Sitting of 15 March 1824

DISTILLERIES—PETITION OF RECTIFIERS TO CONVERT RUM INTO GIN.
Mr. Humepresented a petition from certain individuals, rectifiers of British spirits, in and near the city of London. They represented, "That they had invested a large capital in the purchase of works near London, for the rectification of spirits; and stated, that notwithstanding it was declared by law that no distiller should be also a rectifier, a great many distillers were at this time rectifiers; that about six of the large distillers regulated the markets and prices in London; and that those individuals were also distillers." Now, he could not take upon himself to vouch for the truth of these several allegations, but their matter was of extreme importance, and well worthy the attention of the House. The petitioners further represented, that those large distillers used stills of the capacity of 3,000 gallons and upwards; and could effect, therefore, a very serious operation, at all times, on the market; the rectifiers not being able to obtain supplies of spirits from the distillers as they wanted them, if the distillers chose to withhold; and the distillers assigning no reason for the defect of supply. The petitioners prayed, that in justice to themselves and to the trade generally, the House would appoint a committee to inquire into the expediency of licensing stills of smaller dimensions than were at present allowed; by which means the monopoly complained of would be defeated,
1010
and the inconveniences at present experienced would be prevented. They also prayed a permission to distil British spirit from rum, the produce of our West India colonies—a measure which, while it would be of great benefit to the West-Indies, would rescue the freedom of their own trade from the hands of six principal distillers. Now, it was not possible for him to vouch for the truth of all these allegations; but he had been assured by a professional man, that he should be able to prove every one of them at the bar of that House. It really seemed to him, that, if it had been thought proper to permit in Scotland and Ireland a reduction in the size of stills, it might be expedient to consider whether the same permission should not be extended to England. The other proposition about the relief to be derived by the West-India colonies, from permitting the distillation of British spirits from rum, was one of extreme importance. If rum was now almost a drug in our markets, such a scheme seemed to offer a great chance of increased consumption.
Mr. Ellicesaid, he wished to call the particular attention of the chancellor of the Exchequer to the statements of the petition. It was most important, as far as regarded relief to the West Indies. The right hon. gentleman had stated the intention of government to reduce the duty on rum by 13½d. per gallon; but that reduction would be of little consideration, unless the rectifiers were allowed to convert rum into gin. It was stated, that there existed a monopoly which worked great injustice, particularly to the rectifiers, who were obliged to look to the English distiller for a supply of the material which they worked. The price of English spirits stood at 4s. 8d. the gallon; that of West-India spirits, stood at 1s. 6d. Now, he would wish to know on which of those principles of free trade, of which they had lately heard so much, was it that the commodity of a West-India planter was so much reduced, in comparison with the article of the British distiller? He could not see why the consumer of West-India spirits should not have the benefit of a cheap article, and the West-India planter the relief which would follow from an increased consumption. With respect to the question of revenue, he was satisfied that the planters would be contented with even half the proposed remission of duty, if

1011
the rectifiers were allowed to rectify rum as well as English spirits.
Mr. Benelt, of Wiltshire, conceived that to allow the rectifying of West-India spirits, as proposed by the petitioners, would be extremely injurious to the growers of barley, and generally to the landed interest of England.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that if any case had been laid in this petition for the appointment of a committee, not only would he himself have been friendly to such a measure, but that respectable body, the malt-distillers, would have entertained, he was sure, no sort of objection to it. With all his high opinion of the public services of his hon. friend (Mr. Hume), and his conviction that, generally speaking, his hon. friend, had proved to be in the right when error was most strongly imputed to him, he did think that his hon. friend would experience the value of his own declaration, that he would not be answerable for the truth of the allegations in this petition. Last week he (Mr. S.) had happened to see the name which stood at the head of the subscribers to this petition; and he had then been told, by a member of the House, that the true reason of that person's inability to obtain spirits from the distillers was, not that they would supply the rectifiers, but that the credit of the individual himself was not such as to induce them to deal with him.
Ordered to lie on the table.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Numerous petitions were presented, praying for the Abolition of Negro Slavery. On presenting one from the city of Norwich,
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that in justice to his constituents, nearly all of whom had signed this petition, he could not avoid making one or two remarks upon the language held in the papers which had come from the West Indies. It had been stated in some of these, that the whole of the measures introduced on this subject had originated with a wild, mad-headed, fanatical party in this country. If the advocates for the measures alluded to were such a party, he was happy in being one of their number. Whether his majesty's ministers had voluntarily supported those measures, or been driven to them by this wild and fanatical party, he would not say; but most certainly their conduct was praiseworthy in what they had done. The hon. member next condemned the language held on this subject at some pa-
1012
rochial meetings in Jamaica, and added, that if his majesty's ministers had forborne to notice it, it must have been from motives of pity and contempt towards the parties using it.
Mr. Watson Taylorsaid, he could not approve the manner in which some of these petitions for the abolition of slavery were got up. In his own country, itinerant adventurers had come down with petitions ready prepared. He would not say by whom those parties were sent, but certainly their conduct was far from being; praise-worthy. They addressed themselves to the passions of the people on the subject of negro slavery, rather than to reason. The poor artisan, mechanic, and!peasant, were asked, whether they objected to seeing persons in perpetual slavery; and on answering, of course, in the affirmative, they were requested to sign the petitions presented to them. He could not think this a fair way of collecting the opinions of the public on this important subject.
Mr. Grey Bennetdefended the conduct of those who had made themselves active on this occasion, and contended, that some of the wisest and most humane men in the country were amongst the number of those who were favourable to the abolition of slavery. He was surprised to find hon. members so hostile to the exercise of the right of petition. He thought there must be something bad in the system, when gentlemen were so afraid of having it inquired into.
Mr. Watson Taylorsaid, he had not intended to make any objection to the right of petitioning, which he had always considered as amongst the most valuable privileges of the people. It was the abuse, and not the use of the right, to which he objected. He did not mean to impugn the motives of those who were adverse to the principle of negroe slavery; but he could not approve of the means which had been resorted to for getting up the petitions on the subject.
Mr. Secretary Peelearnestly entreated gentlemen not to anticipate a discussion on this important question, which must come on in the regular course in the next twenty-four hours. He hoped that hon. members would rather wait until they had heard the statement of which his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) had given notice, respecting it, and which stood for to-morrow.
Ordered to lie on the table.

BEER AND MALT DUTIES—MODE OF COLLECTING THEM SEPARATELY.
Mr. Maberlyrose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to submit his motion on the subject of the inequality of the duties paid by different classes of the public on Beer and Malt. He began by observing, that when the subject was before the House on a former occasion, but little had been said upon it, and he believed it was one which was not well understood. It was, however, as he viewed it, very simple, and rested upon the principles, whether one class of his majesty's subjects should be taxed higher than the others, and whether the persons taxing should reap all the benefit of this inequality. As there were various acts of parliament connected with the subject of the beer and malt duties, he did not think it expedient to enter into the question in all its ramifications. He would, therefore, confine himself solely to one branch of it; namely, the interests of the parties taxed, and the inequality of the mode of taxation. In order that he might not be misunderstood, he would now state the nature of the motion with which he should conclude. He would move "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the present mode of taxing malt and beer separately; and whether it would not be expedient to collect the same amount of duties on malt alone, thereby taxing all consumers equally, instead of, as at present, taxing one class of malt consumers at 2s. 6d. per bushel, and another at 6s. l0½d. per bushel; and one class of beer consumers at 5s. 8½d. per barrel, and another at 15 s. 8½d. per barrel, for the same qualities of malt and beer." He would now proceed to prove what he had advanced in this motion, reminding the House, in the first place, that the present duty on malt was 2s. 6d per bushel, or 1l. per quarter, of eight bushels; and that this duty was paid only by private brewers, who contributed nothing to the duty on beer. The public brewer, however, paid a very different sum; he brewed three barrels and a half of strong beer out of every quarter of malt, and the duty he paid was at the rate of 10 s. per barrel, or 1l. 15 s. upon the three and a half barrels, which, together with the malt duty of 1l., made 2l. 15 s. This sum divided by eight, the number of bushels of malt in a quarter, gave 6s. 10½d., one of the sums stated in his motion. Thus, the greatest injustice was done, the private brewer paying only 2s. 6d. per bushel on malt, and the public
1014
brewer 6s. 10½d. With regard to the duty on beer, the case would stand thus: the private brewer paid 1l. duty on his quarter of malt, out of which he made three barrels and a half of beer; and dividing 1l. by 3½, the result was a duty of 5s. 8½d. per barrel. Upon the calculation, that the public brewer extracted as much from a quarter of malt, his situation was this—he paid 1l. upon the malt, and an additional duty of 1l. 15 s.; as before stated, which two sums divided by 3½, made his duty amount to 15 s. 8½d. per barrel, the last sum mentioned in the motion he had read. Now, this was the difference which he wished to abolish. He could not see upon what principle of justice the poor man, who was generally the consumer of the beer made by the public brewer, should be obliged to pay 10 s. per barrel more for his beer than the private brewer, who could always better afford it. He would now proceed to show the great difference in the sums thus paid in duty by the poorer classes and the rich. From returns not yet printed of the quantity of malt which had paid duty in England and Scotland in the year 1823, it appeared that the number of bushels was 27,288,380. The quantity consumed by public brewers, distillers, and vinegar manufacturers, he took to be 16,755,757 bushels, leaving, as the quantity consumed by the private brewers, 10,532,623 bushels. The way in which he arrived at these results was this—he found by the returns, that there were brewed in England and Scotland in the course of last year 6,212,744 barrels of strong beer, which, at the average of eight bushels of malt to every 3½ barrels of beer, would make a consumption of 14,200,557 bushels. The quantity of table beer brewed by the public brewers was 1,621,623 barrels, making a consumption of 1,995,200 bushels; to these, adding the quantity consumed by vinegar manufacturers and others, which he took at 560,000, the whole would amount to the number of 16,755,757, leaving the difference, 10,532,623, as the quantity consumed by private brewers.—The hon. member then proceeded to show that taking the same proportion of strong-beer and table-beer among the private brewers as among the public brewers, it would appear, that there were 3,949,733 barrels of strong beer brewed in the year. These, if subjected to the same duty as the beer brewed by the public brewers, would produce a sum of 1,974,866 l. 10 s. The

1015
quantity of small beer brewed, amounted to 1,621,103 barrels, which at 2s. per barrel, would make 122,530 l., making in the whole the sum of 2,097,397 l., which the poor classes were almost exclusively called upon to pay, and from which the rich were exempt. He was in possession of an account of the number of barrels of beer brewed last year, which was as follows:—of strong beer, 6,212,744; of table beer 1,621,103; of intermediate beer only 1,892 were brewed, and by 55 individuals. The duty paid upon that quantity of beer, was 3,270,205 l. Deducting the expense of collection, the amount of duty paid into the Treasury would be about 2,800,000 l. These facts alone showed that inquiry was necessary. If any class deserved peculiar favour, it was not the rich, who could so well afford to pay, but the poor, who earned every farthing they spent by the sweat of their brows. To the working part of the community, porter had become a necessary of life, and upon this chiefly the duty was laid. Another objection to the present system was, the increased expense in the collection of the duty. If the whole duty were laid on malt, the revenue might be collected without a shilling of additional charge; for whether that duty were 2s. 6d. per bushel, or 4s. 6d. per bushel, could make no difference. The present expense of collecting the malt duty was 165,462 l., while the expense of collecting the Beer duty was 295,927 l., the whole of which might be saved to the country, and further taxes reduced to that amount. He was aware, that he should be told, that the accounts of the expenses of collection were not accurate; but if so, this formed another ground for inquiring into the subject, for they ought to be correct. The hon. member for Aberdeen had, however, last year, satisfactorily answered this remark, when he had said, on the authority of the commissioners, that the charge was as fairly as possible apportioned. A note had, nevertheless, been appended to the returns, in order to inform the House, that the same officers were employed in the collection of various taxes, and that there was no tax on beer in Ireland. In fact, it had been found very expedient to remove the beer tax in Ireland, and to place the whole duty on malt; for it was now satisfactorily paid, and the trade had been freed from monstrous restrictions. These restrictions 4iad been imposed very recently by 1 and
1016
2 Geo. 4th, c. 22, "to prevent frauds, and the better to secure the payment of the duties on beer." Perhaps, a harsher law had never been passed. The Scotch brewers, unable to carry on their trade under it, had appealed against it; as they had not even heard of the law, until it was to be carried into execution. The reply of the commissioners to the suggestion that the whole duty should be laid upon the malt was, that it would lead to the deterioration of the beer, and that his majesty's ministers were bound to regard the health of his majesty's subjects. Now, he advised the king's ministers not to intermeddle with this matter—to let the king's subjects take care of their own health—and to allow them to buy their beer of whatever brewer sold it best and cheapest. Mr. Lushington had made a somewhat similar reply to the Scotch brewers. By the course the Lords of the Treasury had pursued, they had taken upon themselves to fix the price of two qualities of beer, as well as to guard the health of the consumers; namely, table beer, and intermediate beer. Why did they not follow the same plan with spirits, wine, coffee, sugar, or even with cotton and woollen goods? They might have done so with equal justice and fitness. If additional securities were necessary to guard the public, or to prevent fraud, he had no objection even to double penalties, if they would be effectual. But, what had been the consequence of thus fixing the price of table beer and intermediate beer? The brewers, unable to obtain an advance of price, in self-defence, as malt and hops rose, had been obliged to give the public absolute trash, instead of a wholesome beverage. From a document in his hand, it appeared, that what the brewers were compelled to sell at 6l. 18 s. if made of malt and hops at the present price, would cost them 7l. 10 s. 6d. Who in truth sustained the loss? the public—that public, for the health of which ministers were so extremely anxious!—The argument of last year had been, that to comply with the present motion would be to impose too large a duty on one article; but, during the war, this objection had never been started, when the impost upon malt was 4s. 4—d. per bushel, and he (Mr. M.) only proposed to raise it to 4s. 6d. He was besides informed by persons well acquainted with the subject, that, by the simplest laws, it would be easy to prevent the possibility of fraud, if the whole duty

1017
were laid upon the malt. It had been also urged, that farmers gave beer on which they paid no duty in lieu of wages. If so, he was prepared to contend, that farmers had no right to this special privilege of buying an article free of duty, which others were compelled to pay, and giving it to their men instead of money. They had no more claim to do so than the cotton or linen manufacturers; and it would not have been tolerated, but for the extreme forbearance of ministers towards the landed interest, to whom the country was indebted for this species of legislation: the principle was most unjust, and, though it had long, prevailed, it ought immediately to be put an end to. The chancellor of the Exchequer had also said last year, that he did not like to make any changes in the collection of the duties while so great an alteration was in contemplation in the collection of the duties on spirits in Scotland and Ireland. At present, however, the right hon. gentleman need be under no apprehension on that score. He (Mr. M.) was convinced, that the effect or the amendment he proposed in the system, would be to increase the consumption, augment the revenue, and satisfy the people by equal and just taxation.—He had heard rumours abroad, that a measure was about to be brought forward to equalize the duties on beer; but the House would perceive that such a bill would not relieve the people. Supposing the whole duty upon beer were fixed at 5s. per barrel, still stronger laws would be required for the collection of the duty, and for the prevention of fraud. Where would be the benefit to the lower orders? Persons who bought strong beer, might be relieved; but that large class of the community which consumed table beer, would suffer proportionably. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not lend itself to any such unequal project. The chancellor of the Exchequer was a man of too liberal and of too enlightened a mind not to see most clearly the advantage of what he (Mr. M.) now recommended; but he did not dare to act up to his own convictions; he knew that he should be opposed by the landed interest—that the country gentlemen would immediately declare (as one of them had done not long since, when agricultural distress caused a temporary aberration) that it was time to look about them—that the best interest of the land were at stake, and that a stand must be
1018
made before all was lost. The right hon. gentleman was aware that he should be assailed on all sides if he consented, and that he should not be allowed to quit the lobby without retracting his approbation [hear, hear!]. He asked him, nevertheless, why he sat there as the minister for the whole state, and bound to protect the interests of all classes alike, and yet consented to this unequal duty, which pressed so heavily upon the poor, for the exclusive benefit of the rich? He knew that no satisfactory reply could be given, but there was every probability that something would be attempted. The right hon. gentleman and the colleague at his side (Mr. Huskisson) had recently supported great improvements in external and internal legislation, and they were entitled to much praise for their exertions, they had so far adopted the principle for which he (Mr. M.) was contending; but, inasmuch as he applauded them for adopting it, he blamed them for not going further; and he called upon them to state on what ground they thought proper to stop short, when so reasonable a proposition as the present was made? They were ready to legislate liberally, and in an enlightened spirit, on silk, linen, and wool; but when it was suggested that they should extend the system to beer, on which there existed such inequality and injustice, they declared that they were not prepared to take such a step. Why were they not prepared? The reason was plain, though not avowed—the landed interest would not allow them [hear!]. The poorer classes those who most needed them, had no such powerful advocates.—The right hon. gentleman had recently acknowledged the very principle for which he (Mr. M.) was contending. After the late reduction of the duty on windows and houses, the commissioners of taxes sent circulars to all their surveyors, requiring them to re-survey the houses in their several districts. The greatest ferment and anxiety were created; and, in consequence, orders were sent down to stop such an obnoxious proceeding. In what way had the right hon. gentleman explained this course? Why, almost in the very terms which he (Mr. M.) had employed on the subject of beer. The right hon. gentleman had said, that he thought it expedient that whatever duties remained should be borne equally by all parties. He had acknowledged that such were the principles of sound legislation; and how could he now turn round in the

