; but a successful resistance to an attempt to overthrow the existing Government in Spain having been made, surely it is our interest as well as our duty to give every support in our power to that Government, instead of getting up a miserable quarrel with them about having a little more or a little less infusion of Liberal persons into that Government. Supposing they had accepted your recommendation, and had taken those persons whom you thought desirable for the interest, the welfare, the prosperity, and the safety of Spain, to form the Government, and supposing some calamity had then occurred, what would have been your responsibility? If a convulsion had taken place in Spain, you would have been answerable for the consequences which would have ensued. But this is the first time I have heard of our ever occupying ourselves with recommending particular individuals to compose the Ministry of Spain, whatever might be our interest in the formation of that Government. This is going further than we have ever done before, and further than I think is consistent with the interest of this country. I know it has been said that we are under a sort of obligation to support Spain; that there is a treaty in existence which binds us to support the Queen of Spain, and by which, it is said, we guarantee her throne. This is not true. There is no such treaty at this moment in existence. It is true there is a treaty by which, if Don Carlos or Don Miguel were to attempt a renewal of the war for the purpose of taking possession of the throne of Spain, the Queen of Spain would have a right to call for our assistance; but that is the limit of the treaty. There is no reference to any internal differences, or any struggles among the parties in Spain itself; still less did we undertake to support the Queen of Spain, because she was a constitutional Sovereign, against Don Carlos, because he was a despotic Sovereign. Nobody even pretended that we did. We supported the Queen of Spain because we thought she was the rightful heir to the throne, not because she was either constitutional or despotic. No doubt it was much more satisfactory to us to support a constitutional rather than a despotic Government; but we should never have supported her unless we had believed her to be the rightful heir to the throne. I therefore do not see that the existence of this treaty authorised our interference at all, still less the reference which has been so laboriously made throughout the correspondence. I think Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to establish a really friendly understanding with the Spanish Government; and that for this purpose they ought to avail themselves of the present time, when the bugbear of French influence no longer sways them, and when they may exercise an exclusive influence there if they think proper. Surely we have enough of influence when we have it all to ourselves. I do think that we owe it to the safety of Europe, and to the interests of this country, to look with an anxious and real desire to the establishment of a friendly understanding with the Spanish Government.

LORD BROUGHAM had heard with the greatest satisfaction from his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) that the relations of amity, goodwill, and friendly understanding which had so long prevailed between this country and the Spanish Government had been again re-established. He really thought that the less their Lordships entertained discussions of this kind, especially when the matter was over, as he hoped it was, the more likely it would be that the relations of amity would continue uninterrupted—which he was sure both sides of the House must wish—for there was always a little soreness left on such occasions, which continued discussions only augmented. He would only take the liberty of saying further, that he could not call it intervention, in the ordinary sense of the word, when one Government gave a piece of friendly advice to another, even when those Governments, or their agents, were not on perfectly friendly terms. This was not intervention, but advice, which they had a perfect right to give at any time. He denied the right of intervention except in very extreme cases.

The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY had listened with the deepest satisfaction to what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) on this subject, and entirely concurred with him in condemning the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs. We had no right even to give advice to the Spanish Government, unless we had been asked by them to do so; and our advice had not been asked; still less had we a right to dictate to them in the way that noble Lord had done.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE concurred in the soundness of the advice which had been given by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) not to stir up this subject unnecessarily; but he could not allow the remarks of the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) entirely to pass without a few observations. It had been alleged that, according to the punctuation, the qualifying words in which the advice was directed to be given when the opportunity offered, would refer exclusively to the recommendation to communicate that advice to the Queen-Mother, or would apply to the whole instruction. But he said emphatically, whether these words were applied grammatically or not to the whole instruction, they were intended by his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) to be so applied and so understood by Mr. Bulwer. The wish of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign affairs was, that Mr. Bulwer should tender, discreetly and at the proper opportunity, such advice to the Spanish Government as the circumstances of the country rendered necessary. Mr. Bulwer wrote that he "had already spoken to the Duke de Sotomayor in the same sense" in which he had addressed the Queen; showing how events went on; so that at last he thought it desirable to place upon record that the British Government had tendered what they considered sound advice to the Spanish Government. Those circumstances gave a different aspect to the correspondence from that which had been put upon it by the noble Earl. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) entirely concurred in the regret expressed by his noble Friend the President of the Council, as he was sure every other Member of Her Majesty's Government did, that Mr. Bulwer had committed the error of making that communication to the Spanish Government by transmitting almostin extenso the despatch forwarded for his own instruction. But it was only an error of judgment made at a very critical moment. If an unfortunate error had occurred, it would be most unjust to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he were to be condemned for that error, in taking a step which was entirely right, namely, putting on record advice tendered by the British Government to the Spanish Government.

Back to