Sitting of 23 March 1830

MINUTES.
Lord FRANCIS LEVESON GOWER brought in a Bill to continue for a time, to be limited, the several Acts for the encouragement and improvement of British and Irish Fisheries. Read a first time.

The Act was only intended, his Lordship explained, to continue those Bounties for the present Session.
His Lordship also obtained leave to bring in Bills to consolidate and amend the laws respecting Tolls and Customs in Ireland, and to regulate the importation of Arms into that country. The Illusory Appointments Bill was read a third time and passed.
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of Mr. WARD, of all Fines imposed during the last three years on Dealers in Foreign Wines:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, of all sums expended on the Bridge, Harbour, or other Public Works of Londonderry since 1814, specifying the dates, and all other particulars necessary for the information of the House: of all Officers who had been dismissed the service without trial by Courts-martial since 1827. together with returns of all general regimental and district Courtsmartial held from 1820 to 1829:—On the Motion of Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE, of the total quantity of Butter imported between 1801 and 1830 inclusive, distinguishing the countries it came from; and of the foreign Cutter and Cheese imported during the two last years:—On the Motion of Mr. JEPHSON, Copy of Correspondence between the Commissioners of Charities and the Trustees of Morden College:—On the Motion of Mr. BERNAL, of the sums received by the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, under the Act of the 6th of Geo. 4th cap. 125, sec. 4, with a list of the names of riser pilots:— On the Motion of Sir HENRY PARNELL., in consequence of Lord L. Gower having intimated his intention to bring in a Bill on the subject of the Fisheries, of all sums of Money expended on the Fisheries of Great Britain for each of the last five years, together with the Expenses of the Establishments connected with them.
Petitions presented. Praying for the abolition of Slavery, by Sir JOHN WROTTRSLEY, from the Protestants of Hanley and Lane End, Staffordshire. For a reform in the Administration of the Laws, by Mr. HUME, from the inhabitants of Carlisle. For the abolition of the East India ' Company's Monopoly, by Mr. Hume, from the inhabitants of Wootton-under-Edge, and from the Clothing Districts of Batley and Soothill, Yorkshire:—By Sir JOHN LOWTHER, from the inhabitants of Carlisle. For the removal of impediments to the cultivation of Anatomy, by Mr. WARBURTON, from the Surgeons and Physicians of Sheffield.

The hon. Member said, that his opinions on the subject were unchanged, and his only reason for not renewing the Bill of last Session was, that he hoped a measure would be introduced in the other House, so as to get rid of some of the obstacles which had proved fatal to his Bill in that House.
782
For Relief in Distress, by Sir GILBERT HEATHCOTE, from the inhabitants of the County of Rutland:—

The hon. Baronet bore testimony to the respectability of the Petitioners, and urged upon the House the necessity of effecting a reform in the representation of the people.
By Mr. RAMSDEN, from Huddersfield, praying also that Salaries might be reduced:—
In this prayer the hon. Member said, he heartily joined, though he had no wish to unsettle the Administration.
By Admiral SOTHERON, from the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the County of Nottingham also, and earnestly praying for a reduction of Taxation:—
Mr. S. Lumley supported the prayer of the Petition.
By Mr. WESTERN, from the Hundred of Clackclose, Norfolk, signed by 500 persons, and against the Bill of 1819: —By Colonel DAVIES, from the manufacturers and others of Dudley. For removal of disabilities in the Jews by Mr. HUME, from the inhabitants, being Jews, of the northern and eastern divisions of the Metropolis:—by Mr. MONCK, from a person named Thomas Flanagan. For a Registry of Births in Ireland, by Lord CASTLEREAGH, from Archibald Hamilton Rowan and George Cockburn. For a License Duty on Hawkers and Pedlars of 25 l., by Lord G. SOMERSET, from the regular dealers in the county of Monmouth. For holding the Parliament in Ireland once in every three years, by Mr. MONCK, from Killsaran and Slabannaun. Complaining of the conduct of the Corporation of Londonderry, by Mr. HUME, from John Sheehan, whom Sir George Hill described as a stranger in Londonderry. Praying for the abolition of Capital Punishment in cases of Forgery, by Mr. DUGDALE, from the Clergy, merchants, bankers, and manufacturers of Birmingham. For the repeal of the Malt and Beer Duties, by Mr. CAVENDISH, from the farmers, tradesmen, and other inhabitants of Brede and Udimore, Sussex. For making Houses let in Tenements liable to the Poor Rates, by Sir M. W. RIDLEY, from Newcastle-on-Tyne. Against the Free Trade in Beer, by Lord STANLEY, from the inhabitants of Bury. By Lord NUGENT, from Mr. Thomas Wilson, an architect, praying to be heard at the Bar of the House, in favour of a plan he had completed for the erection of an immense Pyramid, intended for a National cemetery, and calculated to hold five millions of bodies. This building would, as he alleged, prove both ornamental and useful, and afford occupation to the living, as welt as a place of secure interment for the dead.

EMIGRATION.
The Marquis of Chandospresented a Petition from a hundred in Buckinghamshire, for the application of a portion of parochial Poor-rates to the assistance of voluntary emigrants. The noble Marquis, in supporting the prayer of the Petition, said, he hoped that Government would take the subject into its consideration, as he knew of no more efficient mode of lessening the Poor-rates, and improving the condition of the working classes, than supplying those who were unable to procure work with the means to emigrate to such of the colonies as have a demand for their labour.
Mr. W. Hortonbegged leave to say, that he intended to bring in a bill to meet the wishes of the petitioners, Should the

783
House favour him with its support, he would endeavour to convince it of the practicability of applying a part of those rates to assist the unemployed operative to emigrate where there was a demand for labour, and also of its expediency and efficiency, and of the groundlessness of those objections which had been made against it.
Mr. Portmansaid, he coincided in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman, that this matter ought to be seriously taken up; but he regarded the Ministers as the only persons who could successfully carry it into execution. Government, he thought, ought to appoint a committee to investigate the matter first, and point out the proper methods in detail for executing the project. He conjured the House not to deserve the reproach of being unable and unwilling to do any thing to relieve the condition of the poor.
Sir Thomas Freemantleconcurred in these opinions. He was sure that it would not cost parishes more to send their paupers to colonies, where they might be comfortable and happy, than it cost to keep them at home in want and wretchedness, where so little demand existed for their labour that they were set to break stones to keep them out of mischief.
Mr. Secretary Peelconsidered the subject to be one of almost equal difficulty and importance. His right hon. friend, the Colonial Secretary had directed his attention to the subject, and had, as a preliminary step, sent out an intelligent person with a view to establish a uniform system of emigration to the North American colonies. With respect to parishes mortgaging their poor-rates, that was a subject of great difficulty, and he did not yet see in what manner Government could take it up, and he was not prepared to give an opinion, either one way or the other. He would not then enter into a discussion of the points alluded to by the petitioners, but should reserve his opinions till his right hon. friend's (Mr. W. Horton's) promised measure was before the House. To the details and principle of that measure he would give his best attention,—the rather, as his right hon. friend had, on a former occasion, displayed such a perfect mastery of the question in all its bearings,—had, in fact, so exhausted the subject that no committee or further inquiry was necessary. He was glad that his right hon. friend had announced his
784
intention of bringing forward a measure the tendency of which was to lessen the amount of Poor-rates, as it would afford the House an opportunity of examining his right hon. friend's proposition more carefully than it had done. He should be happy to give his assistance to a measure for consolidating the several laws respecting the poor, should any hon. Member take upon himself the task.
Mr. R. Colbornethought it was time that something should be done with the now undeniable superfluous population, for whose labour there was no domestic demand. Under such circumstances, the Act of Elizabeth could not be strictly adhered to. If relief were given only to sick and infirm, many able-bodied men must starve. He hoped, therefore, that either the Government or the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in introducing some practical measure.
Colonel Woodanticipated the best results from the intended bill of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. It was evident that a part of the evils of the Poor-laws arose from the mal-administration of them.
Petition to be printed.

VOTING BY BALLOT.
Mr. D. W. Harveypresented a Petition from Colchester, for a Reduction of Taxes, a Reform of Parliament, Triennial Parliaments, Election by Ballot, a Commutation of Tithes, and relief to the productive industry of the country by a commuted Property-tax, and by applying a portion of the Bishops' revenues to lessening the public burthens, to all of which he cordially and cheerfully subscribed, save the prayer for election by ballot.
Mr. Humesupported the prayer of the Petition, particularly that part of it which requested that voting by ballot might be the principle of reform. That was the only means which could be adopted to check the operation of undue influence at elections, and to enable every man to give a conscientious vote. The hon. Member on a former occasion had stated, that his constituents were averse from election by ballot, but he was probably now convinced of the contrary. If the hon. Member canvassed the country, he would probably find that opinion was in general in favour of this measure, because it was the best means of preserving the popular power.
Mr. O'Connellalso supported this part of the prayer of the Petition, because he knew tradesmen were frequently obliged to vote against their wishes. He had been implored by his constituents not to relax his exertions to obtain voting by ballot, and he should certainly attend to their wishes. He would begin his undertaking by collecting the names of those who supported him on the former occasion.
Mr. Harrison Batleyobjected to the proposition for voting by ballot, and declared he would always most strenuously oppose it. He should consider such a measure as a fatal blow to the British Constitution.
Mr. D. W. Harvey,in moving that the Petition be brought up, added, that he had certainly stated on a former occasion, that his constituents were averse from voting by ballot, and such was then his belief, but he now found that he was mistaken.
Petition to be printed.

SURREY PETITION.
Mr. Denisonpresented a Petition from the freeholders, inhabitants of the County of Surrey, agreed to at a public meeting regularly convened and most respectably attended. The Petition was moved by one of a class of persons which, he was afraid, was rapidly diminishing—he meant the class of English country Gentlemen. It complained of extreme distress, arising from excessive taxation, of which it prayed for a great reduction, declaring that what had been already done was not sufficient —for great retrenchment in all public departments, and for a Parliamentary Reform. The hon. Member entered into a view of the causes of our present distress, ascribing it to the vast sums we had expended during the late war; subsidizing all the powers of Europe, from Naples to Russia, and to the Bank Restriction Act of 1797. We were now paying the price of those proceedings. They had led to the inundation of the country with paper money; and, subsequently, to the revulsion of 1819. He did not join with some of his friends near him, in wishing to have the currency again depreciated, though he thought that was a subject which wanted further investigation. When he considered too, the great liabilities of the Bank of England, he was rather fearful of what might be the consequences should any convulsion, of which there were not wanting signs, occur on the Continent, He hoped, therefore,
786
that the Government would take the subject of the Currency into its serious consideration during the recess, for the sooner it was discussed, with a view to having it placed on the same footing in the three kingdoms, the better. He thanked the Ministers for their late reduction of taxes, but thought they ought to go further, and much diminish the public burthens. Perhaps, too, a banking system somewhat similar to that of Scotland might be advantageously adopted, with some little alteration, to adapt it to this country. If that were done, and the weight lightened which lay on the springs of our productive industry—with a great reduction of taxation, particularly if the tax on Soap and on Candles, and on Malt, were repealed— with a reduction, too, of salaries, and the diminution of our colonial expenses, he thought the energies of the country would yet bear it through all its difficulties; and that the people might again be prosperous and happy.
Mr. C. N. Pallmerbegged to add his strongest testimony to the respectability and unanimity of the meeting which had passed the Petition just presented. The House would observe, that this petition was the first which had been presented since the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his exposition of the financial intentions of the Government. It would appear that the reductions proposed were considered as by no means sufficient to meet the exigencies of the country. He, for one, was far indeed from undervaluing those reductions. He appreciated highly the principle upon which they had been made,—namely, the relief of the labouring population. It was a great been that the poor man's beer should be made cheap, and especially that it should be unaccompanied by licence regulations, which would bring it to his domestic circle; but it must not be forgotten, that to enable him to enjoy his untaxed beer in his own house, the legislature must untax the fuel which he requires to warm his cottage, and the candle which serves to light it. He hoped that the result of that evening's debate would further the great objects of relieving the public distress; that it may be placed in the power of a committee to call for reductions, and to sanction his Majesty's Ministers in the severity of any retrenchments, and the boldness of any reductions, which may be required of them; above all things, that it may urge upon them the

787
practicability of equalizing those burthens which they may not be able to remove, and by a fair and equal tax upon property, to make all classes contribute to the public exigencies, especially those who were seeking untaxed comforts in foreign lands.
Mr. C. Pallmerthen presented a Petition from the workmen at Barn Elms, complaining of the pressure of the existing distress. That was the residence of a great politician, and great political economist; and the petitioners had entered into some details which were not unworthy of the notice of the House. They complained of the plans to give them relief by emigration, stating, that of the 11,000 parishes in England and Wales, 1,004 did not possess each 100 inhabitants. It was not, therefore the excess of population, but of taxes, which caused their distress. They stated, that the money paid for the relief of the poor did not amount to 6,000,000 l. sterling, per year, while the taxes levied by the Government amounted to nearly 60,000,000 l. They complained, too, of nearly 7,000,000 l. being annually allotted to churchmen and others, each of whom received as much as 200 labourers. In conclusion, they entreated that the grievances of the people might be inquired into and the taxes reduced.
Petition laid on the Table.

DOUBLE PUNISHMENT.
Mr. O'Connellrose to move for certain documents with a view to shew that certain individuals had been punished twice for the same offence. These individuals were first tried for a conspiracy to forge, and then for the crime of forgery. If it were true that these individuals were tried before a competent tribunal, and were about to be tried for the same offence before another tribunal, that would be a violation of justice, according as it was administered here, which ought not to be allowed, and which called for explanation. It was to obtain correct information on the subject, that he should then move "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a copy of the record of proceeding before the Magistrates in the Colony of Van Diemen's Land, and of the judgment and sentence whereby Joseph B. Clark, James Cox, Thomas Bird, William Frazer, and Charles Browne, or any of them, were convicted and sentenced to corporal punishment for
788
the crime of forgery or conspiracy to forge, and also of the record and proceedings in the Supreme Court of the said Colony, in the year 1824, and of the punishment and sentence, whereby the said several persons, or any of them, were convicted of the crime of forgery, and whether they were punished or pardoned for the same; and also such information as may shew whether the offence in that case before the Magistrates was the same or different from that before the Supreme Court."
Mr. Humesaid, in seconding the Motion, he must express his satisfaction that his hon. and learned friend had taken it out of his hands, for he was well able to point out what was right or wrong in any legal question. He was further anxious to state that when the Secretary for the Colonies, the right hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir G. Murray) received the first application on this subject, he evinced the greatest readiness to inquire fully into it; in fact, he wrote at once to the Colony for information, requiring at the same time that justice should be done to these persons. From the feelings by which that right hon. Gentleman was then governed, he was persuaded that the sentence of punishment, if it were wrong, and the second sentence for the same offence, would not be carried into execution.
Sir George Murraysaid, he meant to make no opposition to the Motion. He had already given the hon. Member for Montrose all the information he then possessed, and he could assure him that on all similar occasions he should feel it his duty to pursue the same course. The moment it was ascertained at the Colonial Office that an irregularity had been committed, orders were immediately sent out to put an end to the punishment. He wished to inform the House that the first proceeding occurred before the present regular court of justice was established in the Colony, and that such irregularities were not likely again to occur.
Mr. Humeadded, that so candid and explicit a declaration gave him reason to believe that justice would be done without the papers being produced, and perhaps it would be better if his hon. and learned friend were not to press his Motion.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he concurred in the opinion of his hon. friend, the Member for Montrose, and with permission of the House he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Distress of the Country being moved by Mr. Herries,
Mr. Huskissonrose and spoke as follows:— Sir; I rise to request your indulgence for a very short time upon a subject personally interesting to my own character, and in which, I may add, that of this House is in some degree concerned. Every Gentleman who hears me is aware of the great exertions that are made by the daily press to give to the public the speeches made in this House, within a very few hours after they are delivered. This arduous task is executed, I believe, honestly and impartially; but from the difficulties which attend it, especially in protracted debates, it cannot be matter of surprise that inaccuracies sometimes occur in the reports. Upon ordinary occasions, I am sure that I am the last man who would trouble the House by calling your attention to any trifling inaccuracy; but, Sir, a mistake, which I find has inadvertently been made in sending forth to the world some words, purporting to have been used by me on the motion of my noble friend, respecting Portugal, is not of that immaterial character. In that Debate I spoke very late, and in the course of what I addressed to the House, after comparing the character of the present Ruler of Portugal to that of our Richard the third, I added something to this effect:—That if there should ever arise a struggle for the throne in Portugal, between the usurping uncle and his niece, the legitimate Queen, for one I should not be sorry if the issue of that struggle should complete the parallel:—that it would be something for the honour of high lineage and royal blood if a life of wickedness were closed by a death of courage. I am the more sure that I used expressions to this effect, as I followed them by stating that Don Miguel would then, at least, redeem himself in history from the character which had been given him in another place, of being cowardly because he was cruel. Now, Sir, in some Newspaper of the next morning, I am made to use the following words, "It was to be hoped that he would finish a life of infamy by a death of violence.'' Not having read the Debate, it is only very recently that I have been made acquainted with the fact of this misrepresentation. Every Gentleman must be aware that the
790
sentiment put into my mouth is calculated to convey a meaning, of all others, the most abhorrent to the feelings of an Englishman. I have some reason to apprehend that such a meaning has, some how or other, abroad, been assigned to it. I have said enough, Sir, to rescue myself from the possibility of so horrible a misconstruction, and, I think, quite enough to satisfy the House that I owed it to them, as well as to myself, to trouble you with this explanation. I am perfectly sure that, if what fell from me in the Debate to which I have alluded, could, by possibility, have conveyed such an impression to the mind of any one individual in this House, an immediate burst of indignation would have given me the opportunity of an instant disavowal; and I am equally sure, that the mistake of the Newspaper must have arisen purely from haste and inadvertency, because I cannot believe that any man, having English blood in his veins, would ascribe to another the use of expressions which might seem to imply, if not to justify, assassination.
It will be seen by referring to the report given of Mr. Huskisson's Speech, March 10th, in these Debates [see Part 1. vol. xxiii. page 141,] that we did not fall into the error alluded to. We were indebted to the first authority for a correct version of what was spoken by the right hon. Gentleman. Circumstances such as these give to this Collection of Debates a peculiar value, and explain why this is "the Document usually consulted by Members of Parliament." [See Commons Debate, Sir Charles Wetherell's Speech, June 10th.]
[The Debate on the Distress of the Country was then resumed.]
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he felt that some apology was due from him to the House for having been one of the persons who protracted this debate beyond the third evening; but he had an apology, and a strong one, in the sense of the duty he owed his constituents, and in the conviction that the subject ought not to be disposed of without the House being made acquainted with the great and unusual distress of the people of Ireland. The Members of that kingdom constituted more than one-seventh of the whole House of Commons, but yet, with the exception of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. L. Foster) not one of them had said a word on the question. He avowed that, as he felt it his duty, so he should make it his object, to support one or other of the motions for inquiry. A plain case had been made out

791
for inquiry, which was all he demanded. Although he thought that the original Motion was the more dignified and useful, yet, if any good reason appeared for preferring the Amendment, he was prepared to vote for that. His reasons for supporting inquiry were these:—It was generally admitted that there was very great distress in England. That fact had been admitted by the right hon. Secretary of State; and it was impossible to controvert it, unless it could be proved that the petitions, greater in number than had ever before been presented to the House, were a mass of misrepresentation. It was also alleged that there was distress in Scotland; not so great as in England—but still of awful magnitude. That there was distress in Ireland was equally indisputable. Early in the Session he had made that statement. It had not since been contradicted; but, on the contrary, had been confirmed. He had declared that there was great distress in Dublin, in Cork, and in Bandon; and to these he was sorry to say that he was now able to add, in Drogheda, in Newry, and in Kilkenny. He had previously declared, and the declaration had been subsequently but too well established, that in Ireland hundreds and thousands of the people were in a state of starvation. The entire agricultural population of Ireland (and in Ireland the population was almost solely agricultural) was in the deepest distress; except in those spots in which the wheat farmers had more than usually good crops last year. The condition of the grazing counties of Ireland was such, that cattle purchased a twelvemonth ago, were sold for less than they cost, so that all the expense of their food for that period was sacrificed. The only Irish Member who had spoken in this discussion was the right hon. Member for Louth, who had been pleased to say, that although in particular instances he (Mr. O'Connell) was right in his statement of distress in Ireland, yet that the general rule was the other way. He had, however, waited in vain to hear some proofs of that assertion. The right hon. Gentleman had been seeking for information with respect to the alleged distress in Ireland. Now there were two classes of persons who sought for information: the one who sought where it was to be found, and the other who sought where it was not to be found. The right hon. Gentleman ranked among the latter. He inquired respecting the condition of
792
the people from the Receivers of the Court of Chancery. Now it was well known that in the collection of rents those receivers received only one half-year within the other. At the time, therefore, at which the right hon. Gentleman made his inquiry, they were only receiving the rents for May; and consequently could know nothing with respect to the ability of the tenants to pay the rent which had subsequently become due. They might fairly say, therefore, that there was then no arrear. But the inference which he drew from that circumstance was the reverse of that drawn from it by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman then talked of something which he called prosperity at Belfast. It turned out, however, that this supposed prosperity was founded on the fact that some persons in the county of Lowth were earning the enormous sum of 4s. a week by weaving for the Belfast manufacturers. What was the case, however, at Drogheda, and at Newry? From Drogheda he (Mr. O'Connell) had presented a petition, declaring that out of 16,000 persons, 8,000 were destitute of the means of subsistence. In Newry also the distress was, to his knowledge, extensive. It was thus clear, that there was great distress in England—that there was great distress in Ireland—that there was great distress in Scotland. He called on the House to inquire into that distress. He must not be told that a Committee had been already appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland. The Committee appointed was only to inquire into the condition of the Irish paupers—not to investigate the general distress of the country—not to ascertain how the property of the industrious classes had been taken from them by an enhancement of the value of the currency, and by other causes. The pauper class, however, was not the only class which required relief; Ireland did not want hospitals and workhouses. The class that never begged was now demanding assistance. The industrious classes require to be relieved from the pressure that weighed them to the earth. The national energies wanted full play, and how were they to receive this—how were the burthens to be removed successfully if the House refused to inquire into their effects. The character of the present distress in Ireland was this:—On former occasions, when the artisans and manufacturers of that country were distressed, and especially when that sickly exotic,

793
the silk manufacture, was distressed, abundant funds were collected by public benevolence for the purpose of affording relief. In the present year, however, instead of as formerly collecting 15,000 l., 16,000 l., or 20,000 l. in Dublin, the whole sum collected was 3,500 l., of which the Lord Lieutenant had contributed 500 l. This was a proof that the distress was of a character which stopped the sources of charity, and prevented the benevolent from rendering their benevolence available. This was a new feature in the state of Ireland. Under all these circumstances, the people had a right to ask the House to endeavour to relieve them. For what purpose were they sent there? Not merely to vote large sums of money for the maintenance of our Army and Navy. If they were unable to inquire into the distresses of the people, why did they not abdicate a post to which they acknowledged themselves incompetent? It was a confession of their deficiency either in intellect or in honesty. Now he by no means wished to calumniate the House. He was sure that no persons in that House would abstain from affording relief to the people if they knew how to afford it. He was sure that neither those who delighted in the name of Whigs, nor those who thought themselves honoured by the appellation of Tories, nor the small and sacred band of Radical Reformers, to which he boasted of belonging, were deficient in inclination to relieve distress. But was it not proper that an inquiry should be entered into to ascertain how far that general inclination could be gratified. If it were impossible to relieve the people, at least let them not be disappointed of the hoped-for inquiry. The refusal to enter into an inquiry into the distresses of the people afforded a striking contrast to the manner in which the French Parliament had recently behaved under similar circumstances. In their answer to the speech with which the King opened the Sessions, that illustrious assembly, which had since had the honour conferred on it of being prorogued because it had declared its determination to vindicate its independence, thus expressed itself; "The reduction of the public revenue which your Majesty has announced is a symptom of an afflicting nature; we shall do all in our power to investigate the cause of the distress which it announces." This was a specimen of the real representation of the people which existed in France; a repre-
794
sentation connected with no oligarchy— with none of those higher, those towering stems, which were secure from the storms that blew on the humble shrub and withered it in its lowliness. But surely it ought not to be said that the gentlemen of England, of Ireland, and of Scotland were not equally willing to inquire what relief could be given to the distressed population of their own countries? Would they abstain from all efforts, and wait patiently on the strand until the tide should come in and float the grounded vessels? Would they leave that to chance which ought to be subjected to the dominion of an over-ruling intelligence? The proposition for inquiry had been resisted on various grounds. In the first place, the Vice-president of the Board of Trade said, that Government had already afforded the people relief by taking off taxation. He could not, however, concur in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that that was a sufficient relief. Three millions of taxes were to be taken off the people of England; but then they were not to be taken off until October. It was an odd species of relief to tell the sufferers that if they survived until the month of October they should then drink beer cheap. So much for the people of England; but what was to be said to the people of Ireland? From the taxation of the people of Ireland the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken off 30,000 l., or 40,000 l., in the shape of Leather duty. It was well done; and as far as it went he was grateful for it; but then the right hon. Gentleman had added 110,000 l. on Stamps, and 20,000 l., or 30,000 l. on Spirits. If, therefore, the Vice-president of the Board of Trade's principle, that to diminish the taxation of the people of England was to diminish their distress, was a good principle, it followed that to increase the taxation of the people of Ireland was to increase their distress. The people of Ireland found it impracticable to bear their present weight of distress; and to make them go more easily, it was proposed to make them carry double. An admirable plan! Let it be remembered, however, that it was not an Irish Parliament which had voted this kind of relief. His countrymen did not blunder practically in that way, nor fancy they relieved the people by increasing their burthens. They were said to be of such a happy temperament, that they laughed at distress; the right hon. Gentleman seemed determined that they

795
should have enough to laugh at. The hon. Member for Newark, whose talents he respected, and whom he was sorry to hear ridiculed by an hon. Gentleman opposite, had denounced the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. He would not use so strong a word as denounce; but he would proclaim that to diminish the distress of England by diminishing the taxation, while we increased the distress of Ireland by increasing the taxation, was a measure of which the Irish people had just cause loudly to complain. It had been said in that House that Ireland was not taxed so much as she ought to be, in proportion to England. That he denied. Calculating the rental of both countries, he maintained that Ireland, even in paying the four millions which she did pay, was burthened with more than her proportion. Let it be recollected that from four to seven millions of her rental were spent out of the country. Let it be recollected that she was taxed above a million annually by Grand Jury Presentments and Vestry Cesses. Did he want to abolish taxation in Ireland? No. What he wanted was inquiry. And was that to be refused, lest its results might be unpleasant to this country, though it would be salutary to Ireland? The principal opposition which the Motion had met with was from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. His speech was luminous—the talents of the right hon. Gentleman of course rendered it so; but it was also humorous. If there were misery without, there was certainly merriment within doors, and sorry was he to say, that the misery of Ireland had been considered a fit subject for mirth in that House. The spectacle had been presented at one and the same time of perishing; artisans and labourers, a facetious Privy Councillor, and a laughing Legislature. For his own part, that which entertained others, filled him with sorrow. He should have preferred hearing the people told, that they should not receive relief, even that no inquiry should be made into the cause of their distress, in the sepulchral tones of the undertaker, rather than with a merriment of manner fit for another stage. After a triumphant reply on the part of the right hon. Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Liverpool, he placed the objections to the Motion on two grounds—grounds, indeed, which had been over and over again repeated in the course of the Debate. The first was, the fear lest the inquiry
796
might be suffered to unsettle the principles of Free Trade; the second was, the fear lest it should compromise the eternal fixity of the Currency. For his part, he thought that we had not enough of either of these matters; that we had not enough of Free Trade, and that we had not enough of Currency. The Vice-president of the Board of Trade, in advocating the principles of Free Trade, had said very justly that it was the interest of every country to buy wherever it could obtain a commodity at the cheapest rate. True. But why did the right hon. Gentleman forget corn? What article was there which it was so desirable the people should buy cheaply as bread? To talk of the principles of Free Trade, and to maintain the Corn Laws, was absurd and inconsistent. What reason could the right hon. Gentleman give for taxing the hon. Member for Newark with inconsistency, when he himself advocated the principles of Free Trade; and yet, before he sat down, interposed his shield between the Corn Laws and abolition? Then came a gallant officer, who talked of the advantages of low wages and low prices. But to be advantageous they must be universal. Let the gallant officer repair to the levee-room of an illustrious Field Marshal in full pay, and talk to him of the advantage of low wages. It was a little too much to tell the poor of the advantages of low wages, when they were starving upon them. The gallant officer might find that the commendation of low wages was not always so safe a doctrine as it was in the House of Commons. When that gallant officer led his columns against the enemy, no man could do his duty more bravely or better. But if the gallant officer were to draw up his regiment in a hollow square, and talk to the soldiers of the advantage of low wages, it was not very likely that he would produce conviction, though he might mutiny. The people would feel deeply and long any haughty refusal to go into an inquiry with a view to ascertain how far it might be practicable to relieve them. With respect to Free Trade, therefore, it appeared that if there was any difference between himself and the opponents of the Motion, it was that they thought that those principles had been carried far enough, and that he did not think so. He pressed those principles as a reason for inquiry. He wished it to be ascertained whether an extension of the principles of Free Trade might not alleviate

797
the distress of the people. Then it was said that the currency was fixed and settled, and could not be altered. He utterly denied that the currency was settled. In fact, it was anything but settled. There was one kind of currency in England, another kind in Scotland, and a third kind in Ireland. There was one banking system in England, another in Scotland, and a third in Ireland. With these three variations, to tell the people that the currency was fixed and settled, was to tell them that at which they would laugh. It might be right that the currency should be fixed; but in order to fix it they ought to go into an inquiry to ascertain which of the three systems was the best. Let him not be accused of a disposition to run into a wilderness of worthless rags: he wished for no such thing; but he called on the House to deliberate on the present state of the currency. Some hon. Gentlemen had talked of the spoliation which would ensue, if, after eleven years, an alteration were made in all the bargains concluded in that time, by introducing a change in the circulating medium. The reasoning of these hon. Gentlemen was good, but their premises were false. With equal justice might it be asserted by other hon. Gentlemen, with reference to England and Scotland, as he asserted with reference to Ireland, that the change of a paper currency into a gold currency had violated all the contracts which had been made since 1797, as all those contracts had been made in a paper currency. For want of some accurate solution of the important problems of the currency, many classes had already been deprived of their property—and in particular one class in Ireland, in behalf of which he desired to say a few words. Since he had been in that House, he had several times heard the middle-men in Ireland traduced. He was quite prepared, however, to stand up in their defence. They mitigated the evils of absenteeism; they gave employment to the labouring poor. In the year 1798 they formed the yeomanry cavalry of Ireland, and prevented the Revolution of France from spreading to that country. If it had so spread, what, he would ask, would now have been the value of the English funds and of English property? What was the consequence to those individuals of the change which had taken place in the currency?—That they, the most industrious members of the community, who had laid
798
out their property in various ways for the improvement of the land, were robbed and deprived of the advantages to which they were entitled, which advantages were given to persons who were not entitled to them. By that change in the currency, the Clergy (whose emoluments were settled by no fewer than five Tithe Composition Acts) were in many cases in Ireland receiving a fifth where they ought only to receive a tenth. The difficulties of what was called equitable adjustment had, he thought, been exaggerated; at least, he denied that in Ireland the complication which was said to be a good reason for not attempting it was as great as had been supposed. He was thoroughly convinced that much misery had been occasioned in Ireland by the change which had already taken place; and it was surely desirable to inquire whether that misery might not be alleviated by another change. Let the first instruction to the Committee be, to report upon the Banking-system. The right hon. Secretary had gone back to 1793, to show that distress was not caused by his bill, but at that time and at other periods of distress, the people had been relieved by an issue of Exchequer Bills. Why then was that not done at present, or an inquiry instituted to prove that it was not necessary. The country was told, indeed, that the recent law on the currency would be useful to future generations, though it inflicted present evils; but, for his part, he must confess that he disliked these experiments upon human nature. What was this but the Jacobinical arguments used in the French Revolution—what signified 20,000 heads, or making 20,000 widows and orphans, if the sacrifice had the prospect of making a millenium for the next generation? All he argued for was inquiry, and no changes that were not the result of mature deliberation. The people were not to be told that the legislature had nothing to give them but speeches for three or four nights, the objects of which were to delude them. He entreated the House not to grope about like children in the dark, but to seize the torch of truth, and light it with the flame of patriotism, and he had no doubt that its blaze would direct attention to something advantageous to the country.
Sir H. Viviansaid, that he had been completely misunderstood by the hon. Member for Clare. He never uttered a word about low wages; and of course never argued in favour of them. What

799
he said was, that in consequence of low prices our manufacturers would be better able to compete with foreigners, and the people would have a better chance of getting employment. With respect to what the hon. Member had said about the army, he was sure that they would always be ready to make sacrifices, in common with the rest of his Majesty's subjects.
Mr. O'Connelladmitted that the gallant officer spoke only of "low prices;" but the necessary consequence of low prices, he thought, was low wages.
Lord F. L. Gowersaid, that he would confine the few observations he had to make almost exclusively to Ireland, with a view to reply to the statements of the hon. Member for Clare. When that hon. Member found that the usual supporters of the side of the House on which he sat were shrinking from so general an investigation as was proposed by this Motion, and when he found that there was a disposition not to make the state of England a subject of inquiry; he dexterously shifted his ground, and made the vast distress which prevailed in Ireland the reason for demanding inquiry. That severe distress prevailed in many towns in that country he admitted; but the House must recollect, that a committee was sitting up stairs, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member, to devise the means of alleviating that distress. The whole question therefore, as respected Ireland, was virtually and practically disposed of. If the hon. Member for Clare meant to assert that the distress which now existed in Ireland was greater than that which prevailed at any former period of the history of that country, he (Lord Gower), with every respect for that hon. Member, would beg leave to deny that assertion. He did not understand that there was such an outcry in Ireland now, as to the non-payment of rents, which was heard throughout this country, and that circumstance he took to be a proof that the agricultural interests in Ireland were not suffering as severely now as in former times. In fact, he believed that at no former period were the rents of Irish landlords more punctually paid, or more likely to be so, than at present, and he would ask whether that was evidence of the existence of agricultural distress in Ireland? With regard to the commerce of Ireland, he
800
believed that not only in the centre of business, Dublin, but that in north and east, in west and south, according to what he had heard, the commercial interests of Ireland were advancing towards prosperity. The noble Lord proceeded to illustrate the progress which the commerce of Ireland had made within the last few years, by a reference to the increased commercial intercourse which the power of steam had created between that country and England. It was his fortune to pay a visit to Ireland for the first time in 1820, and from that time forward he had felt an interest in the welfare of that country —which was then manifested, perhaps, with an idle and boyish zeal—but which it had since become his duty to entertain as a salaried officer of the Crown, and which, he would venture to say, would never be extinguished in his breast, even if it should please the Crown to discontinue his salary. He well remembered that but very few steam-vessels then sailed between England and Ireland. Government, which was always more slow to adopt improvements than individuals, had not then engaged steam boats to carry the mail, and the consequence was, that while the vessel in which he was embarked, moved like a thing instinct with life, the Government packet, it being a calm, lay like a dying whale on the deep, flapping the air with its sails, but moving not. There were now thirty-five steam-vessels engaged in the trade of Dublin alone— seventeen of these were employed in the trade between Dublin and Liverpool—the total tonnage of which amounted to 512 tons, and which brought into action 2,960-horse power. There was a curious fact in reference to this subject, which he would mention, and to which he invited the attention of the gallant Member for Liverpool. From the year 1824 to the year 1830, the number of voyages performed by these vessels between Dublin and Liverpool amounted, according to a return which he held in his hand, to 2,017, the number of cabin passengers from England to Ireland during that period was 12,771, and the number of cabin passengers from Dublin to England 14,388, leaving a balance of 1617 more of cabin passengers coming from Ireland than proceeding thereto. Now with regard to the deck passengers—those whom the gallant Member for Liverpool looked upon as paupers—he had a curious fact to

801
mention. The number of deck passengers that left Liverpool for Ireland during that period was 37,970, and the number from Ireland to Liverpool was 16,625, leaving a balance of passengers for Ireland to the amount of 21,345. He left the gallant Member for Liverpool to draw his own conclusion from that fact. With regard to the extraordinary facilities which steam navigation had afforded for the transport of cattle and other produce from Ireland, he should mention a fact stated in a Liverpool paper, as to the transport of cattle from the west of Ireland—from Ballinasloe to Liverpool. In a Liverpool paper of the 1st of March, it was stated, that twenty-nine head of cattle, which had been shipped on board a steamer in Shannon Harbour on the 24th of February, were landed at the Brunswick Dock, Liverpool, on the day before, and from the time they were shipped on board, in Shannon Harbour, till they reached Liverpool, not one of these cattle had touched ground. Here was a decisive proof of the increased improvement not only in the external, but in the internal commerce of Ireland. Those who argued so strenuously for the distress of Ireland ought to take into the account these indications of increasing prosperity. He would leave Ireland to exert her own energies, and suffer the great measure recently passed to work its effects, for Catholic Emancipation he maintained to be the moral panacea of that country. One of the first results of that measure he anticipated would be an influx of British capital into Ireland, and he had not been disappointed. In 1824, when the hopes of Catholic Emancipation had been raised to the highest pitch, there had been a considerable inclination in British capitalists to invest their capital in Irish securities. In May 1825, Lord Liverpool's speech had dashed the hopes of the Catholics to the ground, and immediately afterwards he had found British Companies absolutely refusing to advance any money upon Irish securities. At present advances were making to the full extent that they had been made in 1824. If the inquiry were to be refused in reference to England, he had stated these facts to show that there were no grounds for instituting such an inquiry in regard to Ireland.
Mr. Beaumontsaid, that he differed entirely from the noble Lord who had just addressed the House as to the utility of an
802
inquiry, but he preferred the Amendment of the hon. Baronet for a Select Committee, to the original Motion for a Committee of the whole House. He considered an inquiry into the distressed state of the country absolutely necessary. But that distress he believed to be general throughout the country. He did not know upon what principle support could be given to the Government from that side of the House upon this Question. Was it on account of the existence of a confidence in the Government? He had not heard any hon. Gentleman near him express a confidence in Government for what had been done, but what left regret that more had not been accomplished. If the Motion were carried it would convey, it was said, a direct censure upon his Majesty's Ministers; and as they seemed to discourage the statements of distress from either side of the House, he must confess that, in his opinion, they did not believe that the distress existed to the extent that had been stated. When it was said that they ought to have confidence in the Ministers he was surprised that no one on that (the Opposition) side of the House had risen to say, that everything that could be done by them for the relief of the people had been done. It was because he did not feel this to be the case, and that he wanted confidence in the Administration, that he should vote for the Select Committee. He regretted that the best argument against turning the present Ministry out was, that they did not know where they could get a better; but the question was not whether this Administration was better than the last, but whether it was one suited to the spirit of the times? and for his own part, he thought that the present Government had not abilities for times like the present. A very good reason for not placing confidence in the Ministers was, because they said that they could not see the present distress. To him it was evident that there was something wrong in the machinery of Government, or Ministers would feel it to be their duty to face a case which was confirmed to them on every side. Parliament might go on siding with the views of Government, but the end of it must be, that the people would come to the conclusion—not that the distress was beyond the control of Parliament — but that Parliament was within the control of Government. The remedy for the distress