1019
face of his own acknowledgment, and disown the application of the same principles here? How could the right hon. gentleman contend that what was good with respect to windows and houses was bad with respect to beer and malt? Where was the distinction? There was none in fact: and he defied the right hon. gentleman and all his friends, to point it out. The distinction lay in the consequences, for, in the one case, the chancellor of the Exchequer could pursue an equitable system, without danger; and in the other, he dared not be just, because he stood in dread of those who were more powerful than himself, the country gentlemen [hear, hear!]. Such was the effect of ministers making themselves dependent upon those of whom they ought to be independent, instead of looking to the people, grateful for just and equal taxation, for support and approbation. If the committee were granted, he would suggest, that an additional duty of 2s. per bushel should be placed upon malt, making the whole duty 4s. 6d. per bushel. Malt had borne during the war a duty of 4s. 4½d., with all the present beer duty in addition, and all he wished was to raise it three halfpence higher, and to do away with all the existing duty on beer. When once this system was carried into effect, a man might drink his beer exactly of the strength he liked, without being under any obligation to the chancellor of the Exchequer for preserving his health, and might at once consult his palate and his pocket. Another advantage of the change would be, that the brewers would be left open to the exercise of their skill in the chemical process in which they were engaged. Under the prevailing restrictions, skill and experience were of little or no use to them. Hereafter they might be able, by improvements, to draw a greater strength from the same quantity of malt; the price of the article might then be lowered, and the public in all ways signally benefitted. The great advantage, and that which above all others ought to be contemplated was, that all classes of the people would be taxed equally. At present the great mass of the population, and those who were least able to sustain the weight, endured nearly the whole burthen; and if this motion were rejected by those who wished to exonerate their own pockets, who could doubt for a moment that the House needed reform? The first principle of taxation was justice and equality, and if the
1020
House refused to carry that principle, as far as possible, into effect, it would afford one of the strongest arguments, to those who maintained that it did not represent the wishes or the interests of the people. Persuaded as he was, that he had made out a very strong case for going into the committee, he could not believe, until the House convinced him of the fact by its vote, that it would not support a proposition, so just and reasonable, and which without at all deciding the question, merely asked for investigation. The hon. member concluded, by submitting the motion which he had read at the opening of his speech.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was by no means prepared to admit that this question had been so imperfectly discussed last year. He did not flatter himself, that any thing he had then said was sufficient to persuade hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House; from their Votes at the time it was quite clear that they were not convinced against their will, although several members who disapproved of the motion had stated many unanswerable reasons for not consenting to the proposed committee. He would fairly confess that since the last debate on this question, nothing new had occurred to him, nor had a reconsideration of what had passed induced him to change the view which he had then taken of the subject. He could not therefore pretend that he was furnished either with new light or fresh information, and he much feared that his stock of ingenuity was far too small to furnish new arguments every time the gentlemen opposite chose after defeat to renew their motions. As it was rendered necessary, by the course which had been pursued, he would briefly re-state the grounds on which he had rested his opinion that it was inexpedient to acquiesce in the motion just submitted. The hon. gentleman had recommended his proposition, as being safe and salutary on two accounts principally. First, he had appealed to the anxiety of the House for economy; and, secondly, he had appealed to its love of justice. He had maintained, that by dividing the tax between beer and malt, the nation incurred a greater expense than if it were placed only upon one; and, further, that it was most unfair to relieve the rich at the expense of the poor. These general principles were undoubtedly very good, and in this case they had only the slight defect of wanting application. As

1021
to the expense of collection, he could only repeat what he had said last session—that it was a fallacy to assume that the expense of collecting the beer duty was that sum which, according to ancient usage, was assigned in the Excise returns as the charge. Excise officers did not perform one duty only; they collected the imposts, not alone on malt, but on soap, candles, and every thing on which their services might be required. It was quite true, that there had always been charged (perhaps most absurdly) upon the collection of the duties on malt and beer certain other expenses, which had, in fact, nothing to do with them. It was quite obvious, that if the same individuals were employed on different duties on the same day, it was impossible to define exactly how much of the charge ought to be borne by the one or by the other. They could not employ one officer of the revenue in collecting one particular tax without assisting in the collection of the others. He was therefore not disposed to admit, that if the duties on beer were repealed, the whole of the 295,927 l. now set down for the expense of the collection of that duty would be saved; for he could not conceive how the hon. gentleman was warranted in not allowing an additional expense for the collection of a double duty on malt, if such a duty were imposed. He could not conceive how the hon. gentleman assumed, that, if they doubled a tax, the temptations to evade which were already so great, no additional trouble and expense would be necessary in insuring its collection. The hon. gentleman, indeed, seemed to think, that the malt tax never was evaded; but this was a supposition unfortunately altogether incorrect. If they doubled the tax, the inducement to fraud would be doubled, and greater vigilance would be required to detect fraud. It was impossible, therefore, to calculate upon the saving of 295,927 l. The system of the hon. member was not to cause any loss to the revenue; but his proposed increase of the duty on malt did not seem adequate to secure it against loss. The duty on beer produced about three millions sterling; while, in the last year, the quantity of malt that paid duty was 27 millions of bushels. Two shillings per bushel additional duty would produce, on this quantity, only 2,700,000 l. There would therefore remain 300,000 l. to be made up. The hon. gentleman might say that he would proportionably increase the
1022
duty; but, said again, that, in so doing, he increased the temptations to evade the duty, and, pro tanto, diminished the benefit to those for whose advantage the change was projected. The hon. gentleman said, that the duty was extremely unequal. Now, he could not pretend, abstractedly speaking, to say that it was not unequal, as the malt used in the breweries of the public brewer might be said to pay altogether an amount of duty beyond that paid on the malt used by those who brewed their own beer. But, practically, the effect was not so severe as the hon. gentleman had contended; because, in reality, those who brewed their own beer, and were thus exempted from the beer tax, could not brew their own beer at so economical a rate as it was brewed in the great establishments of the public brewer. Though this was no argument in favour of the inequality of the principle, it was a good one to show that the hon. gentleman had over-rated the degree in which that principle operated in practice. The hon. gentleman assumed, however, that-all persons who brewed their own beer were rich, and that all persons who bought the beer of public brewers were poor. This was a proposition which it was necessary to take with many limitations. In the first place, nearly all the inhabitants, of this metropolis, which always comprised so many opulent persons, and during part of the year a great proportion of the nobility and gentry of the country, drank beer which paid the duty. In all towns a large portion of the inhabitants living in easy circumstances, who certainly could not be classed with the poor, also drank the beer of the public brewers. On the other hand, there were a great number of persons who brewed their own beer who were in poor circumstances. Certainly, in the county with which he was more particularly acquainted, and in Yorkshire, private brewing was common, not only among the very small farmers, but the artisans in villages, and even the manufacturers. To that class it would be a great hardship to impose an additional duty on the malt they used in brewing—a hardship not depending merely on the increased pressure of taxation, but which would have the effect of driving them to the public-house, of introducing a pernicious system and of depriving them of the great comfort, as well as of the advantage to their morals, of consuming their own beer with their families. The hon. gentleman had ridi-

1023
culed one defence which had been set up for the beer duty; namely, the plea, that it enabled the Excise officers to detect frauds which might otherwise be practised on consumers, by the use of deleterious drugs in their beer. Certainly, he would not say that the utility of the safeguard thus afforded to consumers was by any means a sufficient reason for imposing a tax, or for continuing that tax if they were able totally to repeal it; but he would say that when the proposition merely was, to shift the taxation from one item to another, it was an objection to the proposition, that an incidental effect of the change was to deprive the consumer of the protection which the supervision of the Excise afforded to him. The hon. gentleman seemed to think, that in all cases the consumers were able to protect themselves against these frauds; but he would learn, that though there had been many frauds detected which had been practised by brewers, before considered very respectable in their line, it was never merely by the nicety of the palate of the consumer that the discovery was made of the fraud so practised upon him, but always either by the evidence of the brewers' servants, or by the increased vigilance of the officers of the revenue. The hon. gentleman had thrown ridicule on the measure introduced last year for extending the sale of beer. Now, for his own part, he had never made much account of that measure. He had not been insensible to the objections which would be urged against that, or against any system of taxation, which threw restraints upon industry. He was not without hopes, however, that he could do away with the inconveniences of the Bill which he had introduced. He stated this rather by the way, than as any answer to the hon. gentleman's motion; because the difference between them was not, whether they ought to reduce or modify the duty on beer, but whether they ought to take it off altogether and throw it upon malt. He did not now pretend to state any thing new. He had only repeated the observations which he had made last year, and which had then not been so unsatisfactory to the House as they obviously had been to the hon. gentleman. In conclusion, he would contend, that however desirable it might be to reduce the duty on beer, it was not by throwing it on malt, that the advantage of such a reduction would be secured, and that there was no informa-
1024
tion on the subject which they had need have recourse to a committee to supply, the proper step for the House was, to give a negative to the motion.
Mr. Humecontended, that the arguments of the hon. mover had recieved no sufficient answer from the chancellor of the Exchequer. As to the assertion that by a transfer of the duty from beer to malt, there would be no economy in the expense of collection, he begged to dissent entirely therefrom. He wished they had before them the chairman, or any other proper officer, of the board of Excise, to put to him this question—"Do you not, in appointing your officers in any part of the country, calculate the number of hours that their occupations will furnish them, so as fully to employ their whole time? "He knew the answer would be in the affirmative; for no part of the public business was so attentively and laboriously performed as that done by the officers of the Excise. If these officers were employed once a day, or every other day, for three or four hours in each brewery, it was obvious, that, when this source of employment was taken away, a much smaller number of officers would be required, and a reduction might take place to a very large extent; though it was difficult to state the precise saving which might be effected. In regard to the chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to the objections drawn from the inequality of the tax, that answer amounted to this—" there is an inequality, but that inequality is not so great as the hon. mover has contended." Now really, in arguing a question of this kind, it mattered not whether one half, or a third, or a quarter of the poor were unequally affected. The question was, whether a tax was unequal or not? and, that it was unequal the right hon. gentleman had admitted. The truth was, that the great body of labouring people in the large towns were those upon whom the beer tax pressed with all its severity. As to the agricultural interest, so far from their being injured by the additional duty on malt, accompanied by a reduction of the tax on beer, the increased consumption of malt which would accompany the measure, and the stimulus that would thus be given to the growth of barley, would more than counterbalance any burthen that might be thrown on them as brewers of their own beer. The chancellor of the Exchequer should recollect how he was cheered when he declared,

1025
in reference to the house-tax, that so long as taxes were continued, they should be equally imposed on all classes. But, if this observation applied to the house-tax it applied also to the mall-tax. A tax unequally levied was unjust. It was proper at least to go into a committee, to see whether the tax could not be equalized, or if not equalized, whether it could not be levied in a manner which would interfere less with the freedom of trade. It might be a matter of consideration, when they had heard the evidence in a committee, whether the additional duty on malt should be imposed on those who brewed their own beer; and if it should not be thought fit to tax them, they might perhaps impose, in lieu of the beer tax, an additional tax on the malt used in the brewery of the common brewer. Of such a measure as this, one good effect would be, to free the breweries from the presence of the Excise officers. He understood that this measure had been tried in Ireland, and that the results had been most beneficial. On every point, he thought the chancellor of the Exchequer had failed to shew that the House should shut out information, and he should therefore support the motion of his hon. friend.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, that the motion was, in many respects, so objectionable, that he could not give it his support. Though it could not be denied that the Beer-tax was unequal, yet, when the hon. member contended, that the whole of the beer brewed by public brewers was drunk by the poor, it was the most preposterous proposition ever made by man.
Mr. Maberlydenied that he had used the argument in an unqualified sense.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, that although he might not have used the hon. member's words, yet he thought he had not mis-stated the tenour of his argument, and was positive that the hon. member had insinuated that the chancellor of the Exchequer persevered in his present views, in base compliance with the feelings of the country gentlemen. The hon. gentleman had done the same thing last year, when he promised in magnanimous terms, to hold them up to public notice: he had, he supposed done so by the present motion, and he wished him joy of the result. The hon. member had said, that if the duty were transferred, he was ready to concede any penalties to prevent abuses regarding malt; but, was he not aware of the enormous penalties and restrictions which at
1026
present affected that trade? The first payment of the malt duties to government was in the month of October, and that was the time most essential for the small farmer to go and seek a market.
Mr. Maberlyinterposed to explain. What he had said respecting penalties was, that he should be ready to affix the severest penalties to the mixing deleterious drugs with beer.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, that the explanation of the hon. gentleman did not affect the argument he was prepared to offer, which was this: If from 20 s. a quarter, the malt duties were increased to 40 s, a quarter, the payments to be made by the maltsters would be increased, and the effect in depressing the markets would be great in proportion. He hoped the chancellor of the Exchequer would take into consideration the state of the malt duties. In the last session he had not pressed the subject upon the chancellor of the Exchequer, because a great experiment (the medium beer bill) was then making. That experiment had completely failed, and he hoped now the chancellor of the Exchequer would again turn his attention to the subject. The hon. member had gone into many difficult calculations to suit his arguments; but he (Mr. W.) must dissent from some of his estimates. For instance, in a case like this, he could not consent to take one year by itself: it was a fallacious criterion; for in some particular years brewers and maltsters. speculated more largely than they did in others. If he (Mr. W.) were to strike an average, he should rather take the three years before the late war, 1791, 1792, and 1793; and, computing it from them he found, that although the population of the country was at the time only eight millions, there was as great a consumption of malt as during the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, when the population had increased to eleven millions. Although he could not concur in the motion, he was anxious to see the duty on malt lowered, from a conviction, that the reduction would be attended with benefit, to the people and to the revenue.
Mr. Denisonwould support the motion, because he thought his hon. friend had demonstrated, that the alteration would save a large sum in the collection of the revenue, while at the same time it would materially serve the poorer classes. The saving might be over-rated; but that it

1027
would be very considerable he had no doubt, and that was a sufficient reason for going into the committee, where alone they could ascertain the precise amount—The chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that the rich as well as the poor were supplied from the public breweries. This was the case, he would admit, in London; but it was not in town that the rich incurred the great consumption of beer, but in their larger establishments in the country, where the old style of hospitality was maintained, and where the rich man could supply himself with the article 100 or 130 per cent cheaper than the poor person. A reduction of the beer duty was not only called for on the score of justice and economy, but to promote the morals of the people, by counteracting the pernicious practice of dram-drinking. He should therefore give his vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. Crippssaid, there was no tax more evaded than the tax on malt. The number of private maltsters who contrived to carry on their business in spite of the vigilance of the Excise officers, was inconceivable to those who had hot the means of inquiring into the subject. To increase this tax would increase the evil, and he should therefore oppose the transfer of the beer duty to malt. There were no complaints of the beer tax as an unequal tax, and therefore it was to be presumed, that it was not felt to be such by the people. If, on the other hand, they reduced a part of the malt tax, he had no doubt the result would be most beneficial both to the revenue and to the agricultural; interest.
Mr. Moncksaid, he was sorry he could hot support the motion of the hon. member for Abingdon. If there was an inequality in the beer tax, it was an inequality which had existed from the very origin of the Excise. It was known that the tax on beer was a part of the hereditary revenue of the Excise, given to Charles 2nd in lieu of the wards and liveries; while it was not until the reign of William, that the landed interest would submit to a malt tax, justly considering it as a species of land tax, because the great consumption of malt was in the beer given to farmers' labourers. Now, he thought that, so far from amending an inequality by adopting the proposed motion, they would be exactly introducing one. The existing one was only apparent, while the proposed substitute would be real. The true way
1028
of looking at any large tax was, to watch its general operation; and he denied that, in the present case, the duties were partial. Let them look at the weight which at present fell upon the shoulders of the landed interest. They had to bear almost exclusively the poor-rates. They had exclusively the conveyance of vagrants, the county-rates, the high-ways, and several other local imposts, which did not belong to other classes of the community. It was absolutely necessary that some sort of boon should be given to the landed interest, as a compensation for these exclusive burthens. If the hon. gentleman wished for absolute equality, he might as well press for the repeal of the legacy duty, because it pressed on personal property only; the legislature having conceived, in passing it, that the land was already sufficiently burthened by other impositions. In many parts of the country, and in the country towns, many of the poor people brewed their own beer; and if the practice was not more general, it was on account of the duty, already too high, which was levied on malt. He was firmly convinced, that if the present motion were carried* the poorer classes, instead of being served, would be injured. He denied that there was any analogy between the case of England and of Ireland. There was no consumption of beer in Ireland, as there was in England, either among the rich or poor; for the rich in that country drank wine, and the poor whisky. Agriculture in Ireland was hot burthened with the poor-rates, the land-tax, and such assessments. Not concurring in the opinion that benefit would accrue from the adoption of this motion, he must give it his opposition.
Captain Maberlysaid, there was an inconsistency in the argument of the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, and who had at first contended that it was improper to remove this tax, because, in other respects, the taxes on land were unequal. He told them, in the first place, that the land paid the poor-rates, the county-rates, &c. which personal property did not pay, and that therefore the taxation was unequal; but, on the other hand, he stated, that personal property was charged with the legacy duty, and the tax on the probate of wills, which the land was not charged with. While the hon. gentleman contended for the inequality of the system of taxation, as it affected land, he, with the same breath, admitted that it was

1029
equal. The chancellor of the Exchequer had contended, that the taking off of the beer duty would drive the poor to the public house. But, did he not know, that if they took off the duty on beer, it would be in the power of a much greater number of the poor to drink it at home, because at present beer could not be hawked abroad in quantities convenient for the poor to purchase and consume at home? He thought the arguments of his hon. relative had not been answered, and should therefore vote for the motion.
Lord Althorpsaid, that on the best consideration he had been able to give to the subject, he felt himself bound to vote against the motion. He thought his hon. friend proceeded on the old fallacy, that two and two in taxation always made four. He calculated more than he had a right to do, on the effect of the measure in reducing the expense of collection. From the great inducements to fraud, he thought that reduction would not be practicable, to any considerable extent.
Mr. C. Smithopposed the motion for going into a committee.
Mr. Maberlyreplied. He said, that the propositions contained in his motion went to shew the inequality that existed in the duties on malt and beer; and he had heard no argument whatever on the other side, to prove that that inequality did not exist. Indeed, that inequality was quite notorious; notwithstanding which the chancellor of the Exchequer had opposed his motion for a committee. It had been stated, that the saving, which he had estimated at 295,000 l., had been overstated; but his statement was founded upon the apportionment of the commissioners themselves; and then, to his astonishment, the chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Oh! you must not depend on those statements; they are not correct." Was it not monstrous to hear it advanced in that House, by a chancellor of the Exchequer, that the House was not to depend upon his own accounts? What other guide had a member to goby, than the public documents which were presented for his inspection? Upon these documents, however, he should stand; for the chancellor of the Exchequer had not advanced a single argument to refute the inferences which he had drawn from them. He considered the present system a most unfair, unequal, and oppressive land tax, of the worst description, because it fell upon the consumer. Not-
1030
withstanding what had been said by an hon. gentleman opposite, he would contend, that if the agricultural portion of that House understood their own clear, distinct interest, they would adopt the principle of a more equal taxation. They all seemed to argue the question as if this tax fell exclusively upon them; whereas, in fact, it only affected them in their capacity of consumers. The hon. member for Norfolk had expressed his surprise, that having failed last year, he should again bring forward the proposition now; but he could assure that hon. member, that he would do the same thing next year, and repeat it every year, as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House. The tax which he now sought to remove was that under which all the frauds had been committed, namely, the mixing of the article; for upon the malting, according to the evidence of the officers of Excise who had been examined, although the frauds were formerly considerable, they were now exceedingly rare. Much had been said respecting domestic brewing. He thought it was desirable, and he was one of those who practised it; yet, in consequence of the superior skill and advantages of the public brewer, there was little saving in it; but he thought that, if all the duties were equalized, and if all the beer which was consumed was manufactured by the public brewers, it would be had on much more reasonable terms. The chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that he was disposed to argue that an equality of duties was the proper principle for legislation; but, when it was distinctly shewn on the face of the motion that this inequality existed, he would not consent to enforce the principle which he approved. Even for the sake of consistency, after such a declaration, the right hon. gentleman ought to consent to the appointment of a committee.
The House divided: Ayes 26: Noes 130.

List of the Minority.

Anson, hon. G.

Lennard, T. B.

Barrett, S. M.

Maberly, W. L.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Bernal, R.

Martin, J.

Bright, H.

Newport, sir J.

Butterworth, J.

Nugent, lord

Denison, J.

Rice, T, S.

Fergusson, sir R.

Robarts, G.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Robarts, A. W.

Hutchinson, hon. C.

Smith, John.

Leader, W.

Smith, William.

1031

Sykes, D.

Wood, M.

Tierney, right hon. G.

TELLERS.

Whitbread, S. C.

Maberly, J.

Williams, W.

Hume, Joseph.

MUTINY BILL—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE ARMY.
On the order of the day for the third reading of the Mutiny Bill,
Mr. Humesaid, he had given notice, on a former occasion, of his intention to propose a clause to be added to the Mutiny bill, when that subject should again be brought under the consideration of the House. Pie should now read to the House the clause which he meant to propose: it was this—"And be it further enacted, that it shall not be lawful to inflict corporal punishment, by flogging, on any private soldier, corporal, or non-commissioned officer, in the army or militia of the United Kingdom, any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding." In a former stage of the bill, when he had endeavoured to obtain the consent of the House to this clause, and unfortunately without success, he had stated all the arguments which presented themselves to his mind, as likely to prevail upon the House to adopt it. He was not aware of any additional argument which he could urge on the present occasion, in favour of the view which he took of this question; but, since he had last addressed the House on the subject, he had had the good fortune to meet with an officer who had served in the army of Wurtem-berg, from whom he had obtained some information which might not be uninstructive, in considering this subject. It appeared, then, that during the reign of the late king, the system of flogging had been carried to a great extent: it was frequently resorted to, but the severest punishment rarely exceeded a hundred canes. However, this species of chastisement was considered so disgraceful, and had so demoralising an effect upon the men, that they became callous and indifferent to the value of character; and it happened not unfrequently that, from day to day, the punishment was repeated on the same individual; and the only effect ft produced was, to harden the offender, without in the least degree restoring that discipline, to accomplish which, this severity had been resorted to. Upon the accession of the present king, however, a different course was adopted, and at present no man in the army was subjected to this dis-
1032
graceful chastisement. The consequence was, that the character of the men had considerably improved, and the state of discipline had become much superior to what it was at any former period. The punishment which had been adopted in its stead was solitary confinement; and the House would be surprised to hear, that eight or ten days was generally the longest period of confinement. There were three stages of imprisonment: one of three days, one of six, and a third of ten days, during which, the offenders were kept in solitary confinement, and subjected to irons and alterations in their food according as the case required. Whenever a man was punished twice for the same offence, there were two condemned battalions to which he was reduced; the one was kept for characters of the worst description; to the second, soldiers were sentenced from whom reform and improvement were expected. But even in these regiments, corporal punishment were seldom resorted to; and the consequence was, that officers who formerly had been adverse to the abolition of the practice, and who had been convinced that, without flogging, discipline could not be maintained in the army, had now completely changed their opinions, and had become converts to the more humane system, by which they found the character of the men was much improved, and the system of training rendered less difficult. Now, he saw no reason why the same effects might not follow the same cause in the English army. He could not say what hope was held out of promotion in the army of that country, but with respect to the British army, the encouragement and prospect of promotion was very trifling: in fact, the door of advancement was almost closed, and no man would now enter our service as a private soldier with any hope of promotion. But even in the absence of all such expectations, if the odious practice of torture and flogging were abolished, many men would go into the army for six or seven years, and then, after the experience they had gained, and the discipline to which they had been subjected, they might return to civil society much improved, and enabled to confer a service upon the community. But, no man could now enter the service and say, that in an unguarded moment he might not commit some act which any officer might interpret into an offence deserving of serious punishment, in consequence of which he might be disgraced

1033
for life, and disqualified for returning to an intercourse with society. Surely now, when the civilized views of modern times were calling for a reform in our criminal code, we should not be backward in endeavouring to try it in the military system. He did not ask the House to interfere with the troops abroad; but, at a period of profound peace, he thought the experiment might be tried with advantage on the army stationed within the united kingdom. At a time when we were legislating for the brute creation—a measure which he was disposed to support as far as it was practicable—it would ill become the House to turn a deaf ear to the interests and happiness of their fellow creatures. This barbarous punishment was productive of no advantage whatever to the service, and had a most injurious effect upon the soldiers. Disgrace followed each infliction, and it must, in a certain degree, blunt the feelings of those officers who were compelled to witness such disgraceful scenes. The proposition which he submitted, would not, in his judgment, be an innovation upon the privilege of the Crown. The king, he admitted, was the guardian of the discipline of the army; but that discipline was laid down in the Bill which they were now discussing, and the House had consequently the power to mark out any course which it might think prudent to adopt. He trusted that, unless it could be shewn that some danger would arise from the proposition he was about to submit, the House would consent to his motion with which he meant to conclude, namely, for leave to bring up a clause "to prohibit corporal punishment in the army."
Sir H. Viviansaid, he fully appreciated those humane sentiments which had been expressed by the hon. gentleman. The policy of carrying into execution those feelings, as far as was practicable, he, as a commanding officer, freely admitted; and, he was sure, he might add, that there was no commanding officer in the service, who was not disposed to relax the severity of punishment, as far as was consistent with prudence and wholesome discipline. But, he must at the same time take leave to state, that it was no slight reflection on the character of the illustrious individual who presided over the army with so much advantage to the country; it was no trifling censure on those who held the rank of general officers, to suppose that they would not
1034
come forward at once, and endeavour to abolish the practice of corporal punishment, if it could at all be effected with safety to the army. But, let it not be supposed, by the gentlemen opposite, that they enjoyed a monopoly of humanity. He could tell those gentlemen, that the officers of his majesty's service were as deeply interested as they were, in the happiness of their fellows, and that their hearts beat as responsive to the best feelings of human nature. In his life he had never conversed with an officer on the subject, who did not, whilst he lamented the necessity of the continuance of the practice, declare at the same time, that he had never heard a proposal that could with safety be introduced as a substitute for the present system. But, if flogging was such a disgrace, why was it not sought to be abolished in our public schools? Did not gentlemen know that youths of sixteen and seventeen years of age—youths of education and refinement, and fine feelings too—were still subjected to this punishment? If it was a question of feeling merely, why did we not do away with capital punishment in our penal code? The reason was this, because all men were convinced that it could not be abolished, consistently with the public security. Gentlemen were very little aware of the consequences that would result from the system they were advocating. He would mention a curious circumstance that had come to his own knowledge. About ten years ago, he had been commander of a regiment, about a thousand strong: amongst the men considerable irregularities had manifested themselves of a sudden; the cause of which he was unable to discover, until, upon inquiry of the adjutant, he was informed that the men had got a notion into their heads that sir Francis Burdett had done away with corporal punishment in the army. It had been very truly observed, that "an army without discipline was more dangerous to its friends than its foes." In considering this subject, it was necessary to examine not merely the discipline, but the offences which soldiers generally committed. Details, he knew, on the subject, must be uninteresting; but he trusted the House would excuse him. It was well known that soldiers were recruited, generally speaking, from amongst the lowest class of the community, and almost always they were men of the wildest and most ungovernable description.

1035
He had no objection whatever to this; for to that he attributed (he said it without vanity) the superior valour and intrepidity of the British soldier over every other in the world. He had generally found that the soldier who was the first to break over the barrack wall, was the foremost on service to break into the enemies' quarters. Over men of this character it was necessary to exercise strong control; since, if they were not controlled themselves, it was not improbable they might attempt to control others. The besetting sin of this description of men was drunkenness. Now, he did not mean to say that every man who got drunk ought to be flogged, far from it; his practice in his own regiment had been very different; but he did mean to say, that the power to flog any man who had so offended should still remain in the hands in which it was now vested. It was said, that solitary confinement would have as strong an effect upon the men as severe flogging. He would ask the advocates of this new mode of punishment, what they would do under the following circumstances? It was well known to every officer in the service, that about the settling day, there was nearly always a great increase in the number of offences; indeed, it was not extraordinary to have fifty or sixty men offending at once. Now, could he place each of these men in solitary confinement? And if he could, what would be its effect? Why that he would be compelled to punish those who had not offended, by throwing upon their shoulders the duty of those who had. He must likewise object to the substitution of extra drills for corporal punishment. The drill was a necessary part of the discipline of a regiment, and he did not like the idea of bringing it into contempt with those who must be subjected to it, by making it an ignominious punishment. There was not, however, any of these objections to a punishment by court-martial; it hung over the head of every offender, and, as none of them knew on whom it might fall, it kept all in a state of salutary alarm. Allowing, however, that solitary confinement and extra drill might have the proposed effect in time of peace, what was to be done in time of war? Whilst an army was marching through an enemy's country, how was the straggler or the marauder to be consigned either to extra drill or solitary confinement? It had been argued a few
1036
nights ago, that the disorganized state of our army during the retreat to Corunna showed the inefficacy of the severity of our punishments. But, to this argument he begged leave to reply, by stating, that our army was at that time disorganised, not so much from want of discipline, as from the absolute state of exhaustion to which it was reduced, by the almost incredible fatigues and privations it had undergone. As he had upon that occasion brought up the rear, he might be permitted to claim some credit with the House, when he stated, that many of outbrave fellows did not receive any provisions after leaving Astorga. Hunger, it was said would break through stone walls; and it could not surprise any reflecting person, that many of our poor stragglers did upon that occasion take by force those provisions which they could not get by any other means. The French army, however, whose high discipline had been so much extolled on a former evening, in their retreat through the south of France, a country which abounded in provisions, and from which we had drawn plentiful supplies after they had left it the French army, he repeated, in that retreat, not conducted in a hurry—had committed so many atrocities on the property and persons of the inhabitants that they literally welcomed the British soldiers as so many liberators. Indeed, French writers on the subject had recently admitted, that the perfect discipline which our army then observed was worth to it as much as 10,000 men. The gallant officer then proceeded to observe, that at present he thought that commanding officers might preserve the discipline of their regiments without flogging; because, in general, they did not consist of more than 250 men, who were, for the most part, selected for their good character, whose places could easily be filled up, and to whom it would be a heavy punishment to receive their discharge. But what would be the case, when regiments consisted of 1,400 or 1,500 men? or when, as in the last war, so high a bounty was offered, that it was no unusual thing for men to desert from one regiment, and enlist in another, for the mere sake of pocketing it? He would, with the permission of the House, mention an instance which had come under his own observation. One morning, some men dressed in smock frocks came into the barrack-yard to be enlisted. He thought they appeared rather suspi-

1037
cious. He asked them whether they had ever been in the army; they said no. It was no time to refuse men, and accordingly they were enlisted. However, they only got part of their bounty, and he gave directions that they should be strictly watched, and he found out that within six weeks they had received their bounty from another regiment, and had come down to them on furlough. Now, he should wish to know, what punishment was to be inflicted on men of that description, if we did away with flogging? There was one custom which he thought it would be very desirable to discontinue. It was the usage to send soldiers who had conducted themselves improperly at home, out to what were called the condemned regiments such as the 60th; and it frequently occurred that, if they were good soldiers, they speedily obtained promotion, by being made non-commissioned officers. The consequence was, that they wrote home to their friends, declaring that they were never so happy in their lives before; and this operated as a bounty on misconduct. He thought, therefore that no soldier sent abroad under such circumstances should be so promoted for three years. To conclude. If, by any means hon. gentlemen could instil into our soldiery an idea, not only that they were themselves disgraced by being flogged, but that a regiment was also disgraced by having a man flogged in it, no doubt it Would be productive of great advantage to the army; but, until such a feeling was generated among them, lie must contend for the necessity, much as he lamented it, of vesting in courts martial the power of corporal punishment. Entertaining such opinions, he could not give his consent to the proposition which had been submitted to the House by the hon. member for Aberdeen.
Sir R. Fergusson, although he agreed in much of what had just fallen from his hon. and gallant friend, yet differed from him in some points, and should certainly vote for the amendment. He was persuaded that the proposed experiment could never be made at a properer time than the present. His hon. and gallant friend had told the House ho had done the utmost he could to prevent corporal punishment in his own regiment. He was well persuaded of that, knowing, as he did, his hon. and gallant friend's character. There was also, he was most ready to
1038
allow, a great change generally on this subject. When he (sir R. F.) first commanded a regiment, it was conceived requisite to punish every venial offence by flogging, and he was sorry to say, that he had too frequently consented to the infliction. But latterly he saw the folly of the thing, and had tried as much as he could to do it away; and, since that period, he had seen several regiments highly disciplined, in which corporal punishment was wholly unknown. As the clause was restricted to our troops at home; and as the vote was an annual one, on those grounds and on those alone, he would support the clause. He knew there were difficulties attendant on the question. But really, in the present state of the army, it was much better, when a man committed any serious offence, to send him out of the regiment, it being so easy to supply his place. If his hon. friend's clause had extended to regiments on service abroad, he would have opposed it? For no man who had seen any thing of military service, could believe that it was practicable to preserve order on a line of march, without a power of inflicting summary punishment. In what other way could marauders and felons be kept down under such circumstances? He sincerely believed, that when an army was on foreign service, the fear of the summary punishment was necessary for its security. But his hon. friend's proposition was only for an experiment at home and he should therefore vote for it.
Lord Palmerstonobserved, that his hon. and gallant friend near him (sir H. Vivian) had so ably stated the merits of the question that it remained for him only to add a very few words. In fact, the last part of what had just fallen from the hon. general opposite, almost exceeded the principle for which he (lord P.) contended. The only difference between I them being as to the extent. The hon. general considered the power of inflicting the punishment applicable to foreign service. He (lord P.) thought it as applicable to home service. It was allowed on all hands that the punishment was not abused: that the practice of inflicting corporal punishment was much less frequent than formerly; and that it was in consequence of the efforts of the commander-in-chief that it had been so diminished. The proposition of the hon. member for Aberdeen went to take away a power, which he (lord P.) contended was absolutely necessary. It went to

1039
abolish it too, not in remote stations, where the power of inflicting corporal punishment might be more liable to abuse, but to abolish it at home, where its abuse must of necessity be less, subject as it was to so much more immediate and operative a check.
The House then divided—For the Clause 47: Against it 127: Majority 80.

List of the Minority.

Allen, J. H.

Monck. J. B.

Althorp, visc.

Newport, sir J.

Baring, Alex.

Nugent, lord

Barrett, S. M.

Parnell, sir H.

Bennel, hon. H. G.

Phillips, G.

Birch, J.

Philips, G. H.

Bond, J.

Rice, T. S.

Bridges, sir. J.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Colborne N. W. R.

Robarts, A.

Denison, W. J.

Robarts, G.

Duncannon, visc.

Robinson, sir G.

Fergusson, sir R.

Smith, J.

Grenfell, P.

Smith, R.

Gurney, H.

Stanley, lord

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Sykes, D.

James, W.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Kennedy, T. F.

Warre, J. A.

Lamb, hon. G.

Western, C. C.

Lennard, T. B.

Williams, W.

Lloyd, S. J.

Wood, M.

Lushington, S.

Wrottesley, sir J.

Leader, W,

TELLERs.

Maberly, J.

Maberly, W. L.

Hume, J.

Martin, J.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Mr. Humenext adverted, to the manner in which the purchase of commissions was at present effected, contrary to the regulation of the commander-in-chief, by which a certain sum only was allowed to be given for them. He believed many gentlemen were not aware of the declaration which officers made when they purchased promotion. That declaration was as follows "I do declare and certify, on the word and honour of an officer and a gentleman, that I did not allow in any way or manner, more than the sum of—as the fair value of the said commission." And underneath were the following words—"I hereby also declare, that I have made no clandestine bargain with respect to the said commission." Now, notwithstanding this declaration, there was scarcely one case in ten, in which officers received their commissions at the regulation price, though they thus certified that fact. The commander of the forces and the secretary at war could not be ignorant of what was done, and ought, therefore, to cancel such a useless declaration.
1040
Year after year, the jobbing and traffic in commissions was carried on. He believed there was not an officer who did not consider this to be a regulation which ought immediately to be discontinued. With a view to the attainment of this object, he would move for the introduction of a clause stating, "That officers be not required to make a certificate, that they have purchased their commissions at the regulation price." The situation of officers, in consequence of the existence of the present declaration, was exceedingly unpleasant. They were obliged to certify on their word, that which, if they were placed in a jury-box, they would be compelled on oath to deny. He therefore hoped that a respect for the honour of the army would induce the House to approve of this clause.
Sir H. Hardingeadmitted, that under the present order, officers were placed in a most unpleasant situation. Fully persuaded of this, he had made it his duty to inquire into the matter, and he found it was under consideration in the proper quarter, to recall this very objectionable declaration or certificate [hear]. Gentlemen should, however, recollect, that this certificate was introduced to remedy a great evil; namely, the constant traffic in commissions, by which the officers of the army had been most seriously injured. The duke of York was anxious, by the regulation relative to the price of commissions, to preserve and secure the interests of the less wealthy officers. Under that regulation, it was impossible for a junior officer however rich, to step over the head of a senior officer, so long as the latter had the means of putting down the stipulated price for his commission, which was a point of very great importance. It certainly was fitting, in altering the system, to take care that the door should not be again opened to that extensive jobbing which prevailed before the certificate was introduced. He knew, however, that that form was viewed with hostile feelings by the army; and he had learned from a source on which he could implicitly rely, that measures were in contemplation for recalling this objectionable certificate. Under these circumstances, he conceived it would be wrong to agree to the clause proposed by the hon. gentleman, and he should therefore vote against it.
Colonel Daviessaid, he was certainly desirous that this declaration should be

1041
done away with without the interference of the House, and he was glad to hear his hon. and gallant friend say, that it was to be so. But he wished to hear it also from the noble Secretary at war; for unless he heard it from him he must vote for his hon. friend's motion. His hon. and gallant friend said, that the declaration was intended to prevent jobbing. But, did not jobbing exist at present? Could a young man in the army, who desired promotion, obtain it, except after endless year of delay, unless he paid double the regulation price? Every person who had a friend in any of the cavalry or hussar, or what were called crack regiments, knew the enormous sums that were given for promotion.
Lord Palmerstonobserved, that this was a question full of difficulty. As to the clause proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen, he really was at a loss to understand it as the hon. gentleman read it. The Mutiny bill had been described as a mass of unintelligible clauses; if so, he was sure its character would not be improved, if the clause proposed by the hon. member were added to it. He repeated, however, that the subject was full of difficulties. The practice itself of selling commissions was one which, fairly estimating all its advantages and disadvantages it decidedly appeared to be expedient to continue. It brought into the army many persons connected with the higher classes of society, and diffused a spirit that was very advantageous. If, however, commissions were allowed to be sold, it was obviously necessary to limit the price that was to be paid for them; for if not, and if every officer were permitted to bid according to his means and to his desire of promotion, abuses would take place beyond all calculation. An old and a poor officer would never get forward. Junior officers would overstep the most meritorious seniors. How, then, did the regulation in question apply? First, he would take the case of a commission sold by an officer in one regiment to an officer in another. There, there could be no difficulty—no danger of an infraction of the regulation. For the officer who wished to sell, applied to the commander-in-chief, and never came in contact with the officer who wished to purchase. He would next take the case of a regimental succession. Suppose it a majority that was to be sold. The senior captain had the pre-emption, if his means enabled him to purchase. Now, what temptation had he
1042
to give more than the regulation price? The only case where it was probable that a larger sum than the regulation price was given, was where an individual, not disposed to sell, was tempted by the subscription of persons who wished to obtain a step in promotion, and who knew that there were strong claims which rendered it infinitely probable that the commission would be given in the corps. In exchange to half-pay, the danger of infraction of the regulation was less than in any other case; for the officer never came in contact with the other party. He applied to the commander-in-chief, and the commander-in-chief took from the list in his possession some one individual to place in the situation of the officer who retired. It was, therefore, only in the case which he had described that it was likely an officer would be tempted to do that which was manifestly improper. As his hon. and gallant friend had stated, the expediency of recalling this declaration had been under consideration. The existing inconveniences had for some time been felt; and an attempt had been made to remedy them by increasing the price of commissions. Still, however, in a case in which a number of officers were exposed to a temptation to which they ought not to be subject, it was considered desirable that the declaration should be recalled. Of course when he said that this recall was under consideration, he should not be understood to describe any specific measure which it was intended to adopt. The very fact of the declaration being under consideration implied that no specific measure had been determined on. He decidedly objected to the hon. gentleman's clause, however; first, because as far as he could collect the import of it, it did not appear calculated to effect the hon. gentleman's own object; and, secondly, because that object was under the consideration of those to whom the consideration of such questions properly belonged.
Mr. Grey Bennetsaid, he had some years ago, introduced this subject to the notice of parliament. It was one which nearly concerned the honour of the army; for nothing could be more galling to gentlemen than to be called on to put their names to a paper of this kind, well knowing, as they did, that the regulation to which it referred had not been obeyed Under these circumstances, he trusted that the commander-in-chief and the noble lord would turn their attention to the subject, and get rid

1043
of this declaration. It had been said that this traffic was not carried on,—just in the same way as they were told at times that a seat was never sold in that House, and that a voter was never bribed though every body out of the House knew that seats were sold; and there were not a few who could point out not only the seats that had been thus obtained, but the sums paid for them. Colonel Dawkins said, that the necessity of subscribing the certificate in question had long been a source of grief and shame to the army, and he was happy to hear that the commander-in-chief contemplated an alteration of system with respect to it. Under these circumstances he must oppose the clause of the hon. member for Aberdeen.
Sir H. Vivianwas anxious that the certificate should be done away with, but could not support the proposed clause, as it was not the proper mode of accomplishing the object.
Mr. Humesaid, that after the reprobation which the system had met with from both sides of the House, he would not press his motion, but would beg leave to withdraw the clause.
The clause was withdrawn, and the bill was passed.

IRISH PROTESTANT CHARTER-SCHOOLS.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Irish miscellaneous Estimates, Mr. Goulburn moved, "That 21,615 l. be granted to defray the expense of the Protestant Charter Schools of Ireland, for the year 1814." He briefly stated the reasons which rendered it necessary to call for a larger vote for this purpose, in the present, than in the former year. It was occasioned by the desire of the government to relieve the Foundling-hospital from the care and maintenance of a considerable number of children who had now arrived at the age of 13 or 14, and whom it was proposed to spread over the different charter-schools.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Protestant charter-schools were a mere charity, and ought to be supported by the funds which had been left for that purpose. If parliament were called upon to grant money, it should be for general education, and not for the service of a particular class. Last year the right hon. secretary pledged his word that the sum demanded this year would be less than it was theft: but instead of
1044
that, there was an increase of 4,615 l. He should therefore, bearing in mind the reduction promised by the right hon. secretary last year, move as an amendment, that 14,000 l. be substituted for 21,615 l.
Sir J. Newportmaintained, that all the grants respecting education in Ireland ought to be postponed until the House had declared the principle on which they, would proceed with respect to them. The doling out separate sums in this manner destroyed the benefit which it was in tended to confer. He wished the subject to be treated as a whole, and to be submitted to a committee above stairs, for the purpose of ascertaining in what way the bounty of parliament could be rendered, most available. He would move as an amendment, that the present resolution be postponed.
Mr. Goulburnwas utterly at a loss to conceive why, because it might be desirable to appoint a committee to inquire into the present state of education in Ireland, the charitable institutions for that object should suddenly be deprived of their usual support. With respect to charter-schools, he admitted that the establishments were more in the light charitable institutions than of places, where systems of education were laid down. As a charitable system he was prepared to maintain it.
Sir M. W. W. Ridleysaid, they were now going to vote away a sum of money, and were told, that an inquiry into the subject of education in Ireland was immediately intended; was it then, under these circumstances, too much to ask a delay of ten days or a fortnight?
Mr. C. Grantdid not think that the inquiry as to the state of education in Ireland could possibly end during the session. With respect to charter-schools in Ireland, he condemned the principle, on which they were founded. He regretted that the estimate under the consideration of the House had been increased in amount this year. He must object to the institution of charter-schools, because he was convinced that the public money might be laid out to more advantage. There were powerful objections to them, both of a local and general nature. They were opposed to the feelings of the people of Ireland, and to their prejudices. The grant, however, could not be suddenly withdrawn, and for the present he would not oppose it.
Lord Althorpsaid, that what had fallen

1045
from the right hon. gentleman carried with it great weight. If it was clearly to be understood, that an inquiry into the system of education would take place, he would not object to the vote for the present year.
Mr. Goulbumsaid, that with respect to a committee, he could not give any pledge or opinion one way or the other.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he could not but discover an alteration in the tone of the right hon. gentleman with respect to education in Ireland, and rather feared that the right hon. gentleman would oppose the motion for a committee. The House had now, for the first time during the last ten years, been called upon to give its approbation to the principle of charter-schools in Ireland. In former years, the failure of those establishments was admitted, and promises were made, that the grants would be reduced. But now the right hon. gentleman proposed to augment them. The right hon. gentleman had endeavoured to show a connexion between charter-schools and the Foundling-hospital. But that connection would make him more disposed to oppose the grant. He objected to charter-schools, because they were founded on an exclusive principle. He objected to that principle as much as he did to the proposition brought forward by the Catholic clergy the other night. He did not wish to see an exclusive system of education, either by the Catholics or by the Protestants, at the public expense; and, in his opinion, the House could only justify the refusal to the Catholics by discountenancing an exclusive system for the Protestants. With respect to the Foundling-hospital, that establishment was formerly supported by a tax on the citizens of Dublin. They complained of it, and the tax was removed; but then came down an augmented vote for that establishment—an establishment which had greatly added to the vice, the misery, and the sufferings of the people of Ireland. The principle had the same effect invariably, wherever it was applied; and it was a curious fact, that in Paris, since the institution of a foundling hospital in that city, the exposures of children had increased from the ratio of one in ten, to the ratio of one in three.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Irish government had formerly pledged itself to reduce the grant. It had accordingly been partially reduced: but now it was proposed, notwithstanding the pledge of the
1046
government, to increase it by a sum of 4,000 l. This was a positive breach of good faith on the part of the Irish governments.
The House divided: For the Amendment 33: For the original Resolution 74.

List of the Minority.

Alhorp, visc.

Martin, J.

Barrett, S. M.

Monck, J. B.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Newport, sir J.

Bernal, R.

Parnell sir H.

Davies, T. H.

Phillips, G.

Denison, E.

Rickford, W.

Duncannon, visc.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Fergusson, sir R.

Robarts, A. W.

Gordon, R.

Robarts, G.

Grosvenor, gen.

Robinson, sir G.

Guise, sir B. W.

Stanley, lord

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Hume, J.

Tremayne, J. H.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Western, C. C.

James, W.

Whitbread, S. C.

Kennedy, T. F.

Williams, J.

Leader, W.

Wrottesley, sir J.

Lennard, T. B.

Lamb, hon. G.

TELLER.

Macdonald, J.

Rice, T. S.

RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF SOUTH AMERICA.
The Marquis of Lansdown.—Before your lordships proceed to the business appointed for this evening, the noble earl opposite will permit me to ask, or rather to renew the question which I put a few evenings ago—whether any answer has been received by his majesty's government from the court of Spain, to the last despatch of Mr. Secretary Canning to sir William A'Court?
The Earl of Liverpool.—I have no difficulty in stating, in reference to the inquiry of the noble marquis, that no official answer has as yet been received by his majesty's government, to the despatch mentioned by the noble marquis.
The order of the day for summoning their lordships being then read,
The Marquis of Lansdownrose and said:—My lords; in pursuance of the notice which I gave on a former evening, I rise to propose to your lordships an address to his majesty, on the subject of the present state of the South American provinces, and on the expediency of an immediate recognition of the independence of Spanish America.
In opening this proposition to your lordships, I feel how incapable I am of offering to your lordships more than a slight and imperfect sketch of all the objects connected with the consideration of such vast and important interests. But, my lords, if I feel in some degree oppressed, as any person in my situation must feel, with the magnitude of the subject, I certainly feel no room for any hesitation, as to that course of policy which I am about this day to recommend your lordships to adopt. Indeed, if I feel I have any thing to account for, either, to your lordships, or to myself, as connected with this subject, it certainly is riot for any thing like precipitation in bringing it

971
under your consideration, but rather for having so long delayed it. Your lordships will perhaps do me the honour to recollect, that when, about four years ago, I submitted to your lordships the first proposition which was adopted by parliament, for instituting an inquiry into the means of extending the foreign trade of the country, during a period of great public distress, I ventured after urging the propriety of removing the restrictions and regulations, with which that trade was then, and remains still, partially incumbered—(with respect to which, more sanguine hopes I am glad to find are now entertained by persons of all parties and descriptions than I was then told could safely be indulged, and which have fortunately met with the concurrence of those who have the means of carrying such measures into effect),—I ventured, even then, to point out to your lordships' attention, the condition of the provinces of South America, as a source from which we were entitled to look for great ultimate benefits, not only to this country but to the general condition of the whole civilized world, then struggling with the consequences of protracted wars, followed by diminished consumption, and failing trade. I did not, however, then certainly think myself justified in immediately submitting any proposition like the present to your lordships; and when the prospect became still more cheering, and the first sparks of liberty and independence in that quarter of the globe began to assume a brighter aspect, and to burn with a steadier flame, events had occurred in the old world, which involved the interests and hopes of the mother country, in a crisis as desperate as it was cruel, and would have made it as ungenerous as impolitic, to adopt measures, which, however justifiable in themselves, appeared calculated to wound her feelings in the extremity of her danger. Under such circumstances, it might justly have been considered both ungracious and unbecoming, in any individual in this place to have brought forward a proposition, which might have been considered as an attempt on the part of this country, to obtain an unfair advantage from misfortunes, with which we were bound to sympathize, if we could not avert them.
At the commencement of the present session of parliament, I should, however, have been prepared to have brought forward a proposition on this subject, had I
972
not then understood from the king's ministers, that an overture had already been made by the government of this country to Spain, connected with this subject, to which an answer might be very shortly expected. This alone induced me to postpone the execution of what I considered a public duty. But when, my lords, after the production of the papers which the noble earl has laid on the table of the House, I found myself strengthened and confirmed in the view which I had previously taken of the subject, by the arguments and sentiments which are there stated, it was impossible that I could bring myself to consent to further procrastination. By those papers, to the language of which upon the part of his majesty's government, I am happy to be able to give my decided approbation—with one exception only which I shall have to notice—I certainly feel myself relieved from the only embarrassment I could have felt on the subject. For although I had reason to believe, from the explanation given by the noble earl on a former occasion, that this country was perfectly unfettered by any treaty or engagement with any of the powers of the continent—though it could have proceeded only from an imbecility of conduct, which no slight ground could have induced me to impute to any ministers—yet if they had by any species of engagement, direct or indirect, consented to bind down the free principles and great commercial interests of this country, the joint sources of its reputation and its power, to the contracted policy and narrow system, upon which some of the continental powers might be disposed to act, though fundamentally opposed to that which has been, and I trust will ever be, that of this country—such a line of conduct, would certainly have interposed a considerable difficulty in the course, which, with better hopes and upon more solid grounds, I am now anxious for the House to adopt; finding, that we are, up to this moment, not only unfettered, but that we have announced our intention, to pursue that independent course of action, which on all occasions, but more especially upon such an occasion as the present, it was most important for this country to adopt. I therefore come free from all embarrassment of this kind, to the consideration of this subject—a subject, give me leave to remind your lordships at the outset, of incalculable magnitude, embracing an ex-

973
tent of territory, and an amount of population, greater perhaps, than it ever fell to the lot of any one act of human policy, and of human legislation to effect. To regions extending from somewhere about 37 degrees of north, to 41 degrees of southern latitude, equalling in length the whole continent of Africa, and exceeding I believe in breadth, the whole of the vast Russian empire, European as well as Asiatic—intersected by the most majestic rivers—the variety of climate incidental to such an extent, happily affected and diversified by the arrangement of its great parallel range of mountains, which mitigate and almost neutralize its equinoctial heats; calculated for every species of production and enjoyment of which the human race is capable; a country already inhabited by a population of twenty-one millions of persons—a population composed, it is true, of different races, but that difference proved to be not inconsistent with the most perfect harmony of interests and community of feeling, thinly indeed, and unequally spread over a wide surface—but presenting at every scattered point, all the sources of social improvement, all the elements of future strength and greatness.
My lords, it is with respect to countries such as I have described, that jour lordships are now called upon to determine, whether you will advise the Crown to recognise them in the form of independent states; a question, which, be it recollected, involves a twofold consideration "first whether you possess the right to make this acknowledgment; and secondly, whether, supposing the right to be established, the expediency of exercising that right without delay is equally clear. My lords, I say, the first point to consider is, whether you have the right; for however it may be my duty this night to point out to your lordships, the great advantages which may result from the establishment of South American independence, I hope I shall never stand up in my place in this House, to recommend to your lordships to adopt any course of policy, inconsistent with those principles of right, which are paramount to all expediency, and compose that great and universal law of nations, any departure from which, to answer the objects of a selfish and ambitious policy, never fails to recoil upon its authors. The importance of this point, therefore, will be my excuse with your lordships, for detaining you for a few moments on the preliminary question of right.
974
My lords, I know of no principle or mode, by which we can ascertain whether we possess that right, but by considering in the first instance, whether those states, which form the object of our present consideration, are, de facto, independent; and secondly, if they are de facto independent, whether there be any prospect of the old government of Spain, ever being enabled to recover its command of them, so as to possess the advantages she formerly did from them; and thirdly, if they are de Jacto independent, and there is no prospect of their being again reduced under the dominion of the mother country, whether they have proved themselves disposed, and able to maintain those relations of amity and commerce, which ought to exist between independent, and friendly nations. My lords, from what I perceive to be the opinion of the noble earl opposite, and from what I find contained in the papers on the table, it is not necessary for me to dwell much on these topics. On the first, namely, whether these states are de facto independent, I presume, that hardly a question can be raised, in the mind of any one who has made himself acquainted with the events which have occurred within the last two or three years in that part of the globe, and the absence of all effectual control on the part of Spain, whether exercised by civil, or enforced by military authority.
My lords; with regard to the second question which presents itself, namely, whether Spain can, with any thing like probability, look forward to the reconquest of those immense regions—to come to a conclusion upon this point, your lordships have only to look at the duration of the contest, and the present situation of the different members of that great confederacy, now united in an alliance offensive and defensive, by which they are bound to listen to no overture, individually or collectively, which shall compromise, or even pretend to annex any condition to the enjoyment of their independence; an alliance, the effects of which are already displayed in the prompt assistance afforded by Columbia to Peru, and which is, I trust, destined to become the certain and lasting guarantee of the liberties of the New World, by eternally uniting and concentrating its force, against the attack of any trans-atlantic invader.
In the first place, my lords, let us look at the state of Mexico. Mexico, containing seven millions of people, and extend-

975
ing from sea to sea, for the last two years has not had, nor at this moment is there to be found in it, a single Spanish soldier, unless, indeed, in a detached fortress on the coast, where there is a small garrison of about 300 or 400 men. I mean the castle of St. Juan d'Ulloa. But they are cut off from all assistance; and are wholly unconnected with the shore. They may, from the particular situation of the fortress, hold out sometime, but as all communication with the continent has been put a stop to, they can have no influence on the state of the country, In Guatimala there is also now no Spanish force.
Throughout the great state of Columbia, extending from the Orinoco to the Isthmus of Darien, there is not now a single Spanish soldier, after a series of contests which lasted fourteen years, and after the contest assuming every year, a character more decisively favourable to the cause of independence; until at length it was completely established, by the reduction of Puerto Cabello, during the last summer.
In the state of Buenos Ayres, there has not been any thing like a Spanish force, for the last twelve or thirteen years; during which period this state has exercised the rights of independence under various governments, undisturbed by any effort on the part of the mother country. Indeed, no attempt has been made during the whole of that period, by the old government of Spain, to affect existing governments, or interfere with their authority; and it may be worthy of remark by; your lordships, as indicating the determined state of public feeling in that country, that although, as I have stated, there have been internal changes, no less than three changes, I believe, of the administration, or of the government, as you may think proper to call it; so rooted is the aversion entertained by the people, to the old government, that in no one of those changes, has any person attempted, or manifested any disposition to call in the power of the parent country.
The same observation will apply to Chili. In that state, the most perfect independence has been maintained. For more than four years not a single Spanish soldier has existed in Chili, with the exception of an island near the coast, that of Chiloe, to which the partisans of the old government were permitted to emigrate, and where they remain incapable of any offensive operation.
976
With regard to Peru, the circumstances are different; for it must be admitted, that owing to some mismanagement in the government after its first liberation, there is to be found there, and there only, a party attached to the old government of Spain. There alone, then, is any thing which can be called an army to be found, consisting, as I am informed, of 7000 or 8000 men—a force, which being, as I understand, under the direction of a very efficient leader, has lately met with some success, facilitated by the hitherto disunited councils of its military chiefs, but quite incapable of ultimately subduing the spirit of independence which has taken root in the hearts of the Peruvians, now encouraged by the presence of General Bolivar, who is engaged in extinguishing their feuds, and bringing to their aid all the glory of his name, and that force of genius, which has already distinguished his military enterprises, and, if possible, still more his political administration, by which he has established the independence of Columbia, and given to it that constitution, which appears destined to become the bond of union, and the charter of the liberties of the confederated states.
My lords, this, then, is the state of the different provinces which I have alluded to, and I will ask your lordships to consider whether it is within the range of human probability, that a continent, of the extent that I have described, inhabited by the numerous and increasing population I have stated, can, after a practical independence of fourteen years has been established, be induced to return under the yoke of a power, situated as Spain now is—and not only as she now is, degraded and enthralled, but as she must necessarily be for half a century to come. The population of old Spain, before the war, did not exceed ten millions. That population is now not only diminished in point of numbers, but has lost a large portion of its ablest citizens. And, destitute of supplies, and labouring under every financial as well as political difficulty, can it be rationally expected, that she can subjugate a population of at least seventeen millions, in her late American possessions? In the whole of Mexico and South America, there is, according to the lowest calculation, a population of twenty one millions. Of these, seventen millions form the population connected with old Spain. The remaining four millions compose the population of the Brazils; while the whole population of Portugal amounts only to three millions.

977
Now, my lords, I think I have stated enough, to induce your lordships to come at least to a decision sufficient for every practical purpose; namely, that it is beyond the reach of probability, that Spain should ever be able to re-conquer those colonies.
I have then, my lords, to direct your consideration to the last question; namely, the capacity of those states to maintain those relations of amity and commerce, which are naturally expected to prevail in independent states, for which, of course, some security may be looked for.
And here, my lords, it would perhaps be sufficient to decide the question, if I were to point out the course which has been pursued in those countries, where peace and tranquillity have been established, after the storm of civil distention, without troubling your lordships, by going into the details of the principles of the different constitutions which have been established. On referring to the papers which have been laid before tin's House, I find those countries described by the French ambassador to the court of London, in his conference with Mr. Secretary Canning, in language, which is of course put into his mouth by the court which he represents, but which has excited in my mind no inconsiderable surprise. He states, "that he cannot conceive, what can be meant under the present circumstances, by a pure and simple acknowledgment of the independence of the Spanish colonies, since those countries being actually distracted by civil wars, there existed no government in them which could offer any appearance of solidity; and that an acknowledgment of American independence, so long as such a state of things continued, appeared to him to be nothing less than a real sanction of anarchy." Those countries, he proceeds afterwards to describe, as under the influence of dangerous and erroneous theories, and as blinded by party spirit. What evidence, my lords, do we find of this, in the actual state of things? In those states, there may be dissentions, as in all governments; but where have they been attended with less violence, less danger to property, less insecurity of person, than they have in these stales, when the force of their oppressors has been once expelled—they have given way to the establishment of sound principles of government, and of constitutions, as exempt from absurd theories, and as apparently
978
calculated for the advantage of the people, as most of those under which we have seen other states exist and flourish. It is easy, my lord, for one government to describe any other government, as being composed of dangerous theories. Political criticism would never be deficient in furnishing a pretext for political interference: the principle of representative government, so justly dear to some countries, might by others be decried as an impracticable absurdity, or abhorred as a pernicious dogma. How easy would it be for the grand seignior, for example, when speaking of the French charter, to draw the same picture, and derive the same inference; and, appealing perhaps to the apparent instability of its provisions, and pointing to the dissatisfaction and to the alleged conspiracies of those subjects whose rights it was intended to secure, come to the conclusion, that it was time for foreign powers to give it "a new direction." Upon quite as good grounds might such a conclusion be drawn, as to the state of France, as those from which the French minister (acting no doubt according to his instructions) has thought proper to draw, of the want of good order and regular government in South America. But your lordships, I am sure, will not be led away by such allegations—you will not listen to any thing so theoretical, any thing so unfounded, any thing so absurd, as that because the constitutions of the states in South America do not happen, to be in unison with the views of the French government, they must be deprived of the rights of independent states, until they shall have furnished a sample, which meets with the approbation of all the European states.
Now, without troubling your lordships by going into details with respect to every state, I will ask you to look at the constitution of Columbia as an instance, furnishing the best refutation of the statement made, because, in fact, Columbia has been in some degree, taken as a pattern and example to the other states. Now, in Columbia I find they have adopted two principles for constituting their government, which I think your lordships will consider as the best and surest foundation of all governments; I mean, property and education. These two principles form the basis of their legislature. I also find as cautious a disposition to exclude the multitude from taking any improper share in the government, as the

979
most prudent statesman of the old world could desire. I find property in land made the qualification for electors, even in the parochial assemblies, and that a still higher qualification, a greater possession of land, is requisite for the electors who return the representatives. I find, that not more than one elector is allowed, in the proportion of 4,000 inhabitants. I find, also, what I am sure your lordships will admit to be a step in civilization, perhaps as great as ever was made, and in which the state of Columbia may put to shame the constitutions of many states in Europe—an established system of universal parochial education now in force throughout the whole country, and a judicious application of a large proportion of the convents, to the purposes of higher instruction, under the superintendence of the clergy. I find, in that country, which has been described as in a state of anarchy, and as being torn by speculative divisions, that there has not been, since the expulsion of the Spaniards, a single soldier employed in aid of the police of the whole interior of the country, for the last two years, and that too, without its being attended with the slightest interruption of the public tranquillity.
But, are these all the proofs I find, of a well-disposed government, and of a prosperous country? By no means. The government of Columbia has carried into effect the most important municipal regulations; and when I state, that they have been successfully engaged, in attempting to provide for the gradual extinction of slavery throughout their dominions, I think I can appeal to the noble earl opposite, the secretary of state for the colonies, whether that country has not been engaged in the accomplishment of a task, which he well knows to be attended with no common difficulty and danger. I am happy to have an opportunity of stating, that throughout Columbia, a regular system has been formed, for the gradual abolition of slavery; that a particular tax has been set apart, for the purpose of providing for their manumission, and that all the children to be born hereafter will be born free. It is also due, no less to the inhabitants than to the government, to state, that the regulations I have been describing have been carried into effect, in a manner so satisfactory to the masters, that no complaints have been heard; and not only has there been no opposition raised, but such good effects have been exhibited, in the increased
980
attachment between the servant and the I master, under the new relation so created, that masters have very frequently been induced from humane feeling, to give additional effect to the law, and have voluntarily emancipated their slaves, without waiting for the remuneration provided by the state. I advert to this fact, because, I think it is highly to the honour of those people, amongst whom it has taken place, and with other circumstances, of improved internal administration, must place that government high in the scale of civilized states.
But, my lords, I am told in these papers, that notwithstanding all these favourable appearances, the different governments have no solidity whatever, and that on that account alone it would be improper to think of any thing like a simple and unqualified acknowledgment of the late Spanish colonies as independent states. Now, my lords, if by solidity is meant capacity to enter into public engagements, and honesty to abide by them, there is, fortunately, a pretty safe and certain barometer, whereby to judge of the solidity of governments; namely, the barometer of public credit, built upon public confidence: and I would ask your lordships to consult it, before you pronounce in the present instance. It does so happen, my lords, that there is perpetually sitting in the city of London, a jury, composed of very vigilant persons, who are daily engaged in deciding upon the solidity of stales, in the most impartial manner. It would be doing great injustice to the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange, not to consider them as perfectly free from all particular bias, in favour of monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy. Their practical philosophy raises them above all prejudice on these subjects, and preserves them effectually from the errors of all deluded enthusiasm on these subjects. Now, referring to the standard of solidity, as presented by these gentlemen, I find, on looking at the value of the I stocks, or debts, of the various governments I have alluded to in South America, that they fluctuate between the prices of 67 and 82; and upon my looking a little further, for the value of the stock of the ancient government of Spain, from the solidity of which the South American governments have been detached, and have by that detachment gunk, it is said, into a state which presents neither1 confidence nor stability—I find the stock of the an

981
cient government was, on Saturday last, at 18 and 20. I know it may be said, that this stock of the ancient government of Spain, was that which was contracted for by the Cortes, and of which its present sovereign now states, that he only approved with a mental reservation, and has informed the world he had so successfully deceived, that it never made any part of his intention, to pay either principal or interest. I therefore carried my inquiry further, and sought to discover, the price of the old legitimate stock of Spain. To get at this, I have been obliged to go as far as the market of Amsterdam; for it was in vain to ask for it on the London Exchange, because it appears, that at present there is no sale there for the commodity. This ancient debt of the Spanish government, with all the honour and solidity of the restored government pledged for its support, sells for only 51 or 52, while that of Chili, is obtaining 80 and 82, in every market in Europe.
Such being the state of public credit, with respect to these governments, let me ask your lordships, whether those countries in South America are really in such a condition, as to justify the interference of any of the old governments of Europe in depriving them of the character of independent governments. It appears, from the papers on your lordships' table, that we have been invited to concur in a project to bring back these colonies "to a principle of union in government, whether monarchical or aristocratical." I believe, this is the very first time that the country has received such an invitation, or that any power has been so called on to interfere, to settle the government of such distant countries according to certain abstract principles, whether monarchical, aristocratical, or democratical. I have certainly lived in a country, in which I have learned to admire the advantageous effect of the union of all those three principles in one system of government, and to consider that system as the best calculated for promoting the happiness of the human species. But, my lords, I have yet to learn, that there may not exist a government, adapted to the different character and situation of a nation, in which only one of those principles may enter, and that it may not afford all the advantages and security which civilized states have a right to require from each other, for their mutual intercourse and advantage.
982
But, my lords, can it have escaped the attention of those who wish to indulge their predilection for particular forms of government on this occasion—that there exists in that part of the globe, a great and mighty power—and I am glad that it is a great and mighty power—I mean, the United States of North America—a power which has a right (and as far as propinquity is concerned) a better right, to act upon a similar predilection, though in favour of different principles. And, if any attempt should be made by any European power, to bring back the Spanish colonies to a monarchical or aristocratical government, is there not reason to apprehend, that the United States, seeing the foundation of their own institutions attacked, may think it necessary to lend the whole force of their union, to direct these neighbouring states towards a republican form of government: in which case the continent of America would exhibit to the world the strange spectacle, of a theoretical contest, carried on between all the great powers of the globe, as to the abstract principles of government, for a new people, not permitted to exercise their own judgment, or adopt their own laws.
Why, my lords, does not all experience lead to the irresistible conclusion, that there is nothing in the particular form of a government, which can in justice, or on the principles of national law, or on views of expediency, justify the interference of another power? My lords, it is upon these grounds that I propose to offer to your lordships, on the part of this country, to acknowledge the independence of these states. And I trust I have shewn, not only that we possess the right to do so, but that there exists no obstacle to its exercise—an exercise, with respect to, which I will add, there can be no fear, that it will involve us in any dispute or hostility; for I do not believe, there is any instance, since the establishment of the present order of things in Europe, in which the acknowledgment of a government de facto has been considered, or has been stated to be, a legitimate ground of quarrel; nor has such an acknowledgment occasioned war in former instances, in which the policy of this country has come in collision with the supposed rights of the very power which would have cause, if any had, to complain of our acknowledgment of South American independence. There are two occasions which present themselves to my recollection, in which Spain

983
herself, and this country, were equally concerned; one of them is, the case of the United Provinces, the other, when the House of Braganza established itself on the throne of Portugal. The noble earl opposite well knows, that we acknowldeged the independence, carried on an open intercourse, formed political alliances, and entered into commercial treaties, with the government of the United Provinces, during a period of not less than sixty years, before Spain, acting on her characteristic policy and accustomed slowness of deliberation, could be brought to acknowledge their independence; and during the whole of which period, Spain was content to assert her supremacy over those states, without an effort to support it, and the acknowledgment was not formally made by her until the treaty of Westphalia. In the mean time, however, we acted as if Spain had no claim to the obedience of the Netherlands. With respect to the House of Braganza, our conduct was even still more openly opposed to the views of Spain, without occasioning a war. Your lordships may recollect that in 1641 the Cortes declared the duke of Braganza king of Portugal, thereby detaching the provinces, which now constitute the kingdom of Portugal, from the government of Spain; and that in 1642, the very next year, the government of this country formed a treaty with Portugal, and with the reigning House of Braganza, without occasioning any hostility on the part of Spain, and without even a remonstrance, as far as I am aware, from that power.
I am sure I need not repeat other instances to your lordships; for you will feel, that the recognition of the independence of a government de facto, has always been considered the right of every independent state. It is the peculiar exercise of the sovereignty of one state, and cannot be regarded as an act of hostility by another. The exercise of it depends upon the expediency in each particular case where it is called for, and the question of fact whether the state is in a condition to support those relations of amity and commerce which are essential for an independent government to maintain.
My lords, having said thus much, upon the question of our right to act—which I admit is an important preliminary point, on which it is the duty of your lordships, as it is the duty of the government of this country, to make up its mind, previous to
984
its allowing itself to be swayed by any consideration of expediency, in an attempt however it may be otherwise holy—I have now to call the attention of your lordships to the next important point; namely, the question of expediency, as applied to this particular instance. In order to come to a just determination, with reference to this question, it will be necessary to look at the relative situation of this country, with respect both to the old world, and the new. Without going into the vast field of consideration, which the present state of Europe offers, it will not be difficult to show it to be such as to render it highly necessary, that this country should look about, to ascertain by what means we may increase our power—how we may multiply the means of commercial intercourse, create new connexions, and strengthen alliances with new and more congenial states, to whose systems of policy, being more congenial with our own, we may safely look as a compensation for diminished confidence in our former allies, or for aid in future dangers.
And here, my lords, I must advert, though I shall do it very briefly, to the present state of the continent of Europe. Your lordships will pardon me, if I think it necessary to caution you against being diverted from the contemplation of your foreign relations, and their bearings upon the future prospects of this country, by the satisfaction you naturally experience, at the returning appearances of internal prosperity. I must implore your lordships not to be deceived upon that account, with regard to the relative situation of this country with the other powers of Europe. Do not suppose, my lords, that, after the close of that series of struggles, to which the French revolution gave birth; after the formation of new alliances among the great powers of Europe; and particularly after the announcement of the new law of nations by those powers, that this country is placed in the same relative situation with respect to those powers, or that our means of obtaining a preponderating influence, are the same as before. I need only ask your lordships to consider, that it has been at all times a part of the policy of this country, and the successful policy of this country, to establish a connexion with some of the great military powers of Europe, in order to be better prepared for any part which she might be compelled to take, in the dissentions which might arise among the European

985
states, but chiefly to assist in preserving the independence of the smaller states, and to maintain the general balance of power. There was always some one, if not more, of the great military powers in Europe, to which, whatever was its form of government, or the principles of its internal administration, this country could look for assistance, to repress the aggressions of a more ambitious state, to preserve the integrity of governments differently constituted, and to maintain the limits of that balance of power which was thought essential to the well-being of the whole European family. Thus, at different periods, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and even France, have successively been engaged with us in strict alliance, for the purpose of repelling unjust attacks, and protecting injured weakness. But, it is not necessary for me now to observe to your lordships, that all the great military powers of Europe, are engaged in a confederacy on a principle, to which this country is not a party, and to which, thank God, she never can be a party. Of the character of this confederacy, we are not left to form a speculative opinion. The principle by which they are connected, they have put formally upon record, in their declarations, they declare they consider it to be—[hear, hear,]—aprinciple, to which every other consideration of ancient policy must yield; a principle, liable to be called into action, upon the appeal of any one of the confederacy, and which must be pursued by all, until its object is accomplished. In support of this principle, we see 700,000 bayonets maintained in time of peace under the direction of the same authority, and destined to exercise the most despotic control over every one of the minor powers. In the short space of the last five years which have elapsed, we have seen month by month, and day by day, the practical consequences developing themselves in facts that cannot deceive us.
My lords, we know that every part of Europe may in succession be—as many parts of Europe have been—over-run by the arms of the confederacy, and be subject to the military occupation of those states. We know, my lords, that Italy has been over-run, and occupied by the armies of Austria. We know that Spain has been over run and is now occupied by the armies of France. We all know, that the countries I have described, are liable to have their administrations altered, and
986
their governments modified, at the pleasure of the allies; while Switzerland, and other states, have escaped, only by a prompt obedience to the mandates they have received—such mandates as this country, or any country able to defend itself, would justly have considered an insult. Thus, the fairest portions of Europe, may be subjected to the most cruel of all yokes—that, imposed by the presence of armed foreigners, without this country being able to afford any other assistance than the expression of its unavailing sympathy and regret, exclaiming, in the desponding language of Macduff—
"—Bleed, bleed, poor countries!
Great tyranny, lay thou thy basis sure,
For goodness dares not check thee."
Unless, my lords, it be contended, which no person will assert, that it would not have been desirable for the interests of this country to see these changes and innovations prevented, I have a right to assume, that she no longer exercises a preponderating influence, and is placed in a situation, in which, to maintain her high, rank in the scale of nations, she must look to every quarter from which she can derive an increase of strength and greatness. And, to what quarter, my lords, can she, in these new circumstances of the continent, look with greater effect or in more strict conformity with those principles which have always formed the basis of our prosperity, than to the cultivation of a connexion with the independent states of South America, as well as with the government of the United States of North America. With those countries, we may lay the foundation of that increase of strength, which our situation demands.
My lords, it is scarcely necessary, that I should detain your lordships, by attempting to shew the precise value of that connexion, and the extent of that trade the limits of which it would indeed be difficult to define: but from the papers I have called for, and which have been laid upon the table, I may state, that it appears, that in the year 1821, the very first in which the trade with the South American colonies could be said to be fairly opened, our exports to that country, amounted to 3,227,560 l. This great exportation of commodities, in the first year, might be supposed to have occasioned a glut, and that the British merchant and manufacturer had supplied a larger quantity of goods than the wants of the country could continue to require. But

987
so far, my lords, from this being the case, in the very next year, namely, the year 1822, there was an export of 3,867,959 l., being an increase, to the amount of 640,000 l., The accounts for the year 1823 have not yet been made up, but I have every reason to believe that they would have exhibited a still further increase. To what degree that increased demand may extend, when that country becomes more settled, and when the connexion with us shall be confirmed upon a more settled basis, I will not attempt, with the imperfect information I possess, to calculate; but I may, in passing, mention, as an instance of the rapidity with which new openings in commerce carry life and activity to every corner of the globe, and connect the remote parts of it; that, in a year and a half after the ports of the southern states of America were opened, in that part of the sister country, with which I am well acquainted, and in the prosperity of which I know your lordships feel the deepest interest, I mean the south of Ireland, in which scarcely the vestige of manufacturing industry had previously existed, the export of coarse linens to South America commenced, by means of which, a poor, unhappy, and dense population, who could find no market, or resource, in the demands of this country, have been occupied in administering to the wants of a population, no less numerous, though so differently circumstanced, in South America, and have found relief from their sufferings in those political events which have opened afresh market in that vast continent.
Your lordships know the effect which the growth of the independence of the United States of North America has had upon the commercial fortunes of this country. It is not undeserving of attention on this occasion, because it raises a hope, which gladly indulge, that the separation of the South American colonies from the parent state, may not ultimately be detrimental to Spain herself, supposing her destined to enjoy a government which shall call forth her resources, and stimulate her industry.
The independence of North America, the cause of so much dread, and the object of such unavailing resistance, was no sooner settled, than it became the source of prosperity, and of increased commerce to this country. My lords, I hold in my hand a statement of the amount of exports from this country to the provinces of
988
North America, for the eight years previous to the declaration of independence, and of those, during the last eight years; and the result, I think, will prove to your lordships, what every reflecting person must long since have ceased to doubt; namely, that this political separation has left nothing to be regretted, but the painful recollection of the blood which was shed, and the feelings of hostility which were engendered, but which are now, I trust, for ever consigned to oblivion. It appears, from these accounts, that in the eight years preceding their declaration of independence, that is, from 1766 to 1773, the exports from this country to North America aided by all the monopolies and prohibitions then so much relied on for the protection and encouragement of trade, but happily now acknowledged to be vain and illusory, did not exceed, on an average, more than 2,441,000 l. while on the other hand, taking the eight years which have elapsed since the last American war—that war, the unnecessary occurrence of which must ever be deplored, and which I. trust will be the last disturbance given to the amity of nations, whom their mutual interests, common origin, language, and institutions, ought to connect together in the pursuit of one common policy—from the period, I say, when the last American war ceased, down to the year 1822, the exports to North America, amounted annually, on the average, to 6,905,000 l.—that is to say, since the independence of the United States, our commerce to North America has increased nearly threefold, as compared with the period when we held the colonies in subjection. My lords, I advert to this only to show how false the principle of the colonial system was, as applied to the wealth of the mother country, and to suggest how often it may happen, that by adopting a more liberal policy, the basis of our prosperity may be rendered more secure.
These are the objects which your lordships have to look to, as connected with the prosperity of this country, and of the states which are the object of the present motion, a prosperity which, as it has advanced with an uniform progress in the limited states of North America, may be expected in a soil more fertile and with means of expansion more unlimited, to proceed with a still greater accelerated force. The population of the United States of America had, in the course of the last fifty

989
years, increased, from between two and three millions, to ten millions of people. The population of the states of South America consisted now of twenty-one millions. If therefore it is capable of going on in the same ratio, it will increase to an amount which it is awful to contemplate; and will extend to sixty millions in the course of the next fifty or sixty years. I am aware that there are circumstances which constitute a difference in this respect in the two countries; two of these, at least, are in favour of Spanish America, namely the complete amalgamation with the original Indian race, and the small proportion of slaves, as compared with the Southern provinces of the North American Union.
Having pointed out these advantages, as they exist at present, and the extent to which they may possibly be carried, I have finally to ask your lordships, if there is any room for hesitation, as to the course of policy, which ought to be adopted? I may be told, and probably I shall be told, for it appears to be the only argument which can be used in opposition to the proposition I shall have to make—I may be told, that if we are satisfied with the language employed by his majesty's government, as it is disclosed in the documents which have been laid before the House—if we are satisfied, that this question is still left open, we ought to acquiesce in some further delay, and continue to place our confidence in his majesty's government, for the adoption of the measure, when they shall consider the proper time to have arrived. To this, I answer, that, if your lordships are satisfied, that you possess the right to acknowledge the independence of the states which I have described, and if you are satisfied, upon every consideration of justice and expediency, bearing upon the immediate interests of all countries, but more particularly of this,—you ought to do so.
I would not hesitate to give these states the full benefit of your recognition, by solemnly announcing it, at the moment when it is most needed, and will be most valued. I would ask your lordships to recollect, that although to them your acknowledgment may not be every thing (for I believe their ultimate independence must in any case prevail), your acknowledgment now, cannot fail to be an inestimable benefit, by enabling them to compose their dissentions, and by giving them, in the eyes of themselves and of the world,
990
that importance, which a confirmed station amongst civilized and independent nations, can alone confer. And I ask, then, my lords, if you are satisfied as to the grounds of expediency and of right, why should you remain lingering on the threshold, where your entrance is justified by every right, and invited by every principle of justice and generosity? Why not assist, at the cradle of independence, and connect yourselves with all those early associations of liberty and independence, which we all know are held so dear by succeeding generations, instead of waiting to follow slowly the example of others, until our proceeding shall appear to result, rather from necessity, than choice.
Let me ask the noble lords, if they can contemplate any course of events, by which the independence of these states can be finally prevented? Can any man rationally expect, that the government of Old Spain, situated as it now is, and as it must be, so long as it shall be occupied by a French army—and situated as it must be, long after that French army shall have retired, can be able to make efforts at all adequate to the subjection of the inhabitants of those remote and boundless countries, after they have once tasted the cup of liberty, and become conscious of their greatness? Can we suppose it possible, that the progress of civilization, and of every thing proud and great connected with it, in those countries, can be arrested? As well might we expect the mighty rivers which are now flowing through that great continent towards the ocean, to turn their course back to the snowy mountains, from whence they spring—As well might we expect, that the current of the gulf stream, should cease to carry the warm waters of the tropics forward towards its Northern shores, as suppose, that the full tide of civilization and independence can be prevented from extending itself from mountain to mountain and from shore to shore, of that New World.
The time was, when Spain had the power to root up the vineyards of Mexico, that the inhabitants might rely on the mother country for wine—the lime was, when Old Spain could make it felony, to carry roads from the inland to the sea shore of that country, lest the inhabitants should have communications, which their Spanish rulers might not approve—the time was, when the commercial regulations of Old Spain, regulations imposed by ignorance, and carried into effect by cruelty, could

991
spread their withering influence over the regions I have described; but those times, are gone by—never to return. The regeneration of that country must continue, and your lordships are invited to assist in its perfection.
My lords, when I state, that Hook forward with confidence to the final accomplishment of this great object, I do not mean to say, that there are not corresponding dangers—if not, from the open hostility of other countries, who (to use the expression of Mr. Secretary Canning, in the papers on the table) may unfortunately, "think differently" from this country upon this subject—if not, I say, from the open hostility of those states—from a war in disguise, not less to be dreaded; from the employment of those indirect and unholy means, which we know, from experience, the most legitimate governments do not disdain to employ, for the accomplishment of their objects. If these means should be resorted to, I do not say that the prospect of South American independence can be extinguished, but its progress may be retarded, dissentions may be excited, and their councils may be embarrassed. It is to fortify them against such dangers, that I propose to induce your lordships, by the motion I have now to make, to give them, as far as you can, sanction and stability. My lords, I am confident, that it is not only the best course, as far as respects our own interests; but that it is also the fairest course, with respect to the other governments of Europe. We owe it to the governments of the continent, fairly to let them see, not only that we claim the right, but that we mean to exercise it—leaving them, if they differ in opinion from us, to pursue their own course. I call upon your lordships to proclaim your opinion by your actions; convinced as I am, that a great revolution is taking place in the globe, to which the course of political events, the state of public opinion, and the progress of all conquering science, in assisting the energies of nature, are alike contributing, but with respect to which it belongs, in some degree, to this country, to determine, whether it shall be more or less slowly effected; whether it shall take place under circumstances, more or less tainted with human passions and civil conflicts; in a word, whether it shall be in a manner more or less conducive to the immediate prosperity of this country, and Of the world.
992
Here, my lords, I should conclude, were I not obliged, before I sit down, to advert to one topic, which I have already stated to be the only one in the expressions employed by the British minister, which required explanation. I find, in the papers on the table, that the British government (in the minute of Mr. Canning's conversation with the prince de Polignac) has not only disclaimed any desire to appropriate to itself any portion of the Spanish colonies, but has also stated, that it has no intention to form any political connexion with them. My lords, I do not think, that we ought thus to have prejudged the question, as to what may, or may not be the interest of this country to do, with regard to a connexion with South America; nor can I discover any reason, why this country should give to the government of France, any pledge as to any political line of conduct which it may, or may not, think it desirable to pursue. I hope I misunderstand the nature of this engagement, but it strikes me in this light, and I know that it has struck others in the same way; for which reason, I am desirous of obtaining a distinct explanation on the subject from the noble earl. I now beg leave to move—"That a loyal and dutiful address be presented to his majesty, thanking him for the papers which he has been graciously pleased to communicate to the House, relating to the present state of Mexico and South America, and to express our earnest hope that he may be enabled, without delay, to recognize the independence of such states as are actually become independent; and to establish that diplomatic correspondence with their respective governments, which will afford the most effectual security for his majesty's subjects, and supply adequate means of cultivating those relations of amity and commerce, which cannot fail to prove alike beneficial to both countries."
The Earl of Liverpoolbegan, by observing, that he perfectly agreed in the general principles which the noble marquis had laid down on this important subject. If he felt an objection to any part of the noble marquis's speech, it was to that part in which, upon entering into detail, he had come to apply those principles which he seemed either not distinctly to understand, or not perfectly to accommodate to the purposes of his argument. He would first apply himself to clear away those parts in which there was no difference of opinion

993
between the noble marquis and himself. He would not follow the noble marquis through his minute details, as to the precise amount of our exports to Spanish America, because he was prepared to admit, that no commerce could be more advantageous to this country, than the trade between Great Britain and America, whether northern or southern. But, it appeared to him, that we did not sufficiently consider, when we talked of the ports of Mexico, Buenos Ayres, and others being now open to us, that we enjoyed a considerable commerce with those countries, at a time when it would appear from the Custom-house books, as if we had carried on no commerce with them at all. The reason was, that our commerce before had been circuitous and indirect, whereas now it was direct. A great deal of what we exported to the West-India colonies, went to other places; so that the fairest way of considering the question was with respect to the entire of America. The whole amount of our exports averaged 43,000,000 l. annually. Of this, 21,000,000 l. Were confined to Europe 17,000,000 l. to North and South America, and 5,000,000 l. to the East Indies and the Cape of Good Hope. He entirely agreed with the noble marquis, that there ought to be no shackles imposed on commerce, and, consequently, that it was a wise policy to remove them gradually, as impediments to free trade. As for the re-conquest of the South American provinces by Spain, he held it to be just as chimerical and absurd a notion as the noble marquis himself did.
And here he felt it necessary to recal their lordships attention to the true state of the relations between Spain and her colonies. It was universally anticipated, that, after the revolution which had taken place in 1808, the period could not be far distant, when the colonies would declare their independence. It was perfectly obvious, that sixteen or seventeen millions of inhabitants could not long be held in the thraldom exercised by Spain. The question, then, for Spain was, whether she would take example from our own case, and, by a wise relaxation of her system, still continue to retain them attached to the mother country; or whether, refusing to bend to circumstances and to profit by experience she would aggravate the evil, until it should grow to a total rupture. It was a subject of speculation with all men, whether she would take advantage of the
994
errors of others, or whether the pertinacity which belonged to that country, mixed up as it was with great virtues, would have the effect of confirming her in the opposite course. In the year 1808, when, in consequence of the most unparalleled aggression that had ever been made on the independence of any country, a general rising of the Spanish people against the French took place, doubts had arisen, as to the policy which this country ought to pursue. There were some—and those were not the least lovers of well-regulated freedom, who thought that Spain ought to be encouraged and supported in the struggle which she was then commencing, in the hope that Europe might be freed by her example. Others, again, thought that it would be best entirely to abandon Spain to herself, as it was hopeless to resist; and that we ought to direct the whole of our efforts to the detaching of her colonies from the mother country. Their lordships need not be reminded, that the former policy was pursued, and that it had been completely successful. This country was bound, whatever line of policy she adopted to declare it openly; and if their lordships would refer to the first speech from the throne, after that event, they would find, that the integrity of the Spanish dominions was then stated as the main object of this country; and this policy had been applauded, even by some noble lords who were not in the habit of supporting the measures of his Majesty's ministers. He mentioned this fact, to shew the principles on which our policy towards Spain, and her foreign dominions, had been bottomed from the beginning, and that, under the circumstances which then existed, any different line of proceeding would have been a contradiction to the understood feelings and conviction of the government and the legislature. When, indeed, in the progress of that struggle in Spain, revolutionary changes, or endeavours at a more liberal connexion, for he would not say whether all or any of the South American provinces at that time contemplated separation; perhaps the truth was, that some did act upon such a view, and others did not, the great object of the government of Great Britain was, to use her best efforts, and her most active influence, to endeavour to convince the government of Spain, that the connection between her and her colonies could only be maintained on a more enlarged and liberal basis of connexion. To great Britain there presented

995
itself but one direct, honest line of proceeding, and that course, without deviation, she had pursued. We had at that period a growing commercial intercourse with the South American provinces. With the nature and extent of that intercourse Spain was acquainted, and to its continuance she never offered either refusal or interruption. From the year 1810, throughout all the vicissitudes of the struggle in Spain, from the moment the agitations in the South American dominions began to develop themselves whether the government of old Spain was vested in a supreme junta or a cortes, under the constitutional monarchy, or in the absolute king,—in all those successions, it was the unremitting endeavour of Great Britain to press upon all the offer of her mediation, with the view of continuing, on liberal and enlarged principles, suited to the spirit of the times, the connexion between Spain and her South American colonies. From the year 1810, to the treaty of Paris, no matter the character or the form of the Spanish government, such was the duty and the sound policy, and from duty sound policy could never be separated, which governed the conduct of his Majesty's ministers. But though on this great point Great Britain did not cease to solicit the attention of Spain, yet by none of those who administered the affairs of Spain, was the offer listened to, indeed all, whether juntas, cortes, restored monarchy, constitutional system, or absolute king, uniformly declined, or evaded the proffered mediation. And he must here observe, what was most important in the consideration of this question, that the pertinacity to decline such mediation (and it was perhaps, to be attributed to those motives which ordinarily swayed human conduct) was the more striking as the system of government in old Spain assumed a constitutional character.
Thus stood the question until the meeting of the congress at Aix-la-Chapelle. At that period, the British minister at the congress renewed the offer of mediation, with the knowledge, and under the sanction, of the other powers. Spain again evaded; and whether to gain time, or for whatever other purpose, he would not say, the offer was not accepted. After these repeated and unsuccessful efforts, in which this country consulted both her duty and the soundest policy, the obligation devolved upon the government, of attending to our essential interests—to
996
interests which were not opposed to duty,—but which comprehended the enlarged consideration of what was due to ourselves and to the world. The noble marquis, in urging the propriety of an immediate acknowledgment of the South American provinces seemed to have forgotten—at least he had over-looked—that most material part of the question; namely, what was our actual relation with those provinces, how we were situated with respect to them: and what we had done. In the year 1822, before a noble friend of his, now no more, departed for Verona, he had prepared instructions which were afterwards given to the noble duke who succeeded him. But, before these instructions were all prepared, the government had taken their line. They had submitted to parliament an act which received the royal assent, and which were to the extent of acknowledging the de facto independent provinces. What was it that was then done? If their lordships would look to the 3rd of the king, chapter 43, they would perceive, that it gave to all those provinces the rights of independent states under the navigation act, at the same time re-affirming the general principle, that all commerce with Asia, Africa, and America, must be carried on in British ships. We had thus established a free intercourse with those states as independent states; and from that time it was a complete free trade with that country. Nor did we conceal, either from Spain or from the other powers of Europe, the nature or character of that act. The duke of Wellington, on the part of his majesty, explained the measure to all those states, accompanied by a communication, that it was the intention of his majesty's government to follow up that proceeding by other steps. Accordingly from that time, the independence of those states was practically acknowledged, and we were not only enjoying the benefit of a free commerce with them, but they also had granted to them reciprocal benefits, by the enactment which he had just mentioned. In the month of September in that year, as appeared by a letter from Mr. Secretary Canning, our intention of sending consuls to the different provinces was announced. He was most ready to acknowledge, that after what had passed at Verona, an interval of delay occurred in respect to the sending away these consuls. It was felt by his majesty's ministers, that it would be more consistent and generous to suspend the execution of

997
their intentions on that subject, under existing circumstances, rather than despatch them during the heat of that contest in which France and Spain were about to be engaged. It was that consideration alone that induced the delay that intervened.
He came next to the most important period in the history of these transactions. He meant that period when the French arms were successful in Spain, and the sovereign of that country was reinstated in absolute power. Immediately after that event, his majesty's government did not allow any time to elapse before it put the French government in full and undisguised possession of its views and determination, relative to the South American states. Taking into consideration the recognition of their flag, a de facto acknowledgment of independence, followed up by the appointment of consuls, the British government, having no interest or inclination to concealment, determined to take a further step, which, as it regarded the situation of the South American states, was worth a thousand declarations or acknowledgments of independence. He knew it had been said, that the intention of the powers of Europe respecting the South American states, had been changed, in consequence of the speech of the president of the United States of America. What effect that speech might have had, it was not for him to say; but, whatever its effect might have been, he felt it but justice to the king's ministers to declare, that weeks before that speech reached Europe, it had been distinctly communicated by them to the government of France, that, without interfering with the rights of Spain, Great Britain could not see with indifference any foreign power interfere in the struggle between that country and the South American states. Was not such a declaration distinct and prompt, and, as he had before said, worth a thousand official declarations and acknowledgments? But, was that all? Let their lordships look at the papers on their table, and say, whether such a declaration followed up by the abjuration of France, as to any such intended interference, was not a full discharge of every duty that this government owed to itself, and to those principles of honour, justice, and good faith which uniformly governed her policy.
Such, then, was our situation; and the next question for consideration resolved
998
itself into this—what remained to be done? The noble marquis has said, "make a formal acknowledgment of independence." To that he would answer—to whom should that formal acknowledgment be made? What power possessed the right of making such a recognition, but the power that previously possessed the sovereignty over those states? In the relation in which Great Britain or any other foreign power stood, she neither possessed the right to acknowledge, nor the right to dispute that independence. But, then it was objected, that, under our relations with these states, we ought not to have so long abstained from opening a diplomatic intercourse with the South American governments. He should proceed then to a consideration of that objection; and, in the first place, he would say, that if there was any exertion of the prerogative, which ought to be committed more exclusively to the discretion of the Crown—that if there was any act of government that more especially and peculiarly devolved upon the executive—it was that of deciding at what period it would be proper to open a diplomatic intercourse with foreign states. He did not deny, that, if parliament had reasons to believe that any apathy, or indisposition to discharge what was due to the public interest, was discoverable is the conduct of the advisers of the Crown, under such circumstances it was the duty of their lordships to interpose. But, with the documents on their lordships' table—with the whole conduct of the British government before them—with the nature of our existing relations with the South American States—was there, he asked with confidence any indication of abstinence, or of indisposition, discoverable on the part of the king's government? Their lordships would feel that there might exist a thousand reasons why the opening a diplomatic intercourse might be considered a question of such delicacy, as to place a government under the necessity of proceeding with great caution. But he wished the House to believe that he had no desire to conceal the acts of his majesty's government under any such secret motives or views; and that admission led him to the discussion of principles, not only in which he and the noble marquis agreed, but in which they differed, and indeed to that part of the noble marquis's speech, in which it appeared to him that he had rather misapplied those principles.

999
With regard to the question of the recognition of independence, they both agreed, that it was to be considered on two grounds; the first of right, the second of expediency. That where no right existed, there could be no expediency, was an inference in which they both agreed. He had no difficulty in declaring what had been his conviction, during the year that the struggle had been going on, between Spain and the South American provinces—that there could be no right, while the contest was actually going on. He knew that our own history proved that other powers of Europe had acted towards us under a very different impression. He was aware of the conduct which the whole House of Bourbon had adopted, in the struggle between Great Britain and her North American colonies. It was notorious, that, while our armies were in the field (no matter what was the justice or policy of that contest), those powers cut the cord of connexion, and, not satisfied with merely acknowledging, assisted the ancient colonies in effecting their separation from the parent state. God forbid that, under any circumstances, Great Britain should feel disposed to follow such an example! The question ought to be—Was the contest going on? He for one could not reconcile it to his mind to take any such step, so long as the struggle in arms continued undecided. And, while he made that declaration, he meant that it should be a bona fide contest.—But, independent of the principle of a positive and absolute contest in arms, there might arise another question, from the existence of a very considerable portion of the population being desirous of a reconciliation with the mother country. He mentioned that case hypothetically; but as it had no application to existing circumstances, he should abstain from arguing upon it. Assuming, then, that there existed no contest in arms, and that the general opinion of the great body of the population was in favour of the new order of things, there could be no question, that the right was, under such circumstances, positive and absolute.
That naturally led him to the consideration of the expediency of such a proceeding. And here he had first to put the following question to those who dwelt upon the expediency of immediately making such a recognition:—Did or did not Great Britain and the states of South America actually enjoy all the advantages
1000
which a declaration of independence could afford to either or to both?—Did the abstinence of Great Britain on that point, under her existing relations with those states, demonstrate any ill-will, or even the absence of any good disposition, towards their interests or prosperity? He would appeal with confidence to any Colombian, Chilian, Mexican, or Peruvian, to say whether they believed, in their judgments, that there existed any luke-warmness or indisposition on the part of the British government? He would ask them, whether they believed, that the appointment of a minister plenipotentiary, or a mere declaration of recognition, could be as satisfactory to them as the unqualified, undisguised avowal of Great Britain, that she would never consent to the inteference of any third power, and France recording an abjuration of such an avowal. When it was a question of the good will and friendly disposition of Great Britain towards the South Americans, he would repeat, that such an avowal was worth the appointment of a thousand ambassadors. After such proofs of the feelings of his Majesty's government on that question, he would not pledge himself to any distinct line which the Crown, in the unfettered exercise of its prerogative, might adopt. The documents on the table recorded their determination to be parties to no congress having for its object such a discussion. Parliament would, he was persuaded, give due weight to the previous conduct of his majesty's government, and leave to their time and determination the exercise of a wise discretion. If it was possible to obtain the desired acknowledgment from Spain herself, their lordships would admit that, with reference to the future benefits of the South American states, protecting them as it would from all the consequent hazards to which a doubtful title might expose them, such an accomplishment, even in that view alone, would be a material object. Considering, besides, the nature of our connexion with Spain, the character of that eventful struggle in which, conjointly with that country, we had been so long engaged, the handsome, the gentleman-like course, would be, to give to Spain the opportunity of taking the lead in that recognition. He knew he might be told, that we had already given Spain that opportunity, and that she had not availed herself of it. But, it would be recollected that, we were approaching a

1001
new crisis. We stated, in the documents on the table, openly, that we would not delay taking such steps as our essential interests demanded; but that, considering all that had passed, we were most anxious to give our aid, in enabling Spain to avail itself of the grace and advantage of leading the way, and in so doing eventually consulting her best interests. By acting upon views of such evidently sound policy, no man could contend that any substantial interest of Great Britain had in any degree been compromised. With respect to the forms of government which these states might assume, for his own part he was contented with the forms which the people of those countries liked themselves. He undoubtedly had his preference; but he should never dispute upon abstract considerations, provided they were governments capable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity with foreign states. But, it was most natural, before the ultimate measure was adopted in this country, to feel anxious to ascertain the actual situation and condition of those new governments—to see whether they afforded the necessary grounds of confidence in their capability of upholding and maintaining international relations. In the ordinary course of things, such would be considered not a very unreasonable course of proceeding, before any new connexions were established. Acting under such a sense of duty, commissioners and consuls had been despatched by his majesty's government to those different states. And, was it not most advisable, before we took any ulterior step, to wait for the information which it would be the duty of these functionaries to communicate? Some months must yet elapse before that information could be obtained. Under these considerations, therefore, he would ask whether the executive government had so concluded itself—whether it had proved itself so wrong in its views, and so injudicious in its policy—as to justify parliament in taking out of the hands of the Crown the exercise of its undoubted prerogative.
These were the grounds on which he put the question to the consideration of their lordships. He had stated, without reserve, every feeling by which the British government was influenced. He had traced, consecutively, the line of proceeding we had adopted towards old Spain and her colonies—our fruitless
1002
offers of mediation to the one—our de facto acknowledgment of the independence of; the other. He had shewn, that as these efforts were unavailing, we had declared to the world our determination to attend to those essential interests which the situation of things demanded: and that we were now in a state of progress to that accomplishment which was the object of both sides of their lordships' House. We had declared to the colonies, and to the nations of Europe, that it was our unequivocal determination not to allow the South American states to be trampled upon by any confederacy, however formidable; and that as we had maintained, heretofore, an unfettered discretion on our conduct as to the past, we would persevere in maintaining it, in what yet remained to be accomplished. It seemed that the noble marquis had interpreted the paragraph in Mr. Canning's declaration to the prince de Polignac, which referred to our disavowing any political connexion with the South American States, as if we had bound ourselves for ever against any connexion with those countries. No such meaning attached to that paragraph. It was merely an exposition, under the existing circumstances, of our motives, calculated to disarm any jealousy that might exist, as to the feelings by which we were actuated. It was done with the view of precluding the possibility of any misconception or suspicion, as to our real objects at that particular moment. But, with respect to other circumstances, it left Great Britain as free to establish relations with those states, in as full a manner as with any other foreign power in Europe. One word as to another question of the noble marquis, respecting the knowledge we possessed as to the intentions of the other powers of Europe to take this question into consideration at an assembled congress. He did not know whether those powers entertained any such intention, and he believed they did not themselves know whether they would or would not; but of this he was certain, that to such an intention Great Britain would never be a party. Under these circumstances, he begged leave to move, that after the word "that" in the address moved by the noble marquis, all the other words be omitted, and that in their place should be substituted, "This House gratefully acknowledges his Majesty's goodness in directing the papers to be laid before this House, and the

1003
House feels great satisfaction in the assurance given by their perusal, that his Majesty's government will continue, in the further progress of this important question, the exercise of those firm, moderate, and prudent measures, which have contributed to the glory and best interests of the British nation."
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he thought that no noble lord could have heard the arguments and statements of the noble earl who had just sat down, without feeling that the question between his noble friend who had opened the debate and that noble earl was of a more extended nature than the noble earl seemed to think it; and that if the address of the noble marquis was not agreed to, it was plain that there was no security that the recognition of South American independence would not be postponed, in the way it had hitherto been, for an indefinite length of time. The question was not whether we should now recognize the independence of colonies separated from, Spain, but whether we should recognize colonies once belonging to Spain, Spain being now in the power of France. The whole course of the recent conduct of France showed that she was anxious to seize the first opportunity of regaining her ascendancy in Europe by renewing the principles of the family compact; and satisfied he was that those states would be attacked by France, in the name of Spain. Who that had attended to late events could attach the smallest credit to the denial on the part of France, that such was her object? If his majesty's ministers were so blind to the views of France and of the confederated powers of Europe, he could only deplore; that blindness, and trust that the House would take a clearer view of the designs of France and the interests of this country, by adopting the motion of his noble friend. Whilst this country was engaged with Spain in repelling that attack which the noble earl (forgetting the attack of last year) stigmatized as the most atrocious that had ever taken place, it might have been necessary, when we were fighting side by side with Spain, to say that the integrity of the Spanish monarchy was our first object; but that necessity no longer existed, when the attack was repelled, and that monarchy was out of danger from the enemy. The consolidation of the connexion of the colonies of Spain with the mother country was, in 1818, not our sole object; but if it were,
1004
he feared that South America would not forget, though he would wish to endeavour to make her forget, our foreign enlistment bill, which under the name, and with the real appearance of neutrality, was decidedly hostile to South America and friendly to Spain. As far as could be done by law, our assistance was withdrawn, and South America was left to struggle alone; but, thank Heaven, he believed there was no man base enough to put that act into force, and therefore it had remained a dead letter, and of no avail. The soldiers and sailors of England, in spite of that bad law, had, by acting in the fleets and armies of the provinces, established that friendly feeling towards this country, which the legislature, and above all his majesty's ministers, would have prevented. If he had not heard the early part of the speech of the noble earl, he must have doubted whether the noble earl entertained the opinion which it seemed he did entertain of the importance of the commerce between this country and South America. It seemed, according to the noble earl, that every thing practical had been done; and that the only question now was, merely the opening of a diplomatic intercourse—a thing which the noble earl thought trivial; hut, how was it that throughout the papers on the table it appeared to be of the utmost importance, and more particularly to the minister of France. The noble earl spoke of the other contests in which Spain had been engaged; but, every other contest appeared to be obliterated from the mind of Spain by this last contest, in which she had been crushed by France. It was in vain that the interests of Spain had been mentioned, either in the negotiations which those papers described, or in the address of the noble earl. He could not recognize the power of Spain in any of these transactions, because, look where he would—whether at Cadiz, at Burgos, at Pampeluna, or at Barcelona, in every part of the territory he saw French troops alone in possession. The praise of their moderation was not the least part of the danger. He feared nothing so much, in the issue of the Spanish affairs, as that affected moderation in the French, which was connected with measures of essential violence. He was alarmed at seeing them take the safest and shortest road to the possession of territorial power. He was alarmed when he saw the French prince who headed that army, and whose conduct certainly justified the praises of the noble

1005
earl opposite, acting, together with his troops, with a degree of prudence, moderation, and forbearance, not only unknown to them in the generally understood conduct of the French army, but totally inconsistent with the conduct of any army of any country under similar circumstances. He dreaded to see the independence of sovereign states struck down, without irritation to the feelings of any considerable party: he dreaded this precedent of the acquisition of great territorial and political power, without exciting feelings of alarm or jealousy in any other government. He knew of nothing so terrific in the history of all that had gone before, as the French nation taking possession of the power and resources of Spain, with the heart and feelings of the invaded country apparently on their side. The designs of the confederacy which had been formed against the liberties of mankind were the more to be dreaded, as they were not so much directed towards territorial aggrandizement, as towards the general subjection of the minds of men. The success of one member of the confederacy, instead of exciting the jealousy of the other states, seemed to be viewed only as an additional means of promoting the common object of putting down the principles of popular government. It was against these principles that the designs of that confederacy were peculiarly directed; they could not, therefore, but be most hostile to this country, the nature of whose constitution was so utterly inconsistent with the principles on which their combination was founded. It was not a few violent speeches or invectives uttered in parliament which excited the hostile feeling of the alliance towards this country. It was the bright example which our free Constitution held out to all Europe, that constituted the real ground of their hostility. In the eyes of that confederacy, our free constitution was a standing nuisance, which they were anxious to put down whenever they might possess the power. While our constitution existed, the whole edifice which their despotism had raised, was threatened with destruction. When he saw the allied powers ready to pour forth their whole military force to aid in the subjugation of every state which might be the object of their hostility, he must acquiesce in the policy of our not neglecting every opportunity of making a friend. South America was a country possessing, in every
1006
point of view, the strongest interest, and opening the prospect of the greatest ad vantages to this country. Her mountains and her plains, her noble rivers and her fertile valleys, excited the strongest emotions of admiration for the beautiful works of nature, and the unbounded beneficence of the Creator. The prospect of every thing which was most liberal and enlightened in government, in arts, and in morals, was opened among a people fresh and strong in the possession of free institutions. Even the power of steam seemed to be discovered at the most favourable moment for giving facilities to the navigation of their rivers, and the working of their precious mines. South America seemed destined, by a chain of circum stances concurring with her almost bound less resources, to carry to the greatest possible extent the civilization and happiness of mankind. When he beheld this cheering and magnificent prospect, he could not confine his views to any petty advantages of trade. What he wanted to gain was the hearts of the people. He trusted that their lordships, instead of hesitating and delaying with his majesty's ministers, and contenting themselves with a paltry nomination of consuls, would come forward as the constitutional advisers of the Crown, and confer upon the country the advantages to be derived from a recognition of the independence of South America, riot with the cold, calculating feeling of ministers, but with the warm hearted and sympathetic feelings which became the legislature of a great and generous nation.
Lord Calthorpethought that, looking to the language of the papers which had been laid upon the table, there was sufficient ground for placing confidence in the delarations of his majesty's ministers. He could not help thinking, however, that this country would be justified hereafter in feeling the utmost jealousy in co-operating with the measures of any foreign European power. He could not forget that the French government had engaged last year in an enterprise, which every man, whether he approved or disapproved of the Spanish constitution, concurred in deprecating. He was ready to admit, that the invasion of Spain had been carried on in a spirit of moderation and forbearance, and that the illustrious leader of the French armies had, in his treatment of the people of Spain, conducted himself in a manner which reflected the

1007
highest credit upon his name. Yet that very moderation was of itself alarming, because it was clear that, before they entered Spain, they were ignorant of the nature and character of the power which they went to support. They found, instead of a wise and orderly government, that they were called upon to reinstate a party, actuated by a blind, ferocious, intolerant spirit of bigotry; so that the French were obliged to act as mediators between the two factions, of whose divisions, before they entered Spain, they had not heard any thing. He was persuaded, however, that if this country had exerted her moral influence at an early period of the negotiations at Verona, the French aggression on Spain would never have taken place. The issue of this contest had fostered the disposition of France to interfere with the independence of foreign nations into a greater and more mischievous activity. The pretended object of France was, to tranquillize Spain; but that object was so far from having been accomplished, that that unfortunate country was now in a more distracted condition than ever. The papers which had been laid on the table proved conclusively, that France was influenced by a spirit of interference with the rights of independent nations. Under the present circumstances, however, he felt that he should be wanting in the confidence which he thought due to the declarations of his majesty's ministers, if he hesitated to commit to them the issue of the arrangements with respect to the South American colonies. He thought that a reasonable degree of delay might justly be observed in recognizing the independence of those colonies. If we were somewhat slow in granting a full recognition of their independence, the very delay would be an earnest that, when once their independence was acknowledged, it would not be a vain, illusory recognition, but one which would fully guarantee their freedom, their happiness, and their commercial prosperity. The noble lord concluded by declaring his resolution to vote for the amendment which had been moved by the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government.
The Earl of Roseberrysaid, he rose merely to declare, that it was his intention to support the original motion, not from any doubt of the sincerity of his majesty's government to carry into effect the complete recognition of the South American states, but from being persuaded
1008
that a strong expression, on the part of the parliament of this country, of their deliberate opinion on this question, would furnish the best aid to the government in their negotiations, and be the means of removing whatever impediment might at present exist, in the way of a speedy and satisfactory adjustment of it.
The Marquis of Lansdownbriefly replied. He contended, that the noble earl opposite had not urged a single reason which could justify his majesty's government in delaying the recognition of the independence of South America, beyond that which was founded on the prospect of Spain shortly acknowledging the independence of her colonies. Now, whether the noble earl opposite regarded Spain as an independent state, free from the shackles and control of France, or whether he regarded her, as she really was, the degraded and debased dependent of the French monarchy, he would at once withdraw his motion, if the noble earl, or any one of his majesty's ministers, would lay his hand on his heart and say, that he thought Spain would, in a short time acknowledge the independence of her colonies. They all knew what the Spanish government had been, and continued to be; they all knew the reluctance which Spain had formerly shown in recognising the independence of Holland. If the noble earl waited until the independence of South America was recognised by Spain, it would never fall to his lot to acknowledge their independence—that glory would devolve to some ingenious and eloquent statesman yet unborn, who might fill the noble lord's place. Feeling, as he did, a deep interest in the independence and immediate prosperity of the South American states, and believing that their welfare was intimately connected with the prosperity of this country and of the world, he thought that the recognition of their independence ought not to be delayed for a single month, or week, or day. The noble earl had spoken of the establishment of diplomatic relations as a mere form; but he could not but be aware, that, in the eyes of civilized Europe, the greatest importance was attached to those forms. The complete recognition of the independence of the United States, by the opening of diplomatic relations on the part of this country, had given to those States, in the eyes of Europe, an importance which, until that measure was adopted, they had not ac-

1009
quired. With the independence of South America were connected the happiness, prosperity, and greatness of Europe and of the world. The march of civilization, science, and improvement, could not advance in the other hemisphere without reacting on Europe, and without strengthening the resources of our own country in proportion as we cultivated a closer relation with those rising States. Above all, it afforded the best prospect, and the most extensive resources, for arresting one of the most formidable combinations, which, since the tyranny of Bonaparte, had ever been formed against the liberties of mankind.
The House divided: For the Marquis of Lansdown's motion 34; Against it 95; Majority 61. The Earl of Liverpool's amendment was then put and agreed to.