Sitting of 5 February 1836

MINUTES.
New Writs were issued for Stoke-upon-Trent and Cockermouth, Mr. HEATHCOTE and Mr. DYKES having accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Petitions presented. By Captain PECHELL, from various places in Sussex, for the Repeal of the Additional Duty on Spirit Licenses.

HOURS OF BUSINESS.
Mr. Ewartmoved, that no business except such as was merely formal should be entered upon after half-past eleven o'clock at night. He had before brought forward a similar Motion last Session, and, though not formally, it had been virtually carried into effect by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), and his object was legally to effect what had already been

109
effected without any positive law on the subject. There would be a great advantage in the House conceding to his proposition, as it must be perfectly obvious that public business would be better conducted by day, than at those unseasonable hours of the night.
Lord John Russelldissented from the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, for which no case of necessity appeared to exist. He thought it much better that hon. Members should be left to exercise their discretion as to the propriety of adjournment upon each particular occasion—a discretion which had so often during the last Session been exercised by the hon. Member for Salford, in a manner at once so agreeable and satisfactory.
Mr. O'Connellthought no business of any kind ought to be begun after eleven o'clock at night. The only assemblies in the world which sat by night to transact their business instead of sitting by day, were the House of Commons and the House of Lords: that was, they were the only legal assemblies. It really was high time, that they ceased to do their business with the owls. They had lately been accustomed to hear a great deal about the wisdom of their ancestors. Now, their ancestors were wise enough to begin their business at eight o'clock in the morning-, and so lately as 1792, it was one of their standing regulations, that the Orders of the Day should be gone into at one o'clock in the afternoon, and not later. He submitted, therefore, to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that we should go back to the hours which the wisdom of our ancestors had considered the best. A great increase of the business of the House had taken place even within his own time. When he first became a Member of Parliament, they sat for four days in the week only. Now, if at the beginning of a Session, they were to sit three days a week, and commence at ten o'clock in the morning, he was convinced that it would enable them to transact the public business much more satisfactorily than according to the present arrangement. What was the fact at present? From half-past six to half-past nine were generally considered as dinner hours, and during that period nothing was done, or, which was equivalent to nothing, the time was spent in listening to those who would not be listened to at any other time, A more
110
serious inconvenience still was the consequence of turning day into night in the manner they had done. It was highly prejudicial to the health of the Members. He knew at least two Gentlemen who had lost their lives from their incessant attention to the business of the House. Were it delicate to do so, he could name them; but he could assure the House, that it was to the late hours they kept there, that their families attributed their decease. It required a strong, robust constitution to perform the duties of a Member of that House efficiently, and this tended to discourage men of more mature age, men of experience, and less likely to be violent in their politics than younger men from undertaking so heavy a task. It was time they adopted some regulation more Consonant with common sense and the ordinary habits of the people. If they sat from ten o'clock in the morning, till dinner time for three days in the week, at the beginning of the Session, after that for four days a week, it would be an effectual sitting; and if on the alternate days Committees commenced their sittings at ten o'clock, private Bills, which now occupied several days together, would be got through in one day, or two at most, and the expense of paying numerous witnesses and Counsel, would be spared to the parties. It would spare the public expense; it would spare the public time; and business would be efficiently and properly transacted. For the present he should be satisfied with moving, as an Amendment, that the words "half-after" be omitted, and that the words, "except of a formal nature" be left out also.
Mr. Brothertonapproved of this suggestion, and were it not carried, he should persevere in moving the Adjournment of the House every night at twelve o'clock.
Mr. Robinsoncomplained, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had diverged from the original question, which only related to the curtailment of the hours at present devoted to business, and had wandered into the consideration of another question,—namely, to the propriety of sitting by day. This last change was so serious a one, that it could not properly be adopted without much previous notice and consideration. Plausible as it might at first sight appear, there were many objections to it which were of considerable force, and which ought to be most: maturely weighed. There were a

111
large number of Members who must necessarily absent themselves from that House if it regularly transacted its business by day. The Ministers of the Crown, who bad to attend their offices and Cabinet Councils in the day time, and professional men, persons connected with the public offices, would all necessarily be subjected to the greatest inconvenience, if not to positive exclusion, if such an arrangement as this were to be adopted. On the whole, he thought it inexpedient to come to any resolution as to the length of their sittings without some further inquiry, for he Feared much, that any hasty determination would rather increase than lessen the difficulty.
Mr. Humesaid, that the hon. Member for Worcester had assigned a very good reason why certain Members who could not attend there should not be Members of that House at all; but surely it was somewhat an extraordinary reason to give why that House should not transact its business at the most convenient hours for itself and the public. No man should enter that House who was not prepared to sacrifice his whole time, if the public service required it; and those whose private engagements prevented them from so doing had better attend to their own business exclusively. With regard to his Majesty's Ministers, he was not one of those who thought the presence of his Majesty's Ministers essential on ordinary occasions. That House was overcharged with business. All private business ought to be removed from that House, and some plan should be adopted which would enable them to give the whole of their time to public business. What comparative importance was it whether a particular road was to be formed in Devonshire or Yorkshire or not, and yet to decide upon questions such as these some of the most important and valuable Members of that House were taken away from the consideration of matters of the greatest public moment. There was no other assembly on the face of the earth which at one and the same time took charge of all the public business of a great nation, and of all its private business too. What was the result? Why, towards the end of every Session, fifty, sixty, or seventy notices were constantly left upon their books; and no man could be a single Session there without being convinced that even what business they did was three-
112
fourths of it ill-considered and badly conducted. As to the public Committees, there was scarcely getting any Member to attend them. If a man were appointed on a public Committee, he was almost always obliged to leave it for a private one, or if he did not he was hunted like a malefactor, whenever a division was about to take place, and hurried away to give his vote, to the great detriment of the public service. If this evil had been powerfully felt last Session, what an increase of it might they not expect this? He put it to them, in what a situation they would be in when fifty or sixty Rail-road Bills came into that House. He would give them the example of the Great Western Rail-road, the Committee on which sat for seventy days. Two Gentlemen who had been put on a Special Committee of great public importance, and who were the best informed men in the House on the subject which that Committee was commissioned to inquire into, were taken away the very first day, and compelled to sit day after day, on this private Committee, which they had no business with, because their constituents insisted on it, and because, whilst private business was to be transacted by that House, it was impossible to expect, that Members would offend their constituents by neglecting that which they deemed to be their local interest. It was of no use for them to deal in patch-work. The House had better look the real evil in the face, and meet it fairly. They were at present overburthened with business, and he put it to every Gentleman, whether eleven or twelve o'clock at night was not quite late enough? It' the public business could not be got through between ten in the morning and twelve at night, then the House had better at once resolve to sit all the year round; for the business at all events ought to be done. He protested against legislating by night to please either professional men or any other individuals. There was no necessity for it, and he saw no reason why they should not be enabled to go home like other decent people at twelve o'clock.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that in the whole course of his experience in that House, and it was considerable, he had never heard a more extraordinary proposition than that which had been just made by the hon. Member for Middlesex. That hon. Member had proposed to take away from that House the consideration of all

113
matters of private business. Now, much private business, as it was called, occasionally involved considerations of serious public importance; and he for one should pause before he gave his assent to transfer it to any other tribunal whatever. He agreed that private business should be subject to such regulations as to prevent, if possible, the interference of private influence; but he could not concur in the policy of any regulation which should prevent hon. Members from giving their attention to the local interests of their constituents, by placing private business under the control of any other authority. He could not conceive anything more derogatory to the just authority of the House than such a transfer. The hon. Member said, "What signified a road in Yorkshire?" It might be true that a road between one village in Yorkshire and another was of no great importance to the nation at large, but the establishment of canals and of leading lines of fail-roads through the country was a matter of great national consequence, and involved considerations of far too great importance for him ever to consent that any authority less than Parliament should decide upon them. The hon. Member had himself shown that it would be unwise to press this proposition at the present moment; for he stated that some new regulations must be made for the arrangement of private business. Surely, then, it would be much more convenient to postpone the present Motion till those arrangements had been under consideration. The present Resolution would not meet the evil complained of. It required that no business should be pressed on after half-past eleven at night. The words of the corresponding resolution last Session were "no new business." Now the hon. Member complained as much of the protraction of debates after that hour as of the commencement of new business. All that this Resolution would prevent was a new debate on a new subject after half-past eleven. But he would put it to the hon. Gentleman whether the sense of the House itself would not be quite sufficient to prevent any new business from being improperly pressed forward at an untimely hour, without fettering themselves With such a resolution? If any Gentleman brought on a new subject after half-past eleven, and the House felt that it was already exhausted with the consideration of previous busi-
114
ness, he felt convinced that there was sufficient of practical good sense in the House, and sufficient force in the modes in which their opinion was usually intimated, to prevent any unreasonable demand on their time and patience. It was quite unnecessary for them to pass any Resolution. No resolution could prevent the occasional extension of a debate to two or three o'clock in the morning, and therefore those who, like the hon. Member, desired to return to their rest regularly at twelve o'clock, would not have the opportunity which they so eagerly sought after. Much had been said about sitting in the day. Abstractedly speaking it might be better to commence business at ten in the morning than at five in the afternoon. But it was impossible for them now to make such a regulation, without many corresponding regulations to give it due effect. Without relying absolutely on the objection that it would exclude professional men and merchants, it would be well worth their while to consider, that although strictly speaking it was the duty of every man who sat there to sacrifice his private to the public business, whether the public would ultimately gain by a strict enforcement of this rule? Many eminent lawyers, and many eminent mercantile men, some of the most valuable Members of the House, would of necessity be excluded and it might fairly admit of doubt whether the public would gain much by a change which involved this consequence. Take also the case of Committees, public and private. If the House began business at ten o'clock, and if the attendance of its Members were required at its sittings, what time would they have disengaged to attend to Committees? If another consequence of their sitting at so early an hour was to be that Committees were to sit at a late hour at night, he appealed to the hon. Member himself whether the business on the whole would not be much worse done than it was at present? With regard to the attendance of the Ministers of the Crown, it would be no easy matter to make such an alteration in the mode of conducting their business, as would enable them to attend the House punctually and uniformly by day; and, setting apart entirely all consideration of their private convenience, he thought the necessity which would be imposed upon them of transacting their official business at the hours of two and three in the morning,