803
was quite within the reach of the legislature. Taxation was the great grievance, and that was within legislative control. He should therefore vote for inquiry. The remedy consisted simply in a great reduction of the taxation which pressed so heavily at present upon the country. He would have the taxation and the expenditure of the country reduced to the lowest possible scale consistent with the due maintenance of the service of the country, and if that did not relieve the distress, he should then tell the fund-holder that he should share with us in the diminution of his revenues. The people were losing confidence in the Government; a revolutionary spirit was becoming general at home, while abroad the country was sinking into disgrace and discredit, which made him think that the House ought to enter into the proposed investigation.
Mr. W. Peelsaid, that he did not deny, and the Government did not deny, that distress existed in the country; but he was of opinion that no good whatever would result from the proposed inquiry. He could not help thinking that a great deal of time had been already wasted in the course of the debate as to the question of the degree of the distress. If a ship were in distress, it would be very odd for the sailors, instead of taking steps for its preservation, to set about calculating what was the quantum of danger by which they were surrounded. As it appeared to him, these were not points on which it was for the Government to contend. They were rather to come down to the House, and propose such remedies as seemed to them most effectual. The Government had already shown every disposition to do all in their power to relieve the distress by the remission of taxation, and they should be allowed to proceed in the good work of reduction and retrenchment. There were some Gentlemen who appeared willing to attribute the present state of the country to the measure of 1819, but he could not agree with them. The hon. Member for Callington had said, that a sovereign now would go as far as two then; but if the hon. Gentleman contrived thus with his sovereigns, he certainly could do much more than other people. It was said by an hon. Member, that England had never been so degraded in the eyes of Europe as during the administration of the Duke of Wellington, and that Englishmen never
804
met with so much insult abroad. For his own part, he so far wished that this was the case as to drive back to this country the hundreds and thousands who were spending abroad those incomes which they drew from this country, and only for the purpose of making themselves ridiculous by apeing those manners which they could not imitate. He therefore wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would add a million to his Budget by laying a tax on this property. The hon. Member opposite had every right to withdraw his confidence from the Government if he thought fit, but he had no right to say that the Government did not possess the confidence of the country. The fact was quite the reverse. He thought, also, that attributing a revolutionary spirit to the people was not only not. true, but that it was unjust towards Englishmen to attribute such a feeling to them. As he believed that the distress was not universal, as had been represented, so he was of opinion that what there was of distress would soon be got over, and the country would become as flourishing as ever.
Mr. Beaumontexplained that he had not said that the Government had lost, but that it was losing the confidence of the country.
Sir Thomas Goochwas fully impressed with the conviction that great distress existed in the country, but he thought this Motion for inquiry, if successful, would be productive of no practical good. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already done much, but he hoped Ministers would redeem the pledge which they had given by doing much more hereafter in the way of remission of taxation. He thought it absolutely necessary that a very great reduction should be made in the taxation which pressed upon the productive classes of the country, who were now principally suffering under the prevailing distress. He should vote against the proposed committee, because he saw no good likely to follow from it. The subjects of inquiry proposed were so multifarious, that the country would be ruined, or relief would come of itself, before that committee could make its report. He conceived that there should he a revision of our system of taxation—that those taxes should be removed which bore principally upon the productive classes of society, and the deficiency supplied by the imposition of a modified property tax. He thought that by

805
a well-regulated and modified property-tax, to the extent of five per cent, we might be able to raise 5,000,000 l. annually, and that we could in that way afford a reduction to that amount in the taxes that peculiarly pressed upon the productive classes of society in this country.
The Marquis of Blandfordsaid, that he could not refuse to give his assent to a Motion, of which the object was, to inquire into the condition of the productive classes of society, with a view of affording them some relief from the distress which at present was pressing them to the earth. He would briefly point out to the House the course which he thought Ministers ought to pursue in the present crisis of the country. They ought to remove at once from 10,000,000 l. to 12,000,000 l. of taxation, and to accompany that removal by a considerable reduction of expenditure. They ought to abolish all sinecures, pensions, and useless places. They ought to modify the taxes, which they left upon the country, and for that purpose he would have no objection to concede to them a tax upon all descriptions of capital. If they would not acquiesce in this willingly, they would, ere long, find a spirit excited in the country which would compel them to do it, however reluctantly. There was at present, he was sorry to say it, but little sympathy between the representative and the constituent body. It was in vain for the people to waste their time in petitioning; either House of Parliament: let them, therefore, respectfully, but firmly, pour in their addresses to the Throne from all parts of the country, stating that they could no longer endure in patience the sufferings which overwhelmed them. Then perhaps their grievances would be redressed and the Constitution regenerated. In his view he would say, adopting the language of Lord Chatham, "the present is a perilous and tremendous moment. Flattery cannot save us in this awful crisis. It is now necessary to instruct the Throne in the language of truth; we must if possible dispel the darkness and delusion which envelope it, and display in its true light and genuine colours, the ruin which is brought to our doors."
Mr. Lennarddeclared his intention of voting against the proposition for a committee, because he was convinced that the granting of a committee would not relieve the distress which he acknowledged to exist
806
in the country. After the speech made by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department on a former evening, it would be unfair not to admit that Government had taken a correct view of the extent of that distress. He was convinced that, at present, Ministers were pursuing a right course; and if he differed from them at all, it was as to the extent to which they thought it expedient to go. He thought that the country had a right to demand a greater reduction of taxation than had hitherto been made, and also a greater reduction of expenditure. In the salaries paid to our ambassadors there was great room for retrenchment; and he thought that we should be only acting with wisdom if we imitated the frugal example which had been set to us by other nations in that respect. He should certainly vole against the Motion of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury.
General Gascoynesupported the Motion for a committee, and in reply to the observations of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, contended that whatever might be the case in Liverpool, there was in the districts which ranged within a few miles around it, greater distress than in any Other portion of the United Kingdom. Indeed, he could not help wondering at the language employed on this subject by the supporters of Ministers. To judge from their speeches, there was no distress in the country; but unfortunately for their veracity, the Ministers themselves admitted the distress of the country to be the main cause of the defalcation in the last year's Revenue. Besides, the recent proposal to repeal taxes was an indication that Ministers were at last becoming sensible to the existence, if not to the extent, of the distress. He was surprised to hear an hon. friend of his, (Sir Thomas Gooch) who some years ago had proposed an inquiry in its nature precisely similar to the present, rise up to make a speech in opposition to this Motion. The simple question then before the House was, whether the numberless petitions presented from the people were worthy of consideration, and if they were not, why were the people ever allowed to petition at all. To refuse inquiry was to tell them their complaints were of no consequence. He trusted that the people would not forget the votes which might be given that night. He trusted that those Members who now showed them-

807
selves callous to the sufferings of their fellow-countrymen, and who denied that those sufferings required to be relieved, would meet with retribution for such conduct when least they expected it. In the hope that the vote of every Member upon this Motion would hereafter gain full publicity, he would not torment the House and himself by making a longer speech, but would conclude by giving his support to the Motion for going into a committee upon the state of the country.
Sir F. Burdett, [who had risen with several of the preceding Members, but had never been able to attract the notice of the Speaker,] then proceeded to explain the reasons which induced him to give a vote in opposition, he said, to that of several of his hon. friends with whom he usually acted. He thought that his hon. friend, the Member for Shaftesbury, was entitled to the thanks of the country for bringing this matter so distinctly under the consideration of parliament. It was impossible that a mass of Petitions, complaining so bitterly of distress, could be left unnoticed on the Table of the House of Commons; and though they referred to a subject of magnitude sufficient to deter many persons from bringing it forward, still such was the patriotism of his hon. friend, that he had not shrunk from the task of undertaking it. He had paid great attention to the course which this debate had taken, and he was now compelled to say, that his mind was confirmed as to the necessity of complying with the prayer of these petitions, not merely by the arguments of those who spoke in favour of his hon. friend's Motion, but also by the arguments of those who spoke against it. He could not concur with his noble friend, the Member for Northamptonshire, that it was any reason for not granting" this committee to the prayers of the people of England, that the vote of the House of Commons in favour of such a proposition might be construed into a vote of censure against the Cabinet. He did not think that there was any reason in the other notion of his noble friend, that if such a committee were granted, it would end in being a delusion on the public. If there were any truth in that argument, then all the functions of that House must in future be considered as a mere delusion upon the public. As to the distress of the country, it appeared to be at length admitted in some degree by the Ministers, but still it was
808
admitted in so slight a degree as to render the admission an aggravation to those who were suffering under its overwhelming severity. With respect to the letters which had been read, with a view of diminishing its extent, he had observed that no Member who represented a populous place had been able to get up and to declare it to be the opinion of his constituents that they were not in a slate of suffering. As far as the topics derived from those letters went, they had received a decisive answer from the hon. Member for Newark. Was it in the House of Commons that these private communications could be considered as a satisfactory contradiction to the statements embodied in petitions sent up to them by vast masses of the people? Was it likely that the people would see with patience their statements subverted by letters, which at best contained but the opinions of individuals? At an early period of the debate, his hon. and gallant friend, the Member for Windsor, had, in his very excellent and eloquent-speech, admitted that there was great suffering in the country, arising from the great depreciation of prices; "but," said his hon. and gallant friend, in continuation of his argument, "is it possible for this country, whilst it carries on intercourse with foreign nations, to maintain the high prices which it procured during the war?" Now he should answer that question by another, and that other would be simply this—"Why is it not possible?" The impossibility was a point which the other side took at once for granted, whereas his opinion was that the very reverse of the conclusion at which they arrived respecting the impossibility of maintaining high prices was the correct conclusion. It was with this country a question of high and of low prices. If high prices could be maintained, the country would be relieved; and it therefore ought to be clearly shown that high prices could not be had, and if had, could not be maintained, before a negative was given to the Motion for the appointment of this committee. He was as much surprised as the gallant Member for Liverpool at the avowal of his hon. friend the Member for Suffolk. That hon. Member had in the year 1822, brought forward a motion exactly similar to the Motion which he was now opposing. He had then said that the curses of the people ought to fall on the head of every man who refused to consider the remedies for

809
their distresses. If that were true in 1822, it was still more true in the present year,— if the curses of the people ought to have fallen heavily at that time on the heads of those who were then callous to their sufferings, they ought to fall on such persons still more heavily now; for the distress which prevailed now was far more general than the distress which prevailed then. In 1822 there was only agricultural distress. At that time the agriculturists fancied that their distress could be relieved though the distress of the other classes of the community remained unmitigated. Since that time agriculturists, manufacturers, merchants, ship-owners, in short, all classes had found out that they were all embarked in one bottom, and that they must sink or swim together. It was therefore worth inquiring whether there was any thing in the argument, whether it was or was not possible to return to and maintain high prices; for if that inquiry should lead to a result opposite to that which had been so readily taken for granted by his hon. and gallant friend, the Member for Windsor, then, without any other proceeding, the distress of the country might be relieved. In the year 1822 his hon. friend, the Member for Suffolk, had obtained relief for the class whose interests he represented; but how? by an issue of 1l. notes.— It might therefore be worth inquiring how far a similar expedient might produce a similar result at the present moment. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had made a very long, but not a very conclusive, speech upon this subject. He by no means answered the constitutional speech of the hon. Member, as he had almost called him, for Birmingham, but "by that all hail, hereafter." The right hon. Secretary had dealt in a multifarious mass of details, and enveloping himself in their obscurity escaped from the great constitutional points with which the hon. Member for Callington had so hardly beset him. The hon. Member for Callington had proved, beyond all contradiction, that if the House should, by its vote of that night, determine to abandon this inquiry, it would be guilty of an abandonment of its most important functions—it would sink to the level of an assembly formed for no other purpose than to register the edicts of the Ministry—it would become powerful for that purpose only, but would be impotent to relieve or remedy the distresses of the people. How-
810
ever satisfactory the reasons for coming to such a vote might appear in that House, they would be deemed most unsatisfactory out of it, and he therefore trusted that hon. Gentlemen would pause before they came to such a degrading resolution. The right hon. Secretary, in the course of his speech, had advocated a variety of mistaken principles and fallacious doctrines. He had said that he had a chart before him. It was certain that the right hon. Gentleman had a sea of distress before him. Whether he had a chart of it he could not say, but sure he was that the right hon. Gentleman was without a meridian line to direct his course. He was like a ship in a stormy ocean without rudder and without compass, driving about with every wind, and yet endeavouring with every shattered remnant of sail to keep out in that sea' of trouble into which he ought never to have launched. That was in itself an alarming slate of things, and rendered still more so by the conduct of another Minister in another place. When he heard that Minister stating, and showing by his statement, such a total unacquaintance with a subject of such vital importance to the country, that our currency and circulation were as great now as they ever were, at the same time that he supposed them not to amount to more than 28,000,000 l.—when he heard that Minister moving for documents to prove that with a circulation of 28,000,000 l. there was now a larger circulation than that which we had when we forced so large an issue of paper that not a single piece of gold could circulate with it,—when he heard absurdities so palpable on their very enunciation gravely submitted to, and admitted as correct, by the oilier branch of the Legislature, he thought that it became the House—indeed, that it was high time for the House—to step between the country and a Minister who entertained such erroneous and such mischievous notions. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department said, that he had read a number of able writers on this subject, who, if a committee were granted, must all be examined before it. Gentlemen might perhaps read too much; and he recollected that old Hobbes, when asked, after spending an evening with several learned men, what he thought of them? replied, "If I had read as much as they have I should be as great a fool as any of them." If Mr. Tooke, for instance, were selected as a

811
guide, he maintained that money prices did not depend upon money, and he had collected a vast number of facts from which it was not only impossible to arrive at any conclusion, but to establish any principle. He would recommend to hon. Gentlemen to read one short essay of David Hume on the subject, and they would obtain clearer ideas respecting it than if they had the meridian line of the right hon. Gentleman to direct their course, and to guide them through the difficulties of the Question. The right hon. Gentleman said, that money had nothing to do with this Question; that there was distress in 1810 and in 1816, whereas the measure which was referred to as the cause of the present distress took place in 1819. But it was an error to deduce general conclusions from particular facts. he had conversed that morning with two intelligent persons from Birmingham, Messrs. Hadley and Spooner, both practically connected with these periods, upon this very point; and they remarked that the cause of the distress in 1810 was, that the Bank had pushed its issues too far, and suddenly contracted them, and to save itself ruined the bankers. Again, in 1816, before the birth of the adopted child of the right hon. Gentleman, its coming existencé was foreseen and foretasted by the country; in 1815 it was known that there would be a return to cash payments. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had spoken of the nation as of a patient subjected to a system of doctoring; and, speaking of the proposed committee, that he was more afraid of the doctor than of the disease; but mutato nomine, the remark applied to the right hon. Gentleman himself—he was the doctor who had crammed down the throat of the country that empirical remedy, his fatal bill of 1819, and who had only one nostrum for all diseases, and that was, gold. Subsequently to that measure, there was a motion for a committee, by the hon. Member for Suffolk, which was obtained, and a partial relief was procured for the existing distress by the issue of 1l. notes. This was after the experiment had been only a short time tried. So that this was no new or theoretical complaint—there was experience as well as reason against the bill; but after the system had been altered and altered, it was now said, "we will never alter again." After the first, second, third, and he believed a fourth change, this experiment, this experimentum crucis,
812
might be applied to the country. It was therefore a fallacy in the right hon. Gentleman's argument, that the system had been going on for eleven years, He denied that it had been settled for eleven months. In spite of this metallic currency—this god of idolatry—this golden idol, which the nation was ready to worship, as besotted as the Israelites who set up their calf in Horeb, the public prosperity was below the standard of 1812, 1813, and 1814. Even during the profligate expenditure of the war, and profligate as were the ministers of that day, and confiding as was the House of Commons then, the country was in a more flourishing state than now. The measure of 1797 was one which, in the then state of things, had saved the country. Every thing settled itself to that state; and the industry and enterprise of the country were so great, that they produced more than sufficed for the expenditure of the war; and at the end of it, to the utter astonishment of those who had opposed the war, the country, so far from deteriorating, never was in a state of greater prosperity, fictitious prosperity as it was called, than in the last year of that protracted war. He was no friend to taxation—on the contrary, he thought needless taxation only extortion; but it was a mere farce to pretend that taxation was the cause of the evils now endured. At that time the taxation had reached a greater height than at present, and though he did not mean to say that it did not press with weight upon the strength of every individual, so as to retard the advance of the country to prosperity, it was idle to say, comparing taxation then with taxation now, that this was the sole cause of our disability. According to the right hon. Gentleman, a continuance of peace was the calamity— nunc patimur longæ pacis mala; but let the House go into a committee, and he would find men well versed in the affairs of business and trade to tell a very different story. He would produce two witnesses from Birmingham who, notwithstanding all that the right hon. Gentleman had said about gigs and railways, would contradict him on the flourishing state of that town, and would fully confirm all that had been advanced by a noble Duke in another place. The right hon. Gentleman might say, "returning were as tedious as to go o'er;" but he evinced a non-acquaintance with the great concerns and interests of the country, and

813
what would promote them, and he was convinced that if a committee of inquiry were to look into all the parts of the flattering picture which the right hon. Gentleman had drawn, it would be found false and hollow. He did not mean to say that the country might not still go on; it might go on till it reached destruction; he would say as Lord Chatham said, in the American war, looking at a list of generals, "I do not know whether it will affect the enemy, but it makes me tremble." It was said that we ought to be grateful to Ministers for the relief they had afforded; but gratitude was not a word to be used towards Ministers, especially when they had done no more than their duty, and which they were well rewarded for doing. He for one could not consent to compliment away the national prosperity lest the vote should imply a censure on Ministers. This was a question in which the public interests were at issue: when the salus populi authorised the Commons to interfere for the suprema lex, it involved the prosperity of all classes in the country, who were suffering from distress, all except placemen, pensioners, and public annuitants. If the House meant to stifle inquiry, they would be sacrificing the landed interest, the shipping interest, and the commercial interest, to the public creditor, to placemen and pensioners. He (Sir F. Burdett) was for sacrificing much, and thought that ample justice should be done to all; but the House should not be so fooled by words as to submit to be called cheats and robbers merely because they would have debts paid in the money in which they were contracted. He (Sir F. Burdett) had the highest authority, that of Lord Eldon, whose opinion on matters of equity and law he apprehended was indisputable, that there was no dishonesty in paying debts in the same money in which they were contracted. It appeared from a little pamphlet signed "Merchantman," that the debt contracted since 1793 amounted to 765,537,000 l. for which we had received only 509,456,000 l., or 66 l. per cent, and, if the depreciation of the currency, estimated at sixteen per cent, were taken into account, we had not received more than 57 l. per cent, for which we were now called upon to, pay 100 l. They did not want reasonings, then; here were facts. We had received only 57 l. and he did not comprehend the justice of the right boa, Secretary compelling us by his bill
814
to pay 100 l. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, after so long a period of war, we could expect to keep up our high prices? He clearly, therefore, by implication, supposed high prices necessary to the prosperity of the country. As to what the right hon. Gentleman had said respecting the improvement which had taken place in one corner or another of the country, he could assure him there was no such improvement. He then said, that the distress had been caused, not by transition, but by the different state of war and peace. War was often adduced as a reason for what it had nothing whatever to do with. It was a deceptive argument to say that war did this, and prevented that. Let the right hon. Gentleman show how these monstrous results could have been produced by war. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed great sympathy for the poorer classes, great sympathy for the manufacturing classes, and for all but the landed interest, which (and to this he begged the attention of the House) the right hon. Gentleman said should remain in its present depressed condition, [Here Mr. Peel expressed his dissent.] He (Sir F. Burdett) had understood so. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that we were not to have high prices, that we must have low prices; and what was that but to say that the landed interest must remain depressed. When so many persons were ready to come forward and state that the landed interest was of no importance at all, he should be inclined to make a fight of it upon that point: he was happy to believe that no interest could flourish unless the landed interest flourished, and he trusted that the landed interest would lay this point to heart. This was the time for landed gentlemen to put to themselves the question asked by the Poet—
"Shall we, like exiles, still be doomed to mourn,
And ne'er, with length of rolling years, return?
Shall we, compell'd by fate's unjust decree,
No more our homes and pleasant rallies see?
Or shall we mount again our rural throne,
And rule the rural kingdom once our own?"
He would call upon the landed interest not to give up their superiority. Gentlemen of landed property were the natural defenders of the people of England; and it was because such a class existed here, and in no other country, that we had been able to maintain our high character in war and in peace, and to resist with success the combined efforts of the civilized world. If the landed interest

815
were to be sacrificed, he should be glad to hear how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to maintain the manufacturing interest? How was the shipping interest to be preserved, and how were our merchants to be continued in their "pride of place?" Though last not least, he would ask, what would then become the condition of the labouring people? In the adherence to this pernicious system, he saw nothing but the reduction of Great Britain to a low grade in the scale of nations— incapable of looking in the face her enemies abroad, and of maintaining freedom and prosperity at home. This condition of degradation might yet be avoided by the abandonment of that experiment which had already produced such monstrous mischiefs. Among other points the right hon. Gentleman had urged, that it had not been shown that high prices were preserved in time of peace; and for a very good reason—but for the right hon. Gentleman's bill of 1819, high prices during peace might have been maintained. Aye, said the right hon. Gentleman, but then you would not have had gold. True, but of what benefit was gold? It was at this moment the greatest evil of the nation. Ministers, like Midas, had turned everything they touched to gold, and the consequence was starvation. Great Britain had nothing useful because she would have everything gold. Who was the Midas he would not say, for aurcs asininas Midas non habet. Next the right hon. Gentleman had inquired whether, for the sake of a paper currency, it was wished that every barber who could put up a board should start as a banker? Certainly not, any more than it was fit that every coppersmith should become a coiner. Neither paper nor gold should be debased, and there was no necessary connection between the use and abuse of anything. But it was said, if our high prices are kept up we can have no foreign trade. He (Sir F. Burdett) contended, that foreign trade had nothing to do with the question. Commerce, truly considered, was an exchange between different nations of equivalents; but how little was this considered when, instead of obtaining good wine from France at a cheap rate, we took bad wine from Portugal at a dear rate? To adopt free trade in the true sense of the words, would be to render unnecessary all the complicated and expensive machinery for the prevention of smuggling; trade with civilized France,
816
from facility of communication, would be of more value to England, than with all the rest of Europe. High prices might thus be maintained in peace as well as in war, and to restore high prices would be to relieve the country from all its difficulties. It was stated by some that Ministers had excellent dispositions to afford relief—that they had taken off the Leather Tax, the Cider Tax, and, lastly, the tax upon Beer, the effect of which would be, that in about seven months' time porter would be reduced one penny per pot. But what relief would this afford to the tradesman, to the manufacturer, and to the gentlemen of England? What sort of mockery was this. It would not impose even upon the most ignorant out of doors, and yet it was proposed as an adequate remedy for the distresses of the whole community. No hon. Member had yet remarked that there were two distinct causes of distress in this country: the distress alone kept in view by those who had spoken was that of the labouring classes, who suffered the uttermost distress, nakedness and hunger, and shame it was to any nation that did not prevent it— and shame to any government that refused to inquire. This species of distress might exist when all other classes were prosperous; it might arise from overpopulation, to answer that by saying that there were many lands still out of cultivation was nothing to the purpose. The question was, whether labour received its adequate reward; and whenever it did not obtain a remunerating price, the nation was over-populous. The distress was very severely felt by the landowners and all connected with them. The produce of an acre, which formerly sold for 9l., would now only fetch 6l. The consequences of their distress reached the manufacturer, who could not avoid being distressed when the landed interest were in difficulties. The merchant suffered from the distress of the manufacturer; and, in fact, the distress of the country was felt in all classes of its inhabitants. Under these circumstances he thought inquiry ought to be granted; and he did not anticipate, as some hon. Members did, that that inquiry would produce a monstrous mass of evidence, that would, by its bulk and the variety of subjects with which it was connected, prevent them from coming to any definite conclusion upon it. He implored the House of Commons to believe that it

817
was not out of their power, as it unquestionably belonged to their functions, to institute an inquiry, that he assured them was not beyond their reach; and not to consent to throw the last portion of misery into the cup of the people, and thus drive them into despair by refusing the Motion which was now made for an inquiry into the causes of their misery.
Mr. Peelsaid, he wished to notice a most extravagant misconception of the hon. Baronet opposite. The hon. Baronet had charged him with having said, that it was a part of his policy to depress the landed interest. Every one who had heard him, except the hon. Baronet, must know that he had said nothing of the kind. His statement was, that during the war a great portion of inferior land had been brought into cultivation in this country, and that now, by the application of steam to navigation, and by the circumstance of the good land of Ireland and Scotland being better cultivated, the produce of the inferior land of this country was likely to be injured in the market. He had stated this as a fact; and he had added, that whatever might be the benefit to the country, he could not but view the consequences with the utmost pain, so far as they affected those individuals who would suffer from them. The hon. Baronet had entirely mistaken him in supposing that he had stated it as part of his settled policy to depress the landed interest.
Sir F. Burdettdid not mean to impute any wish of that kind to the right hon. Gentleman, and had only stated that the depression of the landed interest was the necessary consequence of the policy he had determined to pursue. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he acquitted him of any such intention, for no doubt there were few men who wished more heartily than the right hon. Gentleman for the prosperity of the landed interest; but there was as little doubt that the policy he had adopted, and that which he declared he intended to pursue, must have the tendency he had ascribed to it.
Mr. Peelcontemplated no such consequences, and did not believe they would be found to follow from the present policy of the Government.
Sir T. Gooch, in explanation, said, that the hon. Baronet had misrepresented him; he had never said that the petitions of the people ought not to be referred to a committee.
Mr. F. Lewissaid, that he did not much wonder at the opinions of Members who had not been in that House during discussions on the Currency Question, and who now seemed to imagine that a return to a depreciated currency would be a panacea for the evils of the country; but he did much wonder at hearing such opinions fall from the hon. Baronet opposite. He repeated, he could not but fuel the utmost surprise at the unqualified praise bestowed by the hon. Baronet on the Bank Restriction Act, and the more so when he recollected that the hon. Baronet sat in that House during the times of that mock prosperity which he alone had eulogized. The hon. Baronet had referred to the well-known Essay of Hume, but that would not support him in his views in favour of a depreciated currency. In that Essay, Hume stated that the prosperity of the country was connected with prices constantly increasing; but he had not said with a constantly depreciated currency. He had said the contrary indeed; for if the spirit of the Essay was attended to, it would be seen that he never intended to allude to any currency as advantageous to a country if it went on diminishing in value as it increased in amount. Of what avail was it to increase the amount of the currency by continually multiplying the issue of notes, which, exactly as they were multiplied in number, cut off a part of the value from those which had preceded them? The wealth of a country consisted in the abundance of its commodities; increase of commodities required, he knew, an increased amount of currency, but it must be a currency of the same standard and value; and its increase must be created with, and solely in consequence of, the increase of the commodities it represented. The hon. Baronet had been mistaken in asserting that Mr. Tooke had said that prices did not depend on money —meaning on the quantity of money. Mr. Tooke had not said any such thing, but had only referred to the difference between the Mint and the market price of gold, as one of the elements of prices in the country. He must confess that he was much surprised at the praise bestowed by the hon. Baronet on that most odious measure into which this country had been driven in her misfortunes to have recourse to—he meant the Bank Restriction Act. The hon. Baronet had proposed to have recourse again to a Paper Currency, seem-

819
ing to consider that that would remedy the evils under which the landed interest were now suffering. He, like the hon. Baronet, was a friend to the landed interest; but not even for their sake would he have recourse to a measure that would be productive of great injury to every other class in the country. He need not, however, go so far as to make that declaration, for he was satisfied that the return to a depreciated currency would not in the least benefit the agricultural interest. He begged to remind the hon. Baronet that a depreciated currency could not produce a new demand, or a new rate of profits; it could only for a time transfer them into different hands. He regretted as much as any man, the depression of the landed interest, but he could not consent that they should be upheld, even if that would be the effect of such a measure, by resorting to the depreciation of the currency, which created nothing, and threw the burthen exclusively upon others. The Bank Restriction system had failed by its own weakness already, and as inevitably would it fail again when they least expected, if they should be again so infatuated as to trust to it. In speaking of past depression, those hon. Members who had spoken on the other side entirely passed over the convulsion of distress which had been produced throughout the country by the sudden contraction of the currency in 1816. The hon. Baronet had affirmed that they might have what prices they pleased, and so certainly they might, if they agreed to allow a half-penny to pass for a guinea. They might have nominal prices, but the real value would necessarily continue the same. Although a landlord's rent were by these means quintupled, he would soon find himself, under the new state of things, worse than he had ever been before. The supporters of both the propositions before the House appeared to him under the influence of some vague dream or delusion, which led them to contemplate the possibility of a fluctuating standard, which the House he was sure would never countenance for a moment.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that as a representative of a great manufacturing and commercial town, which suffered much, he regretted to say, in common with the rest of the same class in other parts of the kingdom, he could not give a silent vote on a Motion having for its avowed object the relief of that distress, the existence of which no person denied. Although the latest ac-
820
counts had mentioned indications of a revival in trade, he much feared that a large portion of the manufacturing and agricultural interests still remained in absolute poverty and destitution. The Motion for a Committee of the whole House, however, did not seem in his opinion to promise either remedy or relief. They were not told how it was proposed that they should carry on their deliberations, whether by documentary evidence, by examination of witnesses at the Bar, or debate amongst themselves. The causes of the distress, and the remedy to be applied, were mere matter of speculation, and the time which they might consume in such an inquiry as that recommended he conceived would be worse than useless, as it would create considerable expense to the country and lead to no effectual result. Where, he asked, were they expected to stop? They were enjoined to treat in full of the Corn-laws, the Poor-laws, Currency Question, and principles of Free Trade. Then, of course, it was to be looked for as a natural consequence, that the hon. Member for Staffordshire should introduce the Truck System; that the hon. Member for Armagh should direct their attention to the Bogs of Ireland; that the hon. Member for Newcastle should draw down the whole subject of Emigration; and lastly, that the hon. Member for Newark should enter upon Irish Absenteeism. The proposal for a Select Committee he considered infinitely more objectionable even than the other. Their proceedings would be private, unknown to the public or to the House, and their number must be so limited that they could not fairly represent the opinions of the country, or of Parliament. But the third proposition which was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Plympton he esteemed the most hopeless of any. That would have them to appoint a Select Committee that should be precluded from treating of the Currency, the very cause to which many Members attributed this distress. He hoped that Government would go still further in the reduction of taxation, which they had so laudably commenced, and he should be ready to support a Motion for the introduction of a fair property-tax, let it emanate from what quarter it might.
Mr. Westernbegan, by assuring the House that it was not his intention, at that late hour, to trespass on their attention for many minutes, and would therefore claim an indulgent hearing for the little he had

821
to say. Whatever might be the result of an inquiry, it was their bounden duty to enter on it, if for no other purpose but to manifest their sympathy for the distressed condition of the people, and he entertained no doubt but their refusal would occasion throughout the country very general dissatisfaction and disappointment. The evils complained of were not of one day's standing; they had been in existence, and had progressively increased for fourteen years. So great had been the distress, and so powerful its effects, that it had altered the moral character of the people in such a manner as to cause the most serious alarm. If it only to ascertain the cause of that change, and the possibility of finding a remedy for it, the House ought to go into a committee of inquiry. There was an increased activity in commerce—increased exports and imports— increased production—increased energy throughout the country; and yet there were difficulties and distresses such as could not be contemplated without commiseration. He wanted to know, what then was the cause of this distress? He heard none assigned which appeared to him probable. It was not taxation; that might augment the distress, but was not its cause. It was clear that taxation was not the cause, because it had begun as taxation was reduced, and it continued more severe than ever, though taxation had been diminished. He never was an advocate for the expenses of the war, but he denied that the country came exhausted out of the contest. We had burthens to bear; but we had by our increased commerce acquired strength to bear them. It was then to the change in the currency that we were to attribute our distress; while that was untouched we could bear greater burthens than at present without repining. The effects therefore of the measures of 1819, and 1822, and 1826 ought to be closely examined, and for that purpose a committee ought to be appointed. A depression in prices, fully equal to fifty per cent, had taken place in all commodities, which had been caused by the change in our currency, and which had extended its influence to every country with which we had commercial relations. If any Gentleman contemplated in 1819 the subsequent fall of prices, he had contemplated that which no member of the Bullion Committee had any idea of. In the discussions in 1811 on that question, the right hon.
822
Member for Liverpool had stated, that prices would never fall so low as we had unfortunately experienced them. In 1819 several members who supported government expressed their surprise that any person should be so absurd as to suppose that prices, even if they fell a little, would not speedily again rise, and remain at their former level. The price of corn, it was admitted, might be low for a short time, but it was strenuously contended that it would soon rise to 70 s. or 80 s. the quarter. Some of these predictions had been verified, and the Gentlemen who proposed and carried the law of 1819 are now proved to have been completely ignorant of what would be its results. Since the war, prices, instead of being steady, have been continually in a state of fluctuation, and they have on the whole fallen a great deal more than ever was expected. He was anxious to press on the attention of the House the impossibility of going on with a gold standard. A time would come when a demand might be made on the Bank for 20,000,000 l. which it would be unable to produce, and ruin would ensue. He would not say more, than that the subject was one of the highest importance which could he under investigation.
Colonel Wilsonsaid, that they had been now debating this subject four nights, and were not now much wiser with respect to it than at the commencement of the discussion; and he was sure that if they sat there for a month of Sundays they would be still in the same situation. If the hon. Mover had confined his Motion to the distress of the country he would go to the committee; but there were other matters included in the proposed inquiry which were not necessary. The distress of the country was unprecedented; but Ministers had done much in the way of reduction of taxation, much more than he had expected, or than he should have believed had any body told him of it when he was last on his legs in that House. Imputations had been cast on him by noble Lords and others, that he was sneaking after Ministers, and looking for the loaves and fishes; but he wanted no office or place. He had served his country without emolument; he entered into its service at fifteen years old, as a private soldier—perhaps they did not know that. He had carried "brown bess" on his shoulder for years; but there was only this difference between him and other private soldiers,—that he had the honour

823
of paying himself, of feeding himself, and of paying for his "brown bess" too. If, he were Prime Minister, he would propose a measure of relief: he would throw the whole of the assessed taxes overboard, and have a properly modified property-tax, which should be so laid on as to press on the absentees, and in that way he would afford effectual relief to the country. As to the causes of the distress, he would inform the House, that previously to the ruin of the country bankers in 1826, every farmer had a credit with his banker, so that if he could not sell his stock and his produce, he was neither forced into the market when things were cheap, nor forced to borrow at exorbitant interest, in order to pay his landlord. Now the farmer could get no assistance, and he was either obliged to sell his property at half-price, or neglect to pay his landlord, and so lose farm and all. That change had reduced hundreds of respectable farmers to break stones upon the roads. Never was the country so prosperous as when wheat was selling for 14 s. a bushel. The farmers and their wives were then dressed in the best manufactured cloth in the country, and they lived luxuriously. Now they were in tatters, and feeding on butter milk and potatoes. That was a state of things that called for relief, and he hoped Ministers would do away with their own vile measures regulating the currency, before all the agriculturists were entirely ruined.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that at that late hour it was not his intention to press upon the patience of the House, which he knew was nearly exhausted. He did not therefore intend to go into the subjects introduced into the discussion at any length. He rose rather for the purpose of correcting an error, an unintentional one, no doubt, into which the hon. Member for Essex had fallen. That hon. Member stated that the people of Essex wished for inquiry; now the fact was, that at the meeting the other day in Essex inquiry was not called for; the great majority of the people in the country did not wish for inquiry. They knew well enough the cause of the distress they suffered, and they plainly enough pointed out the means of relief. If he were not afraid of trespassing too long on the attention of the House, he would venture to reply to some of the extraordinary arguments raised by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Westminster; but though he would not follow
824
and refute them, as he easily might do, there was one so extravagant that he could not pass it over without notice. Some hon. Members on the last evening of that debate had said, that it would be useless to adjourn it, for that they could not expect to hear any novel thought on the subject. The speech of the hon. Baronet, however, had to-night shown them that they were much mistaken; for, to his great surprise, and to the surprise of most others who heard him, the hon. Baronet, the bold—the eloquent—the erudite advocate of the people,—he who had distinguished himself in their cause by the bitter sarcasms with which he contended against an attack on their rights,—who was the popular representative of a large and populous city,—who so eagerly desired that the distress of the country should be relieved —had that night told them, that reduction of taxation was a thing not to be cared for, but that the whole relief of the country was to be found in high prices. Why, of all the propositions that had ever proceeded from a fertile mind, this was, in his opinion, the one that had the least approximation to intelligence. Yet, at the same time that the hon. Baronet declared this, he also declared himself the friend of the shipping and the manufacturing interests. But in what way, he would beg to ask, could those interests meet the foreign competition against which they had to struggle, except by low prices? He could follow and refute some of the hon. Baronet's other positions, but he wished to keep his promise to the House, and not press farther on its patience.
Mr. Trantrose amidst loud cries of "Question;" but he said, if he were not heard he would move the adjournment of the debate. He stood pledged, at a meeting of yesterday, to some of the most respectable gentlemen in London,—members of the committee for the Relief of the Manufacturing Poor,—that he would state to the House that which they communicated to him, viz., that, from the information they received by means of their communications with all parts of the country, they were convinced that the distress was overwhelming. These gentlemen ought to have an opportunity of being heard in a committee, in reply to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) who spoke so much of the prosperity of the country.
Mr. Monckwas one of those who looked to a reduction of the taxes on productive

825
industry, and a concurrent diminution of the public expenditure, as the sole sources of national relief. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Liverpool, that if it were meant that we should have a foreign trade, we must have low prices for our manufactures, in order to compete with the foreigner in his own market, and from low prices low wages generally followed. The measure then, for the House to adopt was, so to place the labourer that his low wages may enable; him to command the necessaries of life; and that only could be effected by giving him cheap bread,—that is, by admitting corn of fertile and untaxed countries into this.
Mr. Rickfordconsidered, that the distress of the country fell chiefly on the agricultural classes, and that to them, therefore, relief should be chiefly applied.
Mr. Benettwas surprised, that when the right hon. Member for Liverpool was quoting instances of the general wealth and prosperity of the country, he did not look to the very obvious proofs to be derived from the consumption of butchers' meat. If the right hon. Gentleman had looked to the consumption of the town of Birmingham alone, he would have found that that consumption had diminished one-third within the last year. He would support the Motion for a Select Committee, as he thought the numerous petitions presented to the House rendered some inquiry imperative.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonwould vote for inquiry, and in doing so would appeal to any hon. Member acquainted with the city of London whether the trade of that city was ever so much depressed as at present? He was free to admit, that some improvement had taken place within the last fortnight; but it was only that something like a cost price could be obtained for some articles, while a month ago no sale could be effected at any price at all. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Bramber a few evenings ago, he begged leave to say, that the hon. Member was in error in asserting that an improvement had taken place in the iron trade. The contrary was the fact, and had been so for the last four or five years, during which immense sums — even millions—had been expended in that trade, without obtaining any profit, and even in some instances suffering an actual loss. It was a fallacy to suppose that because manufacturers went on manufacturing, that therefore they were reaping profitable
826
returns to their outlay. Those acquainted with the facts of the case knew that they did so to save their machinery, and because they could not think of throwing the thousands of workmen whom they had in a manner called into existence, out of employment. He was sure that the projected joint-stock banking system would turn out a failure, because it was not confidence in country bankers that was wanting on the part of the public, but confidence in the public, the borrowers, on the part of the lender, the banker. He thought, however, that a revision of our currency system was wanting, for that the paper currency of the country was not equal to its exigencies, and that the 26,000,000 l. of gold which the Bank of England said they had in circulation would be found he believed to cost the country 40,000,000 l. While he made these statements he begged leave to say, that he, as a member of the manufacturing committee, must protest against the statement just made to the House by the hon. Member for Dover.
Mr. Warburton, was confident that Ministers could not adopt a more mischievous measure just now, than a revision of the currency system, as its inevitable effects would be, to create such a run on banks as would destroy all those whose cash deposits were not equal to their issues.
Mr. Irving[amid loud cries of "Question,"] in explanation of what had just been alluded to by the hon. Member for the City of London, begged to say that his references to the iron trade were to it as it existed in Sheffield and Birmingham.
Sir T. Acland, as a Member of the manufacturing committee, must protest against the statement made in reference to that committee by the hon. Member for Dover. One fact would show, contrary to the declaration of the hon. Member, that the distress had diminished instead of increased within the last few weeks,—namely, that whereas heretofore it was found necessary for the committee to meet once a week, now, owing to a diminution of the distress, they met but once a fortnight.
Mr. Davenportrose to reply. The question, he said, after all the discussion, turned on the single fact, that numerous petitions from all classes, and all parties, and all places in the country, had been presented to the House for relief, and that if inquiry were refused, the only inference that the public could draw was, that it was useless to again petition a Parliament that

827
was deaf to their prayer. [The hon. Member proceeded at some length to address the House, but the confusion which prevailed, and the repeated calls of "Question! Question!" rendered what he said for a long time inaudible. At length silence was partially restored, and the hon. Member was heard to declare his intention of withdrawing the original Motion in favour of the Amendment.]
The Speakerinformed the hon. Gentleman, that if the original Motion was withdrawn, there would remain no question before the House, as an amendment upon a motion which was withdrawn could not be put.
Mr. Peelsuggested, that they should divide upon the Amendment, with the understanding that that division was to decide the whole question. The original Motion was accordingly negatived without a division.
On the Amendment the House divided, when the numbers appeared—for the Amendment 87; Against it 255: majority against the Amendment 168.

MINUTES.
The Commons were summoned to hear the Royal assent given by commission to several public and

737
private Bills. The public Bills were, the Mutiny Bill, the Marine Mutiny Bill, and the Pensions' Duties Bill. The Commissioners were the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the Lord CHANCELLOR, and the Earl of SHAFTESBURY.
Petitions presented:—By the Marquis of HERTFORD from Alcester, praying for the repeal of the Malt and Beer Duties:—By Lord WALLACE, from certain owners of Lead-Mines in Cumberland, praying for a protection against the introduction of Foreign Lead:—By Earl STANHOPE, from a Hundred in Suffolk, complaining of Distress, praying that an inquiry might be instituted into its cause; praying also for a reduction of Taxation, and for a repeal of the measures respecting the prevention of a Small Paper Currency:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the inhabitants of Rochdale, praying for a revision of the Criminal Law, with the view of taking away the Punishment of Death from all offences against property:—And by Lord CARRINGTON, from High-Wycombe, with a similar prayer.

AFFAIR AT TERCEIRA.
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, that in rising to introduce the Motion on which he had given notice, he felt how inadequate his powers were, to bring it forward in that manner which its importance deserved; perceiving, however, the vast consequences of the principle involved in the course of policy to which he objected, and fearful, if passed over in silence, that what had been done at Terceira should be drawn into a precedent, he thought he should be guilty of a dereliction of his duty if he did not bring it under their Lordships' consideration. The papers which had been laid before the House by the noble Secretary opposite, did not contain, in his opinion, information as ample as the House had a right to expect on this important subject. There was one document in particular, the absence of which he regretted,—he meant the protest of Count Saldanha, against the attack made on the vessels sailing to Terceira, by Captain Walpole,—because he knew that the principle for which he contended was there very fully and very ably laid down. There was, however, in the documents before the House sufficient information on the affair to warrant him in bringing it under the consideration of their Lordships. Before he proceeded further, he would read the Resolutions which he intended to submit for the adoption of their Lordships. The noble Lord then read the following Resolutions,
"That prior to the 12th of December, 1828, her Majesty the Queen, Donna Maria 2nd, had been recognized by his Majesty, and the other great Powers of Europe, to be the legitimate Queen of Portugal; and that at the period above-named the said Queen was residing in this country, and had been received by his Majesty with the accustomed honours of her royal rank.
"That on the said 12th of December, the Island of Terceira, part of the dominions of
738
the Queen of Portugal, was governed by authorities civil and military in allegiance to her majesty.
"That on the said 12th of December, instructions were given by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, stating that a considerable number of Portuguese soldiers and other foreigners were about to sail in transports from Plymouth to Falmouth, and it is supposed they intend making an attack on Terceira or other of the Western Isles, and his Majesty having been pleased to command that a Naval force should be immediately despatched to interrupt any such attempt, you are hereby required and directed to take the ship and sloop named in the margin under your command, and to proceed with all practicable expedition to Terceira, and having ascertained that you have succeeded in reaching that Island before the transports above alluded to, you will remain yourself at Angra or Praia, or cruising close to the Island in the most advisable position for interrupting any vessels arriving off it; and you will detach the other ships as you shall deem best for preventing the aforesaid force from reaching any of the other Islands.
"That on the arrival of the Naval force sent to Terceira, in pursnance of the instructions, the commanding officer found that Island in the possession of, and governed by, the authorities above mentioned.
"That in the beginning of January, 1829, a number of Portuguese subjects or soldiers of her said Majesty, voluntarily left this country with a view of repairing to the said Island, and that their departure and destination were known to her Majesty's Government, that they appear to have embarked and sailed in unarmed merchant ships, to have been unaccompanied by any naval force, and themselves without any arms or ammunition of war.
"That these unarmed merchant ships and passengers were prevented by his Majesty's naval forces, sent for the purpose, from entering the harbour of Porto Praia; and that after they had been fired into, and blood had been spilled, they were compelled, under the threat of the further use of force, again to proceed to sea, and warned to 'quit the neighbourhood of Terceira, and the rest of the Azores, but that they might proceed wherever else they might think proper.'
"That the use of force in intercepting these unarmed vessels, and preventing them from anchoring and landing their passengers in the harbour of Porto Praia, was a violation of the sovereignty of that state to which the Island of Terceira belonged; and that the further interference to 'compel these merchant ships or transports to quit the neighbourhood of the Azores,' was an assumption of jurisdiction upon the high seas, neither justified by the necessity of the case, nor sanctioned by the general law of nations."
Their Lordships would see that he did not enter into the policy of the course pursued by his Majesty's Government towards Don

739
Miguel. Whatever that policy was, it would make no alteration in the arguments which he should submit to them. The avowed policy of Ministers was that of strict neutrality with respect to the contending parties in Portugal. Be that policy good or bad, when the neutrality was once declared it ought to have been acted upon; but he would contend, that in the conduct pursued towards the unarmed Portuguese endeavouring to land at Terceira, there was a violent breach of that neutrality which was avowed, and also an infraction of the law of nations, greatly aggravated by the previous declaration of neutrality. He now begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the circumstances under which the Portuguese, who had acknowledged the title of Donna Maria, had been driven from their country, and had sought refuge in this. Their Lordships would recollect that, after the defeat at Oporto, a considerable number of Portuguese subjects sought and obtained an asylum in this country. In doing so they subjected themselves to no restrictions, but remained as free as before they came here, to listen to the voice of duty, when it called them to take arms in behalf of their lawful sovereign. After they had obtained a temporary asylum here, intelligence arrived that Terceira adhered faithfully to Donna Maria. They wished to proceed thither, and having understood that Don Miguel was preparing an expedition against Terceira, they sought a convoy to escort them to that part of the Portuguese dominions in which the authority of their Queen was recognized. That application was refused. He did not blame that refusal; but he should wish that their Lordships would attend to the reply given by the noble Duke to the Marquis of Barbacena, which was to the effect, that if the Portuguese wished to make war at the Azores, they must depart from this country and go there as private individuals. This was what they wished; but from this they were prevented by Ministers. They were afterwards dispersed from Plymouth, where they had been collected together. This was, he thought, an unwarrantable exercise of power. He contended, that the subjects of a sovereign whose title was sanctioned, recognized, and all but guaranteed, by this country, had a right to come here, and had a right to depart hence, to any part of their sovereign's dominions without any molestation. He did not blame
740
Ministers for not having guaranteed those Portuguese a safe passage to the Azores; but while the negotiations on that point were pending, it was known that Don Miguel's expedition to Terceira had failed. The waters of the Azores were then free, and all that the Portuguese here desired was, an opportunity of departing thither, as the noble Duke had at first advised and admitted their right to do. An application to this effect was made by the Marquis Palmella to Ministers, he at the same time assuring them that these men would go off unarmed, in small detachments. They hired unarmed vessels, they had neither arms nor ammunition, and the number of men was not greater than the number of men who usually go in one emigrant vessel to Canada, or about 600. Now, he wished to know how could these men be more fully divested of a hostile character, being without arms and ammunition? They sailed, but an order was given to the commander of our ships to prevent their landing at Terceira. One of the vessels was fired into, and murder actually committed, for it was murder, at least manslaughter, which no law could justify. These men formed a part of no invading army; they were merely subjects going home to their fellow-subjects, alike loyal to their sovereign. He knew it was said by the noble Foreign Secretary on 18th of February last, that this expedition bore a hostile character; being composed chiefly of Germans and Danes, who were engaged for the purpose of hostility. He must, however, put his private information on the matter in opposition to the noble Secretary's statement. There was, he believed, one vessel going to Brazil which had some Germans and Danes on board, and that vessel might have intended to touch at Terceira; but it had nothing to do with the four other vessels which sailed from Plymouth for Terceira, and which had no Danes or Germans on board as passengers. But the vessel with the Germans and Danes, moreover, did not sail at the same time with the expedition ["Hear hear," from the Duke of Welton.] He understood the meaning of the noble Duke's cheer; but was the noble Duke so used to arms that he could not imagine an expedition to be anything save a hostile armament? Without dwelling, however, on that point, he must contend that there was no law to justify our interference: there was no writer on the law of nations in whose works there was any pas-

741
sage to justify such conduct. He would not prove this assertion by lengthened extracts; but would merely quote one short one from Vattel, in order to show that in the observance of strict neutrality we could not interfere with the subjects of other countries in the way which had been done on this occasion. The passage from Vattel, which he would quote, was from the 7th Chapter Book iii., and was as follows:
"It is not possible, then, without injustice, to enter its territory in arms to pursue and capture a guilty person. Such an act affects the safety of a state, and is injurious to the rights of sovereignty or supreme authority, which belong to monarchs. This is what is termed a violation of territory, and nothing is more generally recognized among nations than this, as an injury that should be repelled with vigour by any state that will not submit to oppression."
It might perhaps be said, that the sea about the Azores was not the territory of the Queen of Portugal, even if her authority were recognized there; but on this subject he would quote from Bynkershoek the following passages:—
"Nulla siquidem sit ratio, cur mare, quod in alicujus imperio est et potcstate minus ejusdem esse dicamus, quam possum in ejus territorio."
"Non oportet in mari, allerius principis continenti proximo, leges dare, sed accipere, quum ibi sumus subditi, non seats ac in ejusdem territorio."
According to that authority, the waters about Terceira were as much under the dominion of the young Queen of Portugal as the island itself. But had it been otherwise, had Terceira been in the possession, of Don Miguel, he would then beg to know what ground there was for supposing that four unarmed vessels, conveying a number of men, who he believed had not even side arms, and certainly had none of the munitions of war, intended an attack upon the island of Terceira?—an island which had, on several occasions, resisted formidable forces brought against it by the Spaniards. It was not for the first time that Terceira was distinguished for its loyalty and valour. It was attacked by the Spaniards in the years 1581, 1582, and 1583 without success. He mentioned these circumstances in order to shew that it was absurd, as he had stated, to imagine that that island could be taken by an unarmed force. But it had been said that a civil war was going on at the time in the Azores, and that those men went out to assist in it. In answer to the assertion he would ask, Why not? Why should those men be prevented
742
if such were their object? The noble Duke had himself, in his first letter to the Marquis de Barbacena, given them his permission, and said they might go out as individuals if they so pleased. But to revert to what had been said by the noble Foreign Secretary as to the Danish and German troops. He had very different information on the subject from an officer in the service of Donna Maria, who was on board, and who declared that the passengers were all Portuguese, with the exception of four Spanish officers, who had been in the service of Portugal, and who were then going out to join the troops. He would now come to the question whether a fraud had been committed by the Brazilian minister in the application made to this Government to be allowed to export arms. The allegation was, that an application was made in the first instance, to send a certain quantity of arms to Terceira. That was refused; and then application was made, and permission granted, to send them to the Brazils; but they were shipped off to Terceira. Now, if the Brazilian minister had acted in this way, it would be a good ground of imputation of want of good faith. But what had this to do with the question of the interference with the Portuguese troops? Let their Lordships however look at the state of the law at the time this application was made. Was there any law which prevented the exportation of arms direct to Terceira? He was aware of none; nor was he aware of any Order of Council prohibiting such exportation of arms. More than this, it had been stated in another place, that at the very time the noble Earl was attaching this condition to a permission for exporting arms, the Portuguese Government was actually purchasing arms in this country, and exporting them for its own use. Why should this, then, have been allowed to the one party, and refused to the other? Again, suppose that arms ought not to have been exported straight to Terceira, what right had the Ministers to prevent the exportation of arms to the Brazils? And, if they had no right to prevent this, what necessity was there for the permission? However, be this as it might, still the unfortunate Portuguese had nothing to do with the pretended fraud, and ought not to have been punished for it. There were other points of law,—such as the false clearances, and so forth, which were minor points of municipal law, and which he would not argue. There was a

743
legal remedy for the violation of such laws, but it was not a legal remedy to follow people on the high seas and fire into their vessels. He contended that in this transaction the Government had committed an infraction of the law of nations, and he trusted therefore that their Lordships would concur in the opinions which he had embodied in his resolutions. The Government had not done this in a hasty moment, or, if it had, Ministers had at least thought proper to defend and to attempt to justify their conduct. Nothing, however, could be more futile than their attempt. They had resorted to a despicable sort of special pleading to justify their conduct, which was far more worthy of a pettifogging lawyer, than of the Ministers of a great nation. They seemed to act on the principle of Achilles.
Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis.
He trusted, however, that their Lordships would mark the sense they entertained of such conduct by voting in favour of his resolutions. They must remember that by not censuring such conduct, they made it their own. The opportunity was offered to them of retrieving the glory of the country, sacrificed by the Ministers, and they would become parties to the guilt if they did not reprobate and condemn the proceedings of Ministers. In the last Session of Parliament, their Lordships had been told that negotiations were on foot by which it was hoped the Government would be able to reconcile the differences existing between the members of the House of Braganza. The next thing they heard upon the subject was this gross case of the affair at Terceira,—this assault upon one of the very parties whose differences they had been told the Government was endeavouring to reconcile. In the present Session they had been told that all hopes of effecting such a reconciliation were at an end. But to this infraction of the law of nations their Lordships were now made a party, and it became the dignity of that House to rouse themselves and to disclaim all participation in the act. Nay, unless their Lordships strongly reprobated such a transaction, it would become a precedent which might in future times be turned against ourselves, and materially affect the interests of the country. One of the principles acted on most perseveringly and most consistently through many ages by every successive British ministry, was to cultivate a good understanding with Por-
744
tugal, and to take care that the influence of this country at the Court of Lisbon should be superior to, and preponderate over, that of France. At this time in particular this duty ought not to be lost sight of, for it was reported that France had undertaken the task, in which we had failed, of reconciling the differences that existed in the House of Braganza. Were we to be second only in such an affair? Were we to endeavour to attain the object we ought to have most at heart, through the mediation of a Bourbon? By such a course we were enabling France to regain her influence in Portugal, while our own, which was already shaken, would be entirely lost. He trusted that their Lordships at least would not become a party to such policy, but that they would show to Europe, that they were not so lost to all sense of justice as to sanction a flagrant and uncalled-for violation of the law of nations, and that they were not so inattentive to the interest of the nation as to abandon the advantages which this country must always derive from a strict alliance with Portugal. He had only now to invite their Lordships to a concurrence in the Resolutions he had proposed.
The Resolutions having been put by the Lord Chancellor,
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that although their Lordships had been three or four times already called upon to discuss this question, yet he felt perfectly well satisfied that the noble Lord had thought proper to bring it once more under their consideration; for he was well convinced that the more the subject was examined and understood, the greater would be the certainty of their Lordships giving their sanction to the course which his Majesty's Ministers had adopted. The noble Lord had proposed a series of resolutions which, as he had heard them that night for the first time, it could not be supposed that he was prepared to discuss minutely. Some truth there doubtless was in the narrative contained in the noble Lord's resolutions; but it was dashed with circumstances well calculated to give any one who read it a very erroneous notion of the transaction. The subject was indeed highly important; but their Lordships should view it candidly and dispassionately: it was even a subject, he would say, on which their Lordships should rather distrust first impressions; and moreover, the character of the trans-

745
action depended altogether on its being viewed as a whole, from its commencement to its conclusion. The importance of thus viewing this transaction, — of viewing it as a whole,—imposed upon him the necessity of troubling their Lordships with a narrative of the facts that were connected with it. But first of all let him allude to the position in which this country stood with respect to Portugal, at the time this transaction took place. That position was one of strict neutrality. Whether the choice of that position was right or wrong had nothing to do with the present question. It might have been right,—it might have been wrong, but he had not heard it objected to in that House; and the noble Lord who proposed these resolutions had said, that he would not enter into the discussion of that point. It might have been right to have supported the legitimate sovereign of Portugal; but that course had not been contended for in that House. He knew, indeed, that it had been stated out of the House; and he must say, he thought it would have been only fair to have raised the point in the House, where it might have been met in argument, and the opinions of their Lordships taken upon it; it had been stated out of the House, that the Government ought to have supported the claims of the legitimate government of Portugal. Again, on the other hand, it might have been right to accede to the almost unanimous opinion of Portugal, and acknowledge the prince whom the Portuguese had chosen as their king. Neither of these courses, however, had been adopted; the course adopted was that of strict neutrality, and all he claimed from their Lordships, on the present occasion, was to agree with him that, such a course having been adopted, it was necessary that it should be faithfully observed. For of all the systems that might have been adopted, that which alone was perfectly indefensible was, to lay down a course of neutrality in the first instance, and afterwards to interpret that course according to our opinions, our feelings, or our interests. Having declared then that the course resolved upon by the Government was one of strict neutrality, and that it was necessary to maintain that course faithfully, he would proceed shortly to recapitulate the circumstances of this transaction. After the defeat at Oporto,—
746
or he should rather say, after the flight from Oporto, for where there had been no engagement there could be no defeat,— after the flight from Oporto, the fugitives betook themselves to Spain. At this point it was, that the good offices of this country in their favour were first interposed. The Spanish government ordered them to quit Spain within a month; but by the interference of the British Government the period of their stay in Spain was prolonged, and facilities were given towards their embarkation. Application was then made to this country for transports to convey these troops hither. This our Government could not consent to; but it promised, that if the troops came here, they should be hospitably received, and that accommodation should be provided for them for a time. The troops arrived here about the end of August; and here followed, he must say, the first and the only error of which the Ministers had been guilty. The Government ought, perhaps, to have insisted upon the immediate dispersion of these troops. But when their Lordships considered the deplorable condition in which the men were, and the promise which was made that they should shortly be carried to Brazil, he was sure their Lordships would consider that it was no very extravagant stretch of humanity in the Government to act as it did. The troops, on arriving hero, declined the accommodation which was offered them at Plymouth and at Portsmouth, and they preferred remaining together at Plymouth, where they formed what they called a depot,—where they were disciplined, officered, and, in fact, exhibited every appearance that belonged to a military force. Indeed, it was not denied that they were a military force, and nothing else. In the month of October the Marquis of Barbacena informed the noble Duke (Wellington) near him, in a letter, that he intended to despatch a portion of these troops (for so the Marquis termed them) to the Azores. In order to form a correct judgment of the subsequent transactions, the condition of the Azores at that time must not be lost sight of. Every one of the islands was under Don Miguel, excepting only the island of Terceira, and the condition of that island, but of that island alone, was doubtful. It was doubtful in this way:—the population was in favour of Don Miguel, but the garrison of the fortress, disarming the

747
inhabitants, established the government of Don Pedro, or of Donna Maria,—he did not know which, nor did they, as he believed. The inhabitants, however, were universally in favour of Don Miguel, as were the inhabitants of all the other islands. Such was the state of the island at the time to which he alluded, and such, he believed, was the state of the island at present. This being the condition of Terceira, his noble friend thought, and very properly thought, that it was his duty to tell the Marquis of Barbacena that he could recognise no foreign troops in this country, and that if there were any such, they must instantly disperse, adding, at the same time, that they could not be permitted to go in hostility to any part of the Portuguese dominions. This decision of the noble Duke was hot acquiesced in. At the end of November, it was intimated by the Government that these troops must disperse and distribute themselves in the neighbouring towns; and their chiefs were given to understand that their union at Plymouth was inconsistent with the neutral character which his Majesty had assumed. This led to a discussion, the history of which their Lordships held in their hands. It would be sufficient for him to say, that at last it was fixed that the troops should go to the Brazils; but changing their determination, they found means, by false clearances, to take their departure, and they set sail for Terceira. The continuance of these troops for several months, at Plymouth, armed and disciplined, was the part of the transaction in which he regarded the Ministers as most blame able, for allowing it was manifestly a breach of our neutral character. The noble Lord (the Marquis of Clanricarde) had alluded to an authority which he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had quoted on a former occasion, and had considered it as an authority in favour of his own view of this subject. The passage he had quoted related to the. retreat of an enemy into a neighbouring country; and it had laid down the maxim, that if such neighbouring power, instead of making such enemy march beyond its frontiers, suffered them to remain in his country, to recover and watch an opportunity of making a new attack, then the power which had discomfited and put to flight this enemy, would have a right to enter and pursue this enemy in the country of the neighbouring power which
748
harboured them. Now this passage perfectly described the state of the Portuguese troops in this country. The strict letter of it, he admitted, described the passage of troops through a country: but if the troops could not pass through the territory—if it were impossible for them to pass through it,— the authority clearly showed that the least which could be required in such a case was, that the troops should be dispersed. The manner, then, in which the Portuguese troops had been allowed to remain at Plymouth was, he repeated, a manifest breach of neutrality on our part. Don Miguel might have demanded that they should be dispersed, and, if this demand had not been complied with, Don Miguel might have followed them into the port of Plymouth, and destroyed them there. The law of nations would have justified Don Miguel in this course, and it was, perhaps, only his inability that prevented him from resorting to it. As to the character and the conduct of Don Miguel,—as to whether Don Miguel had put himself in such a condition that he could not lay claim to be treated as a neutral,—this had nothing to do with the present question. This might have been a reason why we should not have promised neutrality, but after we had made the promise, it could be no reason, no justification for our breaking it. The course which the Ministers had pursued had been adopted by them because they thought it their duty to adopt it, and they had done so without any reference to Don Miguel. Now as to this expedition to Terceira, it was quite clear that it was a hostile expedition. The noble Lord had said, that it was an expedition to the territory of their Queen, and that therefore there could be nothing of hostility in it. But, in the first place, he contended that it could make no difference whether the expedition was intended for attack or for defence, because it was equally at variance with the laws of neutrality: and because, judged by these laws, a seasonable supply of troops for the defence of a besieged fortress was just as much an act of hostility as any other act could be. Neither did it matter, he should contend, in whose possession the spot happened to be at that time. He looked upon Terceira just as he should look upon Oporto; they were equally parts of the Portuguese territory, and towards that territory it was, that we had

749
declared neutrality. Then, again, as to these troops sailing for Terceira unarmed, that could not in the least degree alter the character of the expedition. Owing to that fraud to which the noble Lord had alluded, on the part of a Brazilian agent, arms had preceded these troops to the island, and the Government were acquainted with the fact that the arms had been sent thither. Still, however, the fact of these men sailing without arms did not alter the character of the expedition; but when the Government knew that arms had been sent to Terceira, that fact undoubtedly made them suspect that the troops were destined for the same island. Long before these troops left Plymouth, their chiefs had been informed that our Government entertained these suspicions, and they were told that we had a fleet at Terceira, and that they would be prevented from landing there if they should venture to make the attempt. It was unfairly colouring this transaction, then, to say that we had followed unarmed men and cruelly fired upon them. With these many and repeated warnings they ought to have expected what would follow, if, in the face of them, they should attempt a landing at Terceira. And since it could not, he apprehended, be doubted that we had a right to disperse these troops on their arrival in England, and that, moreover, we had a right to prevent their departure from this country on a hostile expedition to any part of the Portuguese territory, the only question was, whether we had a right to prevent them from doing that by fraud which it was our duty to prevent them from doing openly. If we had allowed them to do this, we should indeed have acted in violation of the law of nations. He contended, that we were fully justified in doing that which, if we had not done, it would have exposed his Majesty to a just cause for war; and although from the state of the power which would have had a right to declare war against us, there was no actual danger of war, yet the sincerity of his Majesty might have been justly questioned. Such an occurrence it was at all times more desirable, more necessary, for a leading monarch to avoid, than it was for him to shun any danger that war might threaten. The noble Lord who so strongly objected to the course which the Government had taken, appeared to have forgotten that there were other periods of
750
our history at which the same principle had been acted upon. Let him call that noble Lord's attention to one very recent instance. In 1826, when the constitution, which had raised so much commotion in Portugal, was brought into that country, a body of Portuguese fled to Spain, and afterwards threatened to return. Now, it was not pretended that any Spaniard had entered, or was about to enter Portugal, yet the Portuguese refugees had received aid and comfort from Spain, which enabled them to return. The Court of Spain denied that they were parties to the expedition of their refugees, and said that their authority had not sanctioned any part of the proceedings. We, however, gave no credit to the Court of Spain, and in the same way Don Miguel might have distrusted our professions of neutrality, if our conduct had resembled that of the Court of Spain. Well, on the occasion to which he was alluding, we sent a British force to resist the attack of the refugees, as though they had been a foreign force hostile to Portugal; and we obtained, moreover, from the Court of Spain the dispersion and the removal of the refugees into the interior of the country. Now this was a case precisely in point, and it would have given Don Miguel a light to remonstrate, and to insist upon our adopting the same line of conduct which we had required from Spain. According, therefore, to the plain sense and justice of this case, and considering the neutral character of his Majesty, the Ministers could not have acted otherwise than they had acted. What the noble Lord had said about the position of this country with respect to Portugal, and the negotiations of France, was altogether founded on misapprehension. The noble Lord was, he assured him, quite mistaken. The noble Lord might rest perfectly satisfied that we were not second in any proceeding of this kind; but that, on the contrary, the whole had originated with, and had been arranged by, this country. It might be true that in the course Ministers had adopted they had displeased both parties, in the disputes with respect to the Portuguese succession; but if that were true, he was not sure that it was not a proof of the strictness of their neutrality, and of the complete impartiality of their proceedings. The noble Lord, who thought that we had acted favourably towards the one party, might be assured that that party was by no

751
means of that opinion; and though the noble Lord might think our conduct had benefitted that party, the party himself was far from thinking so. With respect to the resolutions proposed by the noble Lord, though they embodied a narrative which was in many respects correct, yet as the object of them was to pronounce a censure which was, in his opinion, most undeserved, upon the conduct of Government in regard to this transaction, he should feel it his duty to oppose them.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that he had been listening very attentively to the speech of the noble Secretary, in order to obtain some information on this subject, but that he found that speech to be no answer at all to the points that had been brought forward by the noble Lord near him. The noble secretary's speech had been an account of what had been done, but of nothing else. The reception of the Portuguese troops at Plymouth he admitted to have been a breach of neutrality, but was that any justification of the other breach of neutrality which had been committed by following them upon the high seas, and preventing them from landing at Terceira? Certainly not; unless it was meant to be argued that as the Government had broken the neutrality on the one side, it was a proof of their impartiality to break it on the other. No answer, he contended, had been given to the arguments of the noble Lord near him on that part of the case. The noble Secretary could not mean to say that the misdeeds of the Marquis Itabayana, who had committed the fraud, were to be visited on the heads of these unfortunate refugees. That fraud might have justified remonstrance to the Court of Brazil, but it ought not to have regulated the conduct of Government with regard to the refugees. Again, as to the false clearances: that transaction might have been very wrong, and might have justified our stopping the troops in our own ports, but it did not give us a right to pursue them across the Atlantic, and then fire into their ships. Then the noble Secretary attempted to justify the conduct of Government, by alluding to the transaction of 1826. Those Portuguese, however, were deserters; they left Portugal and retired to Spain, without arms; but they returned with arms, and with the actual support of Spain. But supposing the two cases to have been similar and parallel, would Spain, upon
752
that occasion, have been justified in following the Portuguese refugees into Portugal, and there knocking them upon the head? He apprehended not: and yet the case was not a case in point, as the noble Secretary had called it, unless the parallel could be pursued throughout. The noble Earl slated, that it appeared doubtful in whose possession Terceira actually was; but it was stated in the correspondence of the Marquis of Palmella, that it had never yielded obedience as he stated to the usurper Don Miguel, but had preserved its allegiance to Donna Maria, and it claimed in that respect the merit of having resisted the government of the usurper, and of not having violated the oaths it had taken to the august father of Don Pedro. The same nobleman said, that the Island of Terceira had remained the subject of Donna Maria, that is to say, it had remained in the same political situation in which it was immediately preceding the revolt in Portugal. From both these statements it was clear that Terceira was not in the possession of Don Miguel. But it was said that the refugees had no right to go there for purposes of defence; but be could not understand that. The noble Duke had stated that they might go to Portugal or the Azores, or where they pleased, and they very naturally inferred that they might go where they pleased, for whatever purpose they liked, provided it were loyal and honest. He did expect, that for the sake of the honour of the country, he should have heard some satisfactory explanation from the noble Secretary with respect to the transaction in question, and in answer to the speech of the noble Marquis.
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, that he had at least the consolation, should his motion be negatived, of knowing that it was so on grounds which could not be generally satisfactory. The noble Earl had alluded to the case of neutrality only, and that in a very incomplete manner. As for the possession of Terceira, it was clear that the government of that island was in the hands of Donna Maria, and was exercised in her name. The comparison drawn by the noble Earl between this case and Spain did not hold good; for it was a fair ground of war against Spain, that she harboured Portuguese deserters and sent them back armed to annoy Portugal. On that occasion we interfered to preserve the peace of Europe. We

753
were bound to protect Portugal, which we did, against Spain. He should certainly take the sense of the House on his Motion, and if it were negatived, he should enter his protest against the proceeding.
Lord Hollandshould not have ventured to trouble the House with any observations on the subject, but after the manner in which it had been treated, he could not allow it to go to a vote without expressing his surprise at the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers. When this unfortunate and painful subject first came before the House, the Government appeared to be panting and longing for an opportunity to give an explanation of the whole of their conduct; yet now, neither in the speech of the noble Earl, nor in the defence put before the House, on which the Government rested its case, was one word said directly or indirectly on that branch of the subject which formed the principal ground of the Motion of his noble friend below him. It had been the custom when the affairs of Portugal were introduced in that House, to elude the question, by professing an unbounded love of peace, a strict and austere adherence to the terms of our conventions with other countries, and a most unbounded respect for the opinion of the people in them. In had been found, for instance, in the present case, that in the unanimous opinion of the people of Portugal (by what magic the noble Earl had taken the exact poll of the people of Portugal it was hard to say), the Government of Don Miguel was preferred to the charter accorded by Don Pedro. The noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government sometimes shewed that he understood the tactics of debate as well as he did those of the field. He had spoken on these questions several times, and although he had said little to elucidate the subject referred to, he had obtained one great advantage, he had contrived to impress the public with the belief that those who found fault with his Majesty's Government were in fact doing nothing more than urging an unnecessary interference in the affairs of another country, and prompting this Government to impose by its will upon another people a Government which they disliked. He would notice that part of the subject more particularly before he sat down. But with respect to those professions to which he had before alluded, he could not help saying, that when they were made he could not think
754
the noble Duke stood forward with all the advantages which sincerity in his professions was calculated to confer on a Speaker. He could not compliment the noble Duke upon his prodigious anxiety for the will of the people. He knew not where the noble Duke had learnt it— whether in India or on the plains of Waterloo; and he must confess that it did not come with a very good grace on the present occasion from the lips of the noble Duke. The noble Earl who had spoken already was wrong in supposing that he was charged with any pusillanimous love of peace—on the contrary, the charge was, that he had shown a love for a pusillanimous war—not any squeamish dread of interference, but interference where even less than squeamishness ought to have stopped him—not any extravagant love of popular liberty and of the will of the people, but that he had been guilty of a violent outrage on the people of a country most nearly and dearly connected with Great Britain. Let them look at the detail of facts as laid before that House. In the first place, what had been said by the noble Secretary of State was true— that the question must be considered as a whole. He had no objection so to consider it, provided he was not obliged to cut it up as it was cut up in the minds of the noble Lords opposite, and provided the objections to the parts of the transaction were taken separately, and perfectly understood. He did not then object to other parts of the conduct of Government towards Portugal: he did not include in this Motion the treatment of Donna Maria, and the infraction of the rights of her sovereignty;—he might object to these transactions as unkind and unfortunate, but he did not charge them as actual crimes and offences against the law of nations. It was necessary indeed to consider our relations with the individuals and countries interested, and we ought to trace the whole progress of our proceedings with respect to Portugal from cold-hearted indifference towards the constitutionalists, through the various gradations and successive changes of suspicion, jealousy, contumely, ill-temper, up to injury, outrage, oppression, and acts of positive war. And this was what he charged the Ministers with. Who were the persons attacked and ill-treated? They were the subjects of a country most nearly and dearly allied to Great Britain,—persons who held to

755
their allegiance towards a youthful princess whom we ourselves had received and recognized as the legitimate ruler of Portugal, and whom his Majesty, with that generosity which invariably distinguished him, had received with marks of more than common consideration and distinction upon the soil of Great Britain. But to return. Those individuals attempted at Oporto once more to raise the standard of Donna Maria, and failed in the attempt. When forced to look around for an asylum in which they might expect hospitality and protection, they naturally turned their eyes to Great Britain, a country closely allied to their native land, and, as they thought, favourable to the cause of the queen and of the constitution. Could they have anticipated the possibility of such a reception as they had, unfortunately and disgracefully for the character of this country, received at our hands? Could they have imagined that every advantage would have been bestowed upon others, none upon them? Could they have feared that we should have looked with a narrow scrutiny, with searching and jealous eyes, upon their faults or errors, and make these (no matter whether real or imaginary) the wretched pretence of injury and oppression? On their arrival in England, the first observation with which they were met was one applied to them by the noble Secretary of State (then recently appointed, and therefore in all probability not possessed at the time of that sort and extent of knowledge with regard to these individuals which a Minister of the Crown in this country ought to possess),—the noble Lord declared in his place in Parliament his firm opinion that the supporters of Don Miguel were the real friends of Great Britain. Could there be anything more galling for any man who had sacrificed everything to what he considered the real advantage of his country, and as part of that advantage to her close connection with this, than to find on his arrival here, that his enemies and persecutors were deemed the real friends of Portugal and of Great Britain; and that he and his friends were placed among the number of their enemies? He believed this was a hasty and inconsiderate, if not an accidental, assertion on the part of the noble Earl, but he must always regret it as a most unfortunate and unfounded one. He had in his pocket a list of the names of four-and-twenty or thirty of these brave
756
and noble men, and there were individuals not less distinguished for rank, wealth, and talent, than for the unflinching manner in which they had adhered to their principles. Among them were names deservedly dear to many of their Lordships —names always distinguished for endeavouring to maintain inviolate the connexion between Portugal and Great Britain. He should not enumerate them all; but he might be excused for mentioning the name of the Marquis of Palmella, who was a coadjutor of the noble Duke (Wellington) and of those who in concert with him had adjusted the condition of Europe at the conclusion of the war—who had sat in councils and congresses with the noble Duke, and whose character must therefore be well known to him, as it was to most of their Lordships. The Marquis of Palmella had been admitted as a representative of his country at the general congress, where, by the splendor of his talents, by his conciliatory character, by his address, by his zeal in the service of his country, and by the disposition which he manifested to cement the union between England and Portugal, he placed himself upon a level with the first diplomatists of the day, and entitled himself to our lasting gratitude. Another of those individuals was Count Funchal, who, though labouring under the pressure of undeserved misfortune, enlivened by his agreeable talents every society of which he made a part. He spoke of this gentleman from the knowledge which an acquaintance of many years had afforded, and could say, that in him the strongest feelings of patriotism and of honour were united with the most sincere desire to preserve the connexion between the two countries, as the best means of promoting the prosperity of Portugal. Let him also mention as belonging to this band, M. Villa Real, who, he believed, originally had not a very strong prepossession in favour of the constitution, and finally engaged in its support, principally because he thought that by means of it the union that had long subsisted between this country and Portugal might be best preserved. Judge then of the mortification of those men who had suffered so much in the cause of their country, and it might be added, to preserve its connexion with us, at hearing their services denied, and their opponents described as the real friends of England! Such was their reward for espousing the cause of their legitimate

757
sovereign, of the constitution of their country, and of England. They resisted a party favourable to the establishment of Spanish influence in Portugal, with a view to unite these two countries in closer bonds, and weaken or destroy the connexion that had long subsisted between Great Britain and Portugal, and this was their reward! But it seemed, the original cause of all the soreness in the minds of Ministers upon this subject consisted in what had been called the fraud and deceit of the Brazilian minister. He was not going to say one word in justification of that functionary's conduct; assuming it to be as had been represented, it was not necessary to his argument, although he believed a great deal might be said in palliation, if not in direct excuse of that conduct, and that the palliation would rest upon our own persecution. Though he did not deny the abstract right of his Majesty's Government to prohibit the exportation of arms from this country, under particular circumstances, and although he was far from questioning the power which it had used—permitting arms to be exported to Rio de Janeiro, but prohibiting their exportation to Terceira; yet he did say it was an unfriendly and ungracious exercise of our power against the faithful subjects of Donna Maria. This was taking the argument on the lowest ground. The noble Earl said, "We are for strict neutrality." To this, in order to be consistent, it. ought to be added, "We are also for strict impartiality." But had we acted impartially? Certainly not. We acted for our enemy, and against our friend. Taking the matter upon higher grounds, he did not understand the noble Earl's language or acts, when examined by the tests of the law of nations or plain common sense. Ought we to have acted impartially in such a case?— assuming, for the sake of argument, that we had. He thought not; he was opposed to Don Miguel, and in his opinion, the Ministers of this country should also be his opponents. Why? — because he had mounted the Portuguese throne by fraud and treason? No; but because he had become de facto King of Portugal, in the teeth of his promise and sacred obligation to Great Britain, and upon interests (notwithstanding what the noble Earl said) directly hostile to this country. Why, Ministers felt this; they did not acknowledge Miguel as King, and the Princess Donna Maria was residing in our Court,
758
and receiving all the honours due to her rank, and all the consideration due to the peculiarity of her situation. To show the same respect to one of these individuals as to the other would be a contradiction of our own acts and words; and yet the noble Earl talked of being strictly neutral. We were not neutral; we ought not to be neutral; but, after all, we were worse, much worse than neutral in our proceedings towards the subjects of Donna Maria. Let us see how this affected the present question. The Brazilian government applied to us for leave to export arms in a King's ship; it would have been perfectly legal, and no sanction was necessary to export arms in a merchant ship—no order to the. contrary existing—but it rested with Government to give permission or not, as it pleased, for the exportation of arms in a vessel of war. Ministers had the choice of granting permission or refusing it without assigning any reason or instituting any inquiry. But according to the laws of nations was it fair to allow a belligerent government to arm vessels in our ports against an ally? In the present case the Brazilian government was not at war with the government of Don Miguel; but taking it as a belligerent government, was it a breach of neutrality in us to allow it to arm vessels in our ports? There were fifty instances in which the thing had occurred; though he would only refer to the case of Russia, who, in 1770 or 1771, sent for the first time a fleet into the Mediterranean, she being then at war with Turkey. The Russian ships put into Portsmouth and Plymouth, and were there equipped with ammunition and arms. The anti-Russians of that day said (and perhaps with some show of reason), that Russia had fitted out the expedition imperfectly at St. Peters-burgh, for the purpose of availing herself of the advantage of arming it in this country; but we never heard of that having been considered as a declaration of war on our parts against the Turks, with whom we were at peace. Here were we, who considered it necessary to guard against the preponderance of Russia in the Mediterranean, arming her ships in our arsenals to enable them to act against Turkey, our ancient ally. Now, forsooth, if we allowed arms and men to go from our shores to Terceira, his Majesty's Ministers were afraid that this terrible and redoubted Don Miguel would come and swallow us up quickly and destroy us. But be maintained

759
that the Emperor of Brazil was a neutral power according to the law of nations, and therefore there was no pretence for acting as we had done. Granting, however, that the Brazilian minister had disappointed our hopes, and conveyed to Terceira what was intended for Rio de Janeiro; and granting that this was contrary to the law of nations, and opposed to neutrality, it gave us the right of remonstrating,—possibly of going to war with Brazil; but what right had we to say that the subjects of another power, or even other subjects of the same power, should act so-and-so on the high seas? Granting, for the sake of argument, every word which the noble Duke and the noble Earl had said, to be perfectly correct and true as against the Portuguese refugees,—granting that these individuals were conducting themselves in a way such as individuals availing themselves of our national hospitalities had no right to act in,—granting that there were just apprehensions lest Don Miguel should be so touchy upon the point as to be ready to go to war with us, and supposing we were afraid of him— granting all this, what right had we to follow those persons upon the high seas and forcibly control their actions? The noble Earl was no great friend to Don Miguel, judging from the complimentary epithets he had bestowed upon that individual; and whenever the noble Earl sent an ambassador to the Portuguese Court, in order to act consistently he must address his official communications, not to "his most faithful Majesty," but to "his most faithless, cruel, and cowardly Majesty." But notwithstanding all this, how did the matter stand? It appeared that an offence against Don Miguel in England was after all a great deal worse than an offence committed against his Britannic Majesty in the same country,— and that the offenders were to be followed and punished upon the high seas. If individuals had plotted the death of his Majesty,—been guilty of the crime of treason,—committed the greatest outrages, —and escaped to Calais,—should we have had a right to arm a fleet to seize them at Calais? [The Duke of Wellington.— "No."] The noble Duke said "no," but how had we acted in this instance where all the offence of these unfortunate persons (supposing them to be guilty of all the crimes laid to their charge) did not entitle us to inflict punishment upon them within the
760
limits, and certainly not out of the limits, of our own jurisdiction, and within the jurisdiction of another power? Where was our right to do so? That was the real question at issue. The argument with respect to the particular situation of Terceira was little to the purpose; but he found it rather difficult to listen to arguments utterly unfounded in their nature, and contrary to the law of nations, without taking notice of them. It was true the noble Duke (Wellington) said the other night "he could not be supposed to know much of the law of nations." He did not see any thing in the various situations filled by the noble Duke which disqualified him from being acquainted with the law of nations. The noble Duke had been Commander-in-chief of a confederate army,—Ambassador at Paris,— Ambassador at the Congress of Vienna,— and was now the first Minister of the country: there was nothing in any of these offices incompatible with a knowledge of the law of nations. An acquaintance with the subject was rather required by every one of them. It would not appear strange, therefore, if the noble Duke should be supposed to know something of the laws which regulated the relations and intercourse of nations, and were not without their influence upon the laws of war itself. But he did not mean by this to gainsay what the noble Duke had himself said as to his knowledge of the law of nations. By no means. He was not going to advocate, or attempt to prove the noble Duke's acquaintance with the matter. If he meant to do so, he must say the noble Duke had furnished him with a most miserable brief in his correspondence on this subject. Every word of the correspondence was directly against the supposition that the noble Duke knew any thing about the law of nations. The noble Duke and the noble Earl first considered the island of Terceira and the Azores as "a whole;" the law of nations would not bear them out in considering them so; but no matter, they were resolved to consider them as one entire whole. Then the noble Lords, after considering all the Azores as a whole, said "we will consider the island of Terceira as divided into two or three parts." Why? —because it was in a state of war! But on the face of the papers it appeared that the direct contrary was asserted and remained uncontradicted. When he looked

761
at the correspondence, he found it absolutely stated there that Terceira was, and always had been, in the possession of Donna Maria; but the noble Lord denied this, and said the island was in a state of civil war. When speaking on another occasion of a somewhat larger island than Terceira (the island of Candia), it had been said that Candia was in a state of civil war—and he believed it had been in that condition for more than seven years— but noble Lords opposite said we were not so to consider it. It was said, "True, the people are Greeks, and they are uneasy— very uneasy—but then the ports are in the hands of the Turks; they are the ruling power, and you call upon us to make war upon our allies by interfering on the ground of some civil dissensions, which you call civil war." To steer from Candia somewhat westward, and come to Terceira, we found the island in the hands of Donna Maria's subjects, with a few sulky monks skulking in the mountains, —some civil dissensions,—and Ministers cried out immediately, "Oh, there is civil war there,—civil war enough to justify us in preventing this expedition from proceeding." Noble Lords opposite had furnished their Lordships with some papers on the subject, but not with all. What they had furnished supplied them with no plausible defence for their own conduct; but, where that was wanting, they were not very nice about their assertions, and so made out the best case they could. The observations of the noble Earl seemed to imply that the information offered by the noble Marquis to the House was not correct in all points. Perhaps not: but it could not be denied that in the four ships there were no others than Portuguese on board;—no foreigners,—no Germans, as had been alleged. But even if there had been German soldiers on board, the matter ought not to have given rise to the transaction in question. But the noble Lord said, the soldiers cheered with delight the word "expedition." How were they to be divested of their character of troops? When they came into this country they might have been dispersed, but Ministers did not adopt that measure: such being the case, they should not afterwards have taken advantage of their own laches. But, assuming that these unarmed men did possess the character of troops, what right had we to interfere with the subjects of Donna Maria, an independent sovereign?
762
—no, not an independent sovereign, for she depended upon our favour and protection, which had been first afforded, and then groundlessly withdrawn. The noble Lord said "Look at the case of Spain;" but that case was completely different from the present. The noble Duke (Wellington) shook his head at this assertion, but he (Lord Holland) was willing to stake the issue of the question upon the noble Duke's own words. He had formerly heard the noble Duke speak, and seen him vote on the subject: the noble Duke on that occasion, taking great credit to himself (as he was undoubtedly entitled to do), for his extensive military and local knowledge, confirmed his vote by stating that he took upon himself to say, as a military man well acquainted with the localities, that the frontiers of Portugal were actually invested by the force referred to. Did the present case at all resemble that? He thought not. Here not more than 600 men sailed in each vessel; and to say that 3,000 troops had been sent away for Terceira, was a gross exaggeration, for there were only four vessels. To return to the case of Spain, it had been truly said that she ought not to be permitted to receive Portuguese deserters, and make use of them for the annoyance of Portugal. But that she did receive and arm them was undoubted; and it was equally clear that efforts were made by the government of that country to combine the influence of a corresponding faction in both countries, in order to promote disturbances in Portugal. But he did not think that case at all in point in the present instance, or that if the two cases were similar, there existed ground for interference in the latter; or that it afforded a dignus vindice nodus. This was not a case in which a neutral country should step forward. He believed it all originated in a little pique and offence taken by Ministers about the arms; and that if they had been sent out in a merchantman instead of a Brazilian frigate, we should not have heard a word on the subject or seen an act done. He saw by the manner of noble Lords at this moment, that they drew a great and broad distinction between the use of a king's ship and a merchantman for this purpose; but he was talking of the matter as it affected Portugal. If the Queen of Portugal had arms at Terceira, did it matter how they got there? But Don Miguel would say

763
to us, "You knew very well that there were arms at Terceira, and yet you sent out the constitutionalists thither: this is a ground for a declaration of war." If the noble Duke happened to be travelling in a neutral country, would he not think it hard if a belligerent were to say "Don't let that great man go; I know he will have the command of an army on the frontier, which is prepared by my opponent, and only waits his arrival to commence operations against me,—therefore don't let him pass; he is a host in himself—the army is nothing without him; and recollect, if you do allow him to join the army, I will go to war with you." Now this was pretty much the case of the men and the arms in the present instance—the arms were at Terceira, and we who ought to have acted as neutrals would not allow the men to land lest they should use them. Would Don Miguel have picked a quarrel with us because these unarmed men left our shores for Terceira? Had he done so? The noble Duke said on a former evening that other governments had not done their duty—if they had, this obstacle at Terceira would not have existed. Yet the noble Earl said he was willing to be tried by public opinion—of course he did not include the opinions of governments "which had not done their duty," and would hardly appeal to such a tribunal. The language employed on that occasion appeared to him rather extraordinary. He himself had been sometimes rebuked (he hoped without much foundation) for using too warm and intemperate language when speaking of acts of ministers of which he had disapproved; but it was a different thing for an individual to state his opinion with respect to the conduct of a Minister, and for a Minister to bring a charge against other countries of not having done their duty in an important matter. Ministers appeared impartial in expressing unfavourable opinions upon governments in some cases, though they did not always act impartially between them. The noble Earl described a prince, to whom his acts were more favourable than his language (and with respect to whom there seemed at one time tolerably good ground for a supposition that he would be recognized by this country, but he (Lord Holland) believed that idea had now gone by, and for very odd reasons too). Speaking of this potentate, the. noble Lord described him as false, cruel, and cowardly; and then a sort of
764
attack was made upon another branch of the House. But probably noble Lords thought there was nothing wonderful in this; the family were all very odd sort of people! and perhaps one brother did not appear much better in their eyes than the other. Ministers said, "We have been endeavouring these two years to reconcile these two persons: we began the negotiation separately, and we are now carrying it on in conjunction with other states: the negotiation is in some sense going on, and in some sense it is standing still; it is a negotiation to a certain extent, and to a certain extent it is not a negotiation." The whole matter seemed, from the statements of the noble Earl, to be in a most vague and unintelligible condition, having nothing about it more extraordinary than the fact, that the noble Earl regarded our being on very bad terms with both parties as a considerable advantage. Being in bad odour with both sides might prove our justice and impartiality; but such a circumstance was rather inconvenient when we wished to act as mediators, and make peace between them. It appeared, indeed, which was probably the consequence of our peculiar relation to both parties, that the French minister had all the business to himself at Rio de Janeiro; and perhaps it was quite as well that it should be so, for with all his talent for negotiation it was probable the noble Viscount (Strangford) would find himself somewhat at a loss if he went to Don Pedro, and said, "You must make peace with Don Miguel, for we think you much such another fellow as he; we have called him a usurper, and we have likewise accused you of great crimes; so we think you may go together." Really, the subject would be amusing if it were not an important one, requiring the attentive consideration of every British statesman, and a fit subject for the serious consideration of Parliament. When England had lost her hold, as he feared she had, on the affections of the Portuguese people, who had formerly looked up to her with hope and gratitude, he feared there were others ready enough to take advantage of that circumstance. He did see elsewhere the manifestation of a strong disposition to take a more decided course in the cause of liberty and legitimacy (for in this case they happened to be united) than we were prepared to take. Whichever party succeeded in the struggle which the madness of the government of France was

765
now producing in that country, either would have an opportunity of marking, in a manner not to be mistaken, how much more it was the open and decided friend of Portugal than was this country. He did not wish to throw out illiberal reflections and insinuations against the government of France, in whatever hands it might eventually be placed, but still he had so much of the John Bull Englishman about him, though unable to give into the mean dirty jealousy of refusing to do justice to France, that he wished the Government carefully to refrain from the adoption of any course which would have the effect of giving that country a chance of acquiring an ascendancy over Portugal, which, if the opportunity were afforded, he would not say that it was not its duty to secure. At the same time, to do the French government justice, it was only fair to say, that in all the changes which had taken place since the peace, it had shown every disposition to leave us to act for ourselves in our own concerns, direct or indirect; but if we spurned from us our natural friends, and through connivance or neglect allowed our natural enemies to triumph, offering no resistance to a connection between Spain and Portugal, France would not fail to avail herself of opportunities, which British statesmen ought not to afford her. Look at the situation of Europe at the present moment,—observe that in the Mediterranean France was likely enough to reap a harvest of glory and honour such as had usually been reserved for the British flag. See England every where falling into the rank of a second-rate power: contrast the situation in which she now stood with that which she occupied when the Duke of Wellington was placed at the head of the Administration, and there was nothing cheering or consolatory in the prospect! The only two powers now in existence in Europe were the great military power of Russia, and the power of public opinion in the west of Europe. Both of these were with us in 1827: he feared they were both against us now. He should vote for the present Motion, because, if carried, it might tend to retard the completion of this fatal decline. If agreed to, it might be useful to the Government and the country, as expressing some sympathy with the past sufferings of the individuals referred to in the Motion, and possibly such an expression of their Lordships' opinions might afford some guarantee against the occur-
766
rence of like transactions in future. Let their Lordships add their sympathy to that of the nation, which was roused in favour of the Portuguese refugees, and if aided by Parliament, would acquire twice its force. It was well known that if the noble Duke (Wellington) sometimes unfortunately followed a narrow course, he could turn round in a short time and free himself and the country from the mischief entailed by persisting in it. He hoped and trusted such might be the case upon the present occasion. A light might have broken in on the noble Duke from some quarter or other within the last two months (he hoped it had) which might perhaps show him that it would be better, he did not say to prepare for war, but to support the interests of Donna Maria with more energy, sincerity, and decision than before. Conceiving this Motion to be one which contained statements incontrovertible in point of fact, and strong allegations in favour of sound principles; seeing that it proposed to vindicate the honour of the country, that it was dictated by feelings which did great credit to the noble mover, believing it would be advantageous in a public point of view, and that to adopt it would be neither unseasonable nor improper, he felt great pleasure in saying "Content."
The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, however anxious he might have been that noble Lords should have an opportunity of discussing the affair of Terceira, that had certainly been afforded them, both in this and the last Session of Parliament. That was he believed the fourth time it had been under discussion, and he conceived that every objection which had been introduced had been plainly and satisfactorily answered; but he must say, that a more extraordinary mode of bringing forward the discussion than that which had been resorted to on this occasion had never occurred in any instance whatsoever. The noble Lords who supported this Motion, after admitting that this country had a right to remain neutral,—after admitting that Great Britain had a fair and just right to remain neutral, or to adopt either of the two courses which were open to her with respect to these contending parties,— those noble Lords now stood forward and certainly did pronounce the most severe and the most uncalled-for invectives against his Majesty's Ministers, for pursuing that line of conduct to which they had thought proper to adhere. He would assert, that

767
after the affair of Oporto, if they had previously entertained any doubt of the propriety of remaining neutral, they must have been convinced that neutrality was the only course they could pursue, unless they sent out an army to Portugal, to conquer that country for Donna Maria, and to uphold the new Portuguese constitution. He was at the same time perfectly convinced, if any such project had been laid before their Lordships, that they would at once have rejected it, and looked upon such a proceeding as one unworthy of this country. He would contend, that those who took the course which was now complained of,—those who supported a system of neutrality,—did so because they saw that the whole kingdom of Portugal, civil as well as military, was adverse to the party which wished to interfere with the then existing state of things; but with this fact in evidence before them, the noble Lords came forward and pronounced the most violent invectives against Ministers, because, instead of adopting that sort of proceeding which he had just pointed out, they had deemed it more advisable to remain neutral in the contest. Having determined, then, thus to continue neutral, how did Ministers afterwards act? They did all they could, in the first instance, to save that body of men whose designs had totally failed. They were received in this country in the best possible manner; but certainly they were not received as a body of troops. Ministers did not know them or recognise them in that capacity. Ministers did not, and could not, know them as a body of troops, sustained and supported by the English creditors of the Portuguese government. Those men, however, with the exception of not being in arms, were, in every other respect, doing all the duties of the military profession and that, too, under the very guns of one of his Majesty's naval arsenals. There they remained for four months; yes, for two months after the period when he was informed, by a person best able to give accurate information on the subject, that these men were organised as a body of troops. His noble friend near him (the Earl of Aberdeen) had stated that the party in Portugal which supported the government of Don Miguel consisted of the decided friends to this country. The fact really was so. He had stated the other night, and he now repeated the statement, that, with the exception of a' very small
768
number of people, this country had not an enemy in Portugal. When Ministers saw that the entire body of the people were in favour of Don Miguel, when they saw that a great body of the population, including many persons of rank and distinction, were the friends of Don Miguel—how were they to act? Why, the first proposition was this—" Shall we give to a body of troops, now collected together in this country, convoy to the Azores?" That proposition was made to Government, and it was very justly refused. Those people were told by him, and it was one of the points much relied on by noble Lords, that they might proceed as individuals to the Azores if they pleased. He certainly might have left out that part of the letter without any detriment to it. But he would ask, did those persons go out as individuals? He contended that they did not. They remained together as a body of troops; and as such, with their officers, they intended to proceed to Terceira. That was the first information which reached him; and on the 15th of October he received further intelligence of the manner in which they were paid. He was told that they were daily increasing in numbers; and that the addition to their numbers included many foreign troops who were engaged in Germany and the Low Countries to join the Portuguese at Plymouth. Was it proper, he would ask their Lordships, that a body of troops, not only Portuguese but Germans, should be allowed to assemble under the guns of the arsenal of Plymouth, for the invasion of Portugal, and that his Majesty's Ministers should take no notice of such a proceeding? Were those men to remain there, while transports were preparing in Plymouth Sound to convey them on a martial expedition, and Ministers to look on without interfering? The subject was maturely considered by Government, and those men were ordered to separate, and to proceed to different places in the neighbourhood. The noble Earl had endeavoured to draw a distinction between those persons assembled at Plymouth, and the Portuguese who took refuge in Spain. He said, that the troops who had thus entered Spain from Portugal were deserters. It was true they were deserters; but it was equally true that there was a special article in existence, with respect to deserters, between the two governments of Spain and Portugal. The noble Earl did not seem to be aware of an arrangement by

769
which it was agreed, that on the giving up of arms on both sides, there should be an end of the question with respect to deserters. The troops, therefore, who took refuge in Spain were precisely in the same situation as the Portuguese troops in this country; and when it was found that those individuals were marched on an expedition hostile to Portugal, a body of troops was at once sent from this country to defend Portugal. But then the noble Lord said, "Ay, but the Portuguese troops in Spain were armed, and the Portuguese troops here were not." But he would very soon show the fallacy of any argument founded upon that point. Here came the question as to the correctness of the assumption of the noble Baron who had spoken last, and whose speech had so much entertained the House. How stood the fact? Why the truth was, that the arms of the Portuguese troops who had left this country had absolutely gone before them. And in his letter of the 22nd of September, to the Marquis of Palmella, he stated that the arms of those troops had already been sent abroad. It was the fact that he then pointed out the mode in which those arms were sent out of the country, and the trick that was played in order to effect that object. Arms and ammunition were secured at Terceira by means of the trick which he had described in that very letter. It was explicitly stated in that letter, that the troops remaining in the town of Plymouth, commanded by General Stubbs, contrary to his Majesty's prohibition, had already sent their arms to Terceira. The fact was correct; it was as he had stated, the arms of those persons were on the spot before they left this country. Arms were ready when they arrived there to enable them to carry on operations at the Azores, contrary to the avowed neutrality of this country. The next point to which he would draw their Lordships' attention was one which those who spoke in support of the Motion appeared to have left out of the discussion, but which was, nevertheless, worthy of notice. He wished their Lordships to examine the papers, and to mark the moment when orders were given for a British force to proceed to Terceira, to prevent the scheme from being carried into execution which Ministers were perfectly aware was in contemplation. Fair notice was given to the Marquis of Palmella, and he was earnestly entreated not to suffer that scheme to be carried into
770
execution. Not only was he advised not to give a sanction to these troops for carrying into effect the hostile purpose, which was admitted by him in the course of the correspondence to be in agitation; but when measures were taken to oppose and to prevent it, full notice of them was given to him. The question then came to this—if Ministers thought it necessary that those troops should be dispersed—if they deemed it necessary to give notice that they would prevent the execution of that hostile purpose which they knew was contemplated,—whether they could find any other and better mode of acting than that which they had adopted? That was the first question. He knew that they might have made those people disperse by means of force, and he thought that they would have been justified in doing so; but he asked whether that would be considered a discreet and wise exercise of authority? Suppose they resisted, he knew not what their Lordships would have thought of that. If, again, they were dispersed over the country, how were they to be treated? Were they to be dealt with in the same manner as the Germans, who some time ago were proceeding to Brazil? Were they to be thrown on the bounty of the country for a twelvemonth, as had been the case with the Germans, because the Brazilian minister would not provide for them, and they were finally sent away at the expense of this country? Was that the way in which they were to be dispersed? Then, he wanted to know from their Lordships, if Ministers were not to do this, what they were to do?—how they were to proceed? But the noble Lord said, that this Government might have prevented them from going to Terceira. To that he would answer, that they went out of port under false appearances; and when they went out thus, how was Government to prevent them? They declared that they were going to Rio Janeiro, a step which his Majesty's Government could not prevent. At one time, the Portuguese minister said, they were proceeding to Terceira, and at another, he named Rio Janeiro as their place of destination. Government at once declared to those parties, that if they attempted to proceed to Terceira or Portugal, they would certainly be intercepted; but they left this country under the false pretence that they were going to Rio Janeiro. Then it was demanded of Ministers, when these men

771
adopted a false pretence, why his Majesty's Government did not act? But surely their Lordships must see that Ministers could do nothing but take the step which they had taken. Then they came to the consideration of the law of nations. He believed that it was allowed by the law of nations, where the neutrality of a country was actually violated, for that country to interfere with those by whom it had been violated. He was of opinion, that it was competent to any power to prevent a scheme from being carried into effect which was connected with a violation of neutrality. In ordinary cases, perhaps, direct intervention might be considered a violation of the law of nations; but he contended that circumstances might occur which would render that intervention justifiable; and, in his opinion such circumstances were disclosed in this case. He admitted with the noble Lord, that it was a very important point, and deserved their Lordships' consideration, whether this infraction of our neutrality was one which ought to have induced his Majesty's Ministers to take such a step as they had done. Now, with respect to Terceira, he would only say, that it was a very important station in a commercial point of view, especially as it respected ships coming from the westward or southward. He was well aware of the statements made by the noble Baron as to the strength and importance of that place; but the argument which the noble Baron had raised on that point cut both ways. As it was a strong and important place, it might be fit for the friends of Donna Maria to possess it; but it also involved a point of very serious interest with reference to the power of England, and to her commerce and navigation, because he felt strongly the importance of not allowing Don Pedro, the Emperor of Brazil, now that the two governments were divided, from coming, by any means, into the possession of any of the ancient dominions of Portugal. He therefore said it was the policy of this country—and good policy also—not to allow him to become possessed of Terceira, if they could possibly prevent it. With respect to the blockade of Oporto, it appeared to him, that in recognizing it Ministers had only done their duty. It was a blockade de facto by a power having possession of naval means to support that blockade; and according to all rules on which this country had acted, it was a blockade which the
772
British Government had a right to respect. But not only were Ministers blamed for respecting that blockade, but they were also censured for not having instituted a blockade themselves. But after what had occurred at Lisbon and Oporto, there could be no ground for such a proceeding. The different motions on this subject were all of a similar character. None of them were calculated to produce public benefit; and on this, as on former occasions, he would meet the Motion with a negative.
Lord Goderichsaid, the noble Lord opposite had complained that the present was now the third or fourth time when this subject had been brought under the consideration of their Lordships; and he seemed to urge that as a reason for not acceding to the Motion. Now, he could not help feeling, when he considered the circumstances in which their Lordships were placed with respect to this question, that those circumstances justified his noble friend in again expressing his opinion. At the close of the last Session of Parliament, his Majesty was advised to lay before their Lordships certain papers explanatory of the course which his Majesty had been counselled to pursue. At that time his noble friend, the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, challenged inquiry on this subject; but it was then totally impossible for any noble Lord to stir one step in the business, because Parliament rose, he believed, the day after those papers were produced. In the next Session, the question of Portugal formed part of the matter contained in his Majesty's Speech, and when the Address was moved, the subject of Terceira was noticed as a matter of great importance in itself, but of still greater importance when viewed in reference to our communications with Portugal. But what said the noble Duke on that occasion? He made it a matter of complaint that, the subject was brought forward on the first night of the Session, when he had not had time to refresh his memory. It was, therefore, unreasonable for him to object to the Question now, when it was introduced as a substantive Motion. The time which had elapsed might perhaps have lessened the interest attached to the subject; but certainly it did appear to him that nothing could be more reasonable or proper, when his Majesty's advisers had laid before Parliament their views on a certain question, than for any noble Lord to bring that question under

773
the consideration of the House. He did not mean to go at length into this subject, but having looked to it with all that coolness and deliberation which his noble friend had recommended, he could see no reason for coming to any other conclusion than that which he had formerly stated. His noble friend and the noble Duke had applied themselves to show that in the earliest parts of this transaction they had taken the most proper course. They told their Lordships that the Portuguese at Plymouth had formed themselves into battalions, that they had become a regular military body, and that, although without arms, they were, strictly speaking, troops, and were arrayed here contrary to the law of England. He admitted, and he had always so expressed himself, that Ministers had a right to say to them that they should not remain in such a posture in this country. But that was no answer for what was done afterwards. Ministers might declare to them, "You cannot remain here as a regimented body:" but they had no right, power, or authority, to put them to death after they had left this country. A neutral might undoubtedly tell persons who were at variance with a power to which that neutral was bound by pacific ties, to leave his territory as fast as they could. It was not in our power to direct a body of hostile persons to march over a frontier, in consequence of our insulated situation. We might, however, send them away; and we had no right afterwards to pursue them all over the world. Suppose there was a war in France, and that some of the belligerent parties went into the Netherlands. The King of the Netherlands might declare, "My neutrality will not allow me to suffer you to remain here menacing the country from which you have fled. You must depart from it." They might then proceed to Prussia: and if Prussia did not allow them to stop there, but drove them back again to the Netherlands, leaving them no mode of escape except by sea, would it be right, when they were placed in that state, for the King of the Netherlands to chase them all over the globe? There was no doctrine in the law of nations so preposterous and absurd as that. But the noble Duke stated, that he had told the Marquis Palmella that he had no objection to those persons going abroad as individuals; but with that candour which distinguished every thing the noble Duke
774
said, he had admitted that this was an unfortunate expression, and he was sorry that he had used it.
The Duke of Wellington.— I said, it would have been just as well if I had not used it. I did not say unfortunate.
Lord Goderich.—Well, that was sufficient for his argument. It did appear to him that the whole proceeding was hasty, inconsiderate, and irregular. And, in his opinion, it arose from the manner in which that correspondence was conducted. They were told to go away from this country as individuals, but they were never told how or in what manner they were to go. They went away in British ships, and were exposed to consequences by the British Government to which they ought not to have been liable. But their Lordships were told, that the course taken with respect to the Portuguese who had escaped to Spain, was the same which Ministers had adopted in this case. It was true the troops were sent back by Spain, but they were armed first and, he believed that they were armed by the Captains-general in Salamanca and Ciudad Rodrigo. Thus, then, a casus fœderis arose, which peremptorily called on this country to defend Portugal from impending aggression. The circumstances of the two cases were perfectly distinct; and it appeared to him to be most extraordinary that Government should resort to such an argument to justify their conduct. Then the noble Duke said, that notice was given to the Portuguese, that they should not go to Terceira. But what law did they violate by going there? Did they violate the municipal law of England by proceeding thither? He contended that they did not. But suppose they did, then the course taken with respect to them appeared still worse; because, if they had violated the laws of England, they were stronger for their own vindication than the law of nations, and under it they might have been brought to trial and punished. It could not be said that we had not the power to prosecute them. If the Ministers stated that, they at once admitted that these men were not violating any law. If that were the case, then he would ask, why should those people be put to death who had not earned that punishment in any way? That he took to be the strong part of the case. Towards the close of his speech, the noble Duke had adverted to one point, which seemed to him to give the whole transac-

775
tion a new character. The noble Duke observed, that it would be a very great misfortune if Don Pedro got possession of any of the ancient dominions of Portugal. Now it was not for him to enter into a speculative argument on this subject. Though he might be of opinion that it would not be right for Don Pedro to possess Terceira or the Azores, still the observation of the noble Duke led him to think that the conduct of the Government was rather influenced by that view, than by any strong feeling on the score of neutrality. That he was afraid was the reason which had led to this result. He could not, of course, dive into the motives of Ministers; but unless something of that kind had influenced them, the observation of the noble Duke had nothing to do with the merits of the case. The question was, whether it was consistent with the law of nations that we should take on ourselves to exercise this extensive authority on the high seas, and within the jurisdiction of that very sovereign whose subjects those people were? Knowing how much this country was interested in regulating all her actions on the strictest principles of justice, and seeing that by pursuing such a course as that which had been adopted by Ministers in this instance we were likely to involve the country in difficulties from which we could not extricate ourselves, he could not avoid supporting the Motion of his noble friend.
The Lord Chancellorexpressed his anxious desire to say a few words on this subject. He was perfectly ready, after all the attacks which had been made, to declare his responsibility for the advice which he had given with respect to the matter in question. He would state to their Lordships, as shortly as possible, the grounds on which he had given his advice,—which, as it appeared to him, was perfectly proper. So far from the conduct of Ministers being blameable, he thought that if they had taken a different course they would have been subject to the just censure of the country. One noble. Lord, who spoke early on the Question, wished to confine it to what the noble Baron called the last catastrophe; but the noble Baron thought it was better to take a wider range, and he availed himself of that privilege to a most extensive degree, for very little of his speech was restricted to that point. The noble Lord having confined himself so little to this portion of the subject,
776
showed a consciousness on his part, that he did not feel himself so strong on that particular circumstance as he could have wished. Now he thought the course chalked out by the noble Baron, in not confining himself to the last catastrophe, was correct; because he was of opinion, that they ought to look to all that had gone before it, and to go step by step in order to convince the country that Ministers had violated no public duty, but that they were imperatively called on to pursue that policy which they had adopted. There was one principle which had been thrown out and suggested in the course of this argument, from which they could not swerve, — namely, that the situation in which this country stood called upon them to maintain a strict line of neutrality between the two disputing parties. Whether that was good policy or not he would not argue. All he would say was, that it was the policy which the present Government, as well as the governments which preceded it, had laid down. If that were correct, then he thought it followed from the premises that the course which Ministers took was perfectly proper. In the first instance it was material to consider what was the conduct of the parties. The noble Baron said that Ministers laid down neutrality as the principle which they meant to act on; but he insinuated that our feeling was not impartial,—that it was all on one side. Now he would refer to facts, and he would do so to show that this charge was totally destitute of foundation. This country afforded a refuge to those individuals who were so unfortunate as to be worsted in the struggle which took place in Portugal; and means were afforded them to facilitate their arrival here. For some time after they were settled at Plymouth no notice was taken of them; but at length it was found that those 3,000 refugees who took shelter in this country had assumed a military character, and that they were paid by the Marquis of Palmella out of funds provided by the Marquis Barbacena. It appeared that General Stubbs had gone down from London to command them, and they had all the character of a military body. As the noble Viscount had said, we could know of no such persons as Portuguese troops in this country; and it was therefore determined, either that they should be divided in cantonments, the officers being separated from the men, or else that they should leave the country. Could Ministers,

777
he would ask, pursue any oilier line of conduct consistently with the dignity and security of the country? Was it ever heard of or known, that a body of troops, disciplined in this country without the knowledge of Government, had been suffered to remain here? It was necessary for the character of Ministers that a stop should be put to such a system. But besides these Portuguese, Ministers learned that there was a body of 200 or 300 Germans recruiting on the Continent, who were to come to this country, and finally to embark with the Portuguese force, for which purpose they had transports in the harbour of Plymouth. He would not depend on any statement of his own, but he would refer to the language of the Marquis Palmella himself, who admitted that the appearance of these troops would excite fear amongst one party, and give confidence to the other. What did he say? Why that this levy of troops would create dismay amongst one party, and give pleasure and delight to the other. As to the law of nations, no one could doubt what he was about to state,— namely, that a body of troops belonging to one of the belligerent parties, and going to a neutral state, could not be allowed to remain there for the avowed object of opposing one party or of supporting another. Such a proceeding could not be tolerated; and on that principle they had acted with respect to Portugal. What was the next step? Why, the Marquis Rarbacena applied for permission—to do what? To embark these men for Terceira: and for what purpose? Why, to give succour to one of the contending parties: for, in considering this case, they must take the whole of the Portuguese dominions as being engaged in the struggle. The Martinis Barbacena wished to proceed there, under a British convoy, to strengthen the young Queen's party. But he asked, if they had consented to that, would they not have been breaking their neutrality? And could any man, if such a project were allowed, attempt to argue that this country had acted fairly? The next proposition was, to send these troops to Rio Janeiro, and Ministers were asked, would they give a guarantee that they should not be molested? They would not give a guarantee, but they offered a convoy; and he doubted much whether they had a right to do so. There was, however, an express arrangement that those persons should go to Rio Janeiro, and not to Terceira; but that
778
engagement had been broken. It was said that all this was harmless, as they were unarmed men. But that argument was altogether untenable, because, as they were organized, they had no right to go there; and he asked what did it matter whether their arms were at Terceira or in this country? When they said they would go to Rio Janeiro, and not to Terceira, be maintained that we had a right to keep them to their promise. They received ample notice, when off Terceira, that they would not be permitted to land. They were desired not to approach, and one or two shots were fired to warn them off; and it was not till they were approaching Praia, that the gun was fired which was attended with such melancholy consequences. The consequences must, however, rest with those who were guilty of the gross breach of faith which he had stated. These were the facts placed in the narrowest compass, and those facts justified him in asserting, that from the beginning to the end good faith was maintained with these parties. Government was willing that they should proceed to Brazil, and it was not until they adopted a contrary course that steps were taken to make them adhere to their engagement. No public right was violated, and therefore there was no occasion for the Motion of the noble Lord.
Lord Holland, in explanation, said, that his motive for not alluding more at length to the point adverted to by the noble and learned Lord, did not arise from any feeling of its weakness or want of importance. The noble Duke had charged him with having omitted the point of notice. He did not intend to have done so. But he would now trespass on their Lordships' indulgence to say a few words in answer to that point. He would suppose that the noble Duke, instead of prosecuting Mr. Alexander, had given him notice, that if he should write another inflammatory article he would give him a drubbing, and that upon Alexander writing such an article he had given him a drubbing: would the noble Duke have been justified in thus taking the law into his own hands? It appeared to him that the two cases were not very dissimilar
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that in the Terceira case the parties had professed to submit to the wishes of our Government, and therefore had no right to complain of the consequences resulting from their breach of faith.
The Earl of Carnarvondenied that the Marquis of Palmella had given any distinct pledge that the troops should go to the Brazils, and not to Terceira. On the contrary, it appeared that the Marquis had acted throughout with perfect candour and good faith. Their Lordships were told that this country was entitled to maintain its principle of neutrality, and to exact attention to it on the part of those who had found an asylum here. That was the case while they were in this country; but that principle gave us no right to make a hostile attack on these unfortunate people for the purpose of driving them from their own shores. When they had got to those shores they were entirely out of our jurisdiction. But it was said, that they had sent arms before them, which were ready to be put into their hands when they arrived in the island. Was it clear that such was the fact? Certainly he found no satisfactory evidence of it. The noble Duke feared to keep them here as a body. That was rather an extraordinary fear on the part of the noble Duke; but it appeared that he feared as much to allow them to go hence as a body. The noble Duke wanted them to disperse; but they preferred, naturally, to leave the country; for, if they should be dispersed, they must starve, as the subscriptions would then, probably, cease, and their subsistence depended on their remaining as a body. The real question had been always blinked by the Ministers; which was not whether they had a right to expel the refugees from our own ports, but whether they had a right to pursue them from one quarter of the globe to another. While hero, Ministers might have a right to control their proceedings and motions; but what had that to do with the act of driving them, by a hostile attack, from their own shores? That was the point in which the Ministers had violated the law of nations. Well, but, said the Ministers, perhaps we did act contrary to the law of nations, but then we had a right to do so, since they violated their promise. He did not think that they had violated their promise; but if they had, that gave the Ministers no right to violate the law of nations. Suppose they had violated their promise, were they the only one of the two parties who had done so? Was there not a much more grievous violation of promise on the part of Miguel? He was one of those who
780
thought at one time that this question of neutrality had been sufficiently discussed, but he thanked the noble Marquis for bringing it forward again; for it was now so manifest that the neutrality had not been preserved, that the question might be considered as at rest for ever. We had violated that neutrality in opposition to that side which both our honour and interest required us to support, and the Ministers justified the course by a kind of special-pleading arguments. He should vote for the Motion, because he considered that the Ministers, by their conduct, had put an end to all the hopes of the loyal party, and had sacrificed both the interest and the honour of the country.
The Duke of Wellingtonexplained, that he was apprehensive of the consequences, in case the troops had refused to obey the order to disperse; and therefore had felt a disinclination to issue such an order: with respect to what had fallen from the noble Baron as to the notice, he must say, that he had twice given them notice that they must not go to Terceira.
Their Lordships then divided, and the numbers were—Content, present 21; proxies 10; total 31. Not-content, present 61; proxies 65; total 126. Majority 95.
Against this decision the following Protest was subsequently entered on their Lordships' journals:

PROTEST—TERCEIRA.
—" Because the forcible detention or interruption of the subjects of a belligerent state, upon the high seas, or within the legitimate jurisdiction of either of the belligerents, by a neutral, constitutes a direct breach of neutrality, and is an obvious violation of the law of nations. And such an act of aggression, illegal and unjust at all times against a people with whom the interfering power is not actually at war, assumed in this instance a yet more odious and ungenerous aspect, inasmuch as it was exercised against the unarmed subjects of a defenceless and friendly Sovereign, whose elevation and right to the Crown of Portugal had been earnestly recommended and openly recognized by his Majesty, and whose actual residence in Great Britain bespeaking confidence in the friendship and protection of the King, entitled both her and her subjects to especial favour and countenance, even if considerations of

781
policy precluded his Majesty's Government from enforcing her just pretensions by arms."

VASSALL HOLLAND.

COWPER.

SOMERHILL.

MELBOURNE.

CARLISLE.

SEAFORD.

GRANVILLE.

KING.

WM. FREDERICK.

CALTHORPE.

RADNOR.

CARNARVON.