115
would be detrimental to the public service. A resolution of this kind would, in fact, require so many corresponding resolutions to give it effect, and would create so great a change in all existing modes of transacting business, that be would not, at all events at present, and in the total absence of every other preparatory arrangement, give his consent to it.
Mr. Ewartagreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex that a very large portion of the local business now transacted by that House might be judiciously transferred to local tribunals. One great source of complaint with him was, the irregularity of the pressure of business of the House upon some Members and not upon others. On what was technically termed "field days" there was a full attendance of Members, but on ordinary occasions the great burthen of attendance fell upon a certain number of Members who felt it their duty to remain at their posts, though they did not feel less strongly the unequal share of labour which was thus imposed upon them. He approved of earlier sittings. Perhaps, the best plan that could be adopted would be, for the House, at the beginning of the Session, to devote three whole solid days a week to public business, and three other days a week to public Committees. This, however, was matter for future consideration; but, in the meantime, as they must make a beginning, and as common sense and the public convenience were both in favour of earlier hours, he thought they could not do better than adopt this Resolution, which he was ready to alter according to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, if that alteration met the views of the House.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodagreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex that private business, and even questions as to the establishment of railroads, might with great propriety be intrusted to some subordinate authority—perhaps with the safeguard of an appeal to a Committee of that House. It might be referred to the Justices at Quarter Sessions, or to a delegation from the Justices of several counties (arrondissements), five or six for England and two or three for Ireland and Scotland; and this would leave the House at liberty to attend to the more important functions of legislation. At present they were so overpowered with business that four-fifths of it was done in a very hurried and inefficient manner.
Dr. Bowringsaid, the attention of the House was distracted from the consideration of its more urgent business by the vast variety of claims upon it. He had witnessed the proceedings of more representative bodies than most individuals of that House, and he could say that that was the only representative body that did not make all other concerns subordinate to the great public interests intrusted to their care. The public service would gain very much if they gave to the public interests the hours of the day instead of the weary and exhausting hours of the night. It became them to take some measures for the furtherance of the public business; and he trusted that the House would give attention to the proposal of his hon. Friend; and sure he was, that unless the period arrived in which the day should be given to the great concerns of the nation, those concerns could not be properly attended to.
Mr. O'Connell's Amendment was negatived without a division, and the House divided on the original Motion.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there appeared: Ayes 51; Noes 233; Majority 182,

List of the AYES.

Atcherley, D. F.

Lister, E. C.

Attwood, Thomas

Maher, J.

Bagshaw, J.

Moles worth, Sir W.

Baldwin, Dr.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Brien, W. S

Barry, G. S.

O'Connell, M.

Bish, T.

O'Connell, S.

Bodkin, J. J.

O'Connell, M.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brady, D. C.

Palmer, General

Brotherton, J.

Potter, R.

Butler, Col.

Roche, W.

Callaghan, D.

Bundle, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Edwards, Col.

Strickland, Sir G.

Elphinstone, H.

Tancred, H. W.

Fielden, J.

Thorneley, T.

Fitzsimon, C.

Tulk, C. A.

Gillon, W. D.

Turner, W.

Grate, G.

Wakley, T.

Hardy, J.

Wason, R.

Heathcoat, J.

Wilks, J.

Hector, C. J.

Williams, W. A.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

W. Ewart.

Lennard, T. B.

D. O'Connell.

SPAIN—REPORT ON THE ADDRESS.
The Report on the Address was brought up.
On the motion that it be agreed to,
Mr. Fectorsaid, that under the peculiar circumstances in which he felt himself placed, and the vote of the previous night, which sanctioned the terms and the principles of the Address from the Throne, he should appeal to the indulgence of the House for making some remarks on a subject of great importance to the interest and honour of this country, as they affected our foreign relations and our internal interests. The subject was the passage in the Royal Speech which was echoed by the Address relative to the affairs of Spain. He felt himself called on in justice and duty to protest against this portion of the Speech and the Address, and the whole conduct of the Government towards Spain, which reflected discredit beyond measure upon all those who were instrumental in our recent proceedings with regard to that country. Paragraphs appeared in the newspapers of the day detailing the nature of our interference with the internal concerns of that country, and unfolding monstrous crimes and horrors, in no small degree created by our wanton and unprincipled tampering, which were a reproach to the present age, and fixed a blot on our humanity. He could not be supposed to know what estimate Gentlemen opposite set on their own character, but if he were to judge from the decision that all unprejudiced and impartial men had pronounced on it, he should look on it as reduced to a very low standard. The abetting of sanguinary courses of public and uncalled for confiscations of property, of devastation of whole districts, was not a course that could or ought to be expected from the Government of Great Britain. Why, he would ask, should the British Parliament lend its approval to the measures of any government in friendly relation with it that was guilty of such barbarities as were practised at Barcelona and other places? How did the Government act in their intercourse with Spain? They had virtually sent out, by their connivance at a public enlistment, hordes of ruffians from the purlieus of London to wage war against a nation with whom we professed to be at peace. By this act they degraded the character of the British officer and the British soldier. It was an insult to British feeling. Even the British navy was tainted by their unusual and dishonourable conduct, by their making British vessels
118
prison-houses and convict-ships for the reception of foreign prisoners. He deeply regretted the conduct of a British. Minister who could sanction such proceedings, and lower the character of Great Britain in the eyes of Europe.
Mr. Grove Pricerose amidst considerable confusion, and interruption. The hon. Member said, if the feeling of the House were expressed against his addressing it on the subject to which his hon. Friend had made such just and pointed reference he should bow to its decision and be silent; but if it were meant to resist him by unseemly clamour and offensive interruptions, then he should persevere in vindicating his privilege as a Member of Parliament, and deliver his opinions. He would ask was it decorous and fair for any hon. Member, or party of Members, to insult and thwart another Member, when he stood forward to deliver his free and conscientious opinions? Was this the usage of Parliament? Was this "fair play," in which Englishmen so much excelled? He would appeal to the honour of the House. He would, in despite of any factious clamour, maintain his own principles, which were the principles of the British nation—the principles of liberality, impartiality, and humanity—principles that were as much opposed to dishonourable dealing; as they were to reckless and unprovoked cruelty. He would, therefore, not allow himself to be beaten down by factious ejaculations, which reflected disgrace on the parties, in delivering his opinions on the present uncalled-for and unprincipled interference by our Government in the civil commotions of Spain, He did not regret his having abstained from entering into the discussion on this point last night, because he did not wish to encumber the general question of the debate on the Address with any irrelevant and desultory dissertations on an isolated subject. He thought it better to hear the arguments of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), on the whole subject of the Speech, than create interruption by the expression of his own views on an isolated point—a dissertation on our foreign policy as affecting Spain. He did not appear before the House as the propounder of abstract opinions, or as a mere political or moral theorist; on the contrary, he had deep experience of the actual condition of Spain for the last two years. That country which was the theatre of British

119
glory for so long a period, to which we were bound by so many noble and interesting ties, and whose prosperity or degradation must affect us either in the way of celebrity or humiliation. But it was not merely a feeling for the interest of Spain that impelled him so much as a love for justice and humanity to raise his voice in humble but resolute dissent, not unmixed with indignation, from the style and spirit in which the barbarian policy of the present rulers of Spain, had been alluded to with so much inflation of unprincipled and unmerited, panegyric. Whenever and wherever the brutal conduct of the present Government of Spain was spoken of in terms of commendation, no matter how high the quarter, or great the authority might have been whence the praise might come, he, as a man with the feelings of a Christian, "considering that nothing human was alien from his consideration and sympathy," should, and ever would, receive it with sturdy remonstrance and indignant disclaimer. The Speech from the Throne and the Address spoke of "the vigour and prudence" of the Queen of Spain. Where was that vigour displayed? It was found anywhere but in the field. If any where found, it was only to be found in the cruel butchery of unoffending and helpless multitudes by savage banditti whetted on by the stimulants of authority, and inflamed by political rancor. Where was their prudence exhibited? It was not in the wise and temperate councils of a Government anxious for the perpetuity of general concord among the people, for the preservation of their happiness and the security of their liberties. It was not surely to be seen in the wild saturnalia of atrocities that marked the career of one of her favoured Generals, who had marked his way with the blood of his countrymen, a man dead to all the commiseration and compunctions of human nature, whose name must go down the stream of time encumbered and blasted with the execrations of a feeling and discriminating posterity. Yes, he would not hesitate to brand with the name of monster a man who, professing himself to be a great and old patriot, would strew his road of conquest with the bodies of his own countrymen, whose success was only to be registered by the extermination of whole villages, the decimation of the people and the tears and cries of orphaned children and widowed mothers. What other name
120
than that of monster could he give to the hoary butcher of Catalonia? "Vigour and prudence," indeed! What an abuse of names! what a mockery of justice and morals! If the Ministers of the King, or the noble Lord whose peculiar department it was to superintend the foreign relations of the country, and who seemed to look on the mighty and complex interests of Continental States with as much levity and heedlessness as he would on an useless hair-dye, were to add to "vigour and prudence" the word "commiseration" the climax of insult and derision would be complete; and it would fill up the measure of the bitterest and most unfeeling sarcasm that ever fell from the lips of man. Was it "vigour and prudence"—for it was either as much as it was "commiseration"—to drag forth the helpless children before the files of bristling troops, and then compel the fathers to discharge the contents of their loaded musketry into the bodies of those who sprung from their own loins? He should apologise for his warmth, but it was natural warmth, for who could feel cool and composed in the contemplation of these unmatched barbarities? What would the House or the country say when they found that these infuriated brutalities were not the sudden and giddy impulse of excited politics or of religions enthusiasm, but of a cold, predetermined, and savage imitation of the demon cruelties committed at Nantes under that ministerial apostle of democracy, Fouche? It was not enough to kill life—revenge was carried beyond the gates of death, and the bodies of the victims were exposed to the most revolting indignities. Yet these were the men whom the Counsellors of his Majesty represent and laud as fit objects for freedom and proper Members of a representative Government. The name of liberty was prostituted and degraded in such a cause. These men were unfit for rational or constitutional liberty. Their liberty was the dissoluteness of brigands. If they were fit for liberty, let them first introduce some defined and fixed plan of good Government—some stable principles of justice—some steady code of human morals. It was true a few were punished because they chose to erect a constitutional stone, or some such foolery; but the great authors of these sanguinary crimes escaped. All this no doubt might be considered as evidence of the vigour of Government; but what had been the proof of its

121
prudence? It consisted in the confiscation of Church property—with what view? To feed the speculating vultures of the Stock Exchanges of Europe. He should be sorry to encourage any system of representative or civil Constitution, which would repay hireling delegates from the confiscation of settled property. This would not be justice, the great and bountiful mother of civil institutions, as she was the nurse and mother of our individual connexions and relations with each other. What was justice? It was not a pure abstraction merely, defined and definable according to the fancy of every interested and rotten-hearted speculator. It was a principle that applied equally to all men, guarding, above all things, the sacred and old-fixed rights of property. It was the same whether it affected individuals or communities. It was on such grounds that he should resist the confiscation of Church property, although he would modify and so arrange it as to make it conducive to the greatest possible good. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) did not denounce this wholesale confiscation with all that vehemence and daring with which he denounced even imaginary wrongs. He professed himself a rigid Catholic, anxious, above all things, for the maintenance of the Catholic ascendancy in its good old character. But why should he be surprised? The confiscation in Spain was for the advancement of revolution and the good of democracy, and, as such, it did not come within the range of his censure. He advocated confiscation at home, but he blinked the question of confiscation abroad. He was a good Catholic, doubtless, and wished to steer clear of any expression that might affect his Church. How loud would have been his denunciations if the Question of Irish Tithes not intervening, this subject of the confiscation of Church property, were the only question that engrossed his mind? He would now venture to allude to the hope expressed in the Address, that the Carlist party in Spain would soon be crushed by the measures now adopted against them. He could not join in that hope. He had some knowledge of Spain, from information derived from friends who had been much in that country. He believed that Spain was at present divided into two great parties, of one of which the Queen's party was a mere fraction. The
122
liberal party, as it was called, consisted of people in office, and of men who held republican opinions. Since the days of Gil Blas the Spanish nobles were fond of salaries—they would support any Government. They were fond of luxurious case, and full of their own importance; they were not, therefore, the men likely to make a struggle for their own independence. In the civil commotions that raged in that country of late they had been excluded from power because of their incapacity, and this exclusion rendered them still more incapable. They were the men who welcomed Joseph, and hailed the tyranny of Napoleon, and if they succeeded in crushing Don Carlos, would hurl Christina and her daughter from the throne in less than six months. That party possessed the sea-ports; it enrolled in its ranks nearly all the men of letters in Spain—that he admitted; it had also on its side all the race of speculators; it embraced a small number of the apostate clergy, a small portion of the population of the towns, and the rabble everywhere. On the other hand, the Carlist party consisted not of those whom the noble Lord had described as its members some eight months ago. It was not confined entirely to the four Basque provinces. That party formed the mass of the rural population of Spain. It formed a large division in the towns; it had the clergy to a man; it had the whole of that noble order of men whom we designate Yeomen; it had also the entire order of the peasantry. He had a Return from the Secretary-at-War to Don Carlos, from which it appeared that there were, at this moment, in arms, 100,000 powerful and determined men, all anxious to support the cause of that Prince. [Laughter.] If the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmers ton) doubted the fact, he would show him the Return. Besides their numbers, there were other reasons why the Carlist cause must succeed. He wished that the noble Viscount, before ha plunged the country in to difficulties, of which no man could now say, that he saw the end, had studied the character of the people of Spain. Look, he would say, at the different characters of the combating armies. The Carlists were under the impulse of four of the strongest feelings which influenced the heart of man. First of all, they were a people of a simple and pastoral race, long accustomed to their own habits and institutions. They

123
had lived and died as their forefathers had lived and died. [Laughter.] He believed that he had used one word in mistake. He would withdraw the word "died," and would use the word "succeeded," in its stead. The first principle, then, on which the Carlists were nerved was one which the noble Viscount would be astonished to hear as coming; from his lips; but from their long habits of independence, and from the little superintendence of their Government, they had contracted something of the sternness and resoluteness of the Republican character. They had next, a devoted attachment to their institutions, which they had possessed from a period long antecedent to the earliest Charter granted to the people of this country. These institutions had all been destroyed by the tyrannical Government of Madrid. The third principle with which they were embued, was the principle of religion—they were attached to their clergy, and the massacres of Barcelona, of Saragossa, and of Madrid, were not likely to attach them to their new masters. The fourth principle, was the principle of chivalry, which had induced them to rally round the standard of a Prince, who preferred to a life of case, and indulgence, and wealth, the assertion, amidst privation, and distress, and danger, of the rights which had fallen upon him as the descendant of the first Sovereign in Europe, and who had chosen to share the bivouac of his soldiers, rather than disgrace and degrade himself by accepting the miserable pension which the Government of the Queen proposed to dole out to him. What was the party arrayed against him on the other side? Were they not men who, being actually dragged into the field, without the slightest interest but their pay, were unable to meet the hardy warriors of Don Carlos in fair and open fight? Were they able, he repeated, to contend with such hardy warriors? No, wherever they had met them, they had fled before them, publishing, when their retreat was accomplished in safety, fictitious bulletins of victories which they had never achieved. Within the last month, Generals Cordova and Evans had sustained from them more than one shameful defeat; and, lamentable as the statement was, it was only fit that the House should know it, the very arms which this Government had sent from England, were the first weapons embrued in the blood of Englishmen. The conduct
124
or the partizans of Don Carlos, at the same time, was moderate and humane in comparison; but the conduct of his opponents was marked by the most heartless cruelty. They had shot their wounded prisoners—they had massacred whole villages—they had decimated their own ranks to prevent desertion—and, notwithstanding all this, of which he could not suppose the noble Viscount to be ignorant, the noble Viscount had come down, with his bland and dulcet voice, to inform the House of Commons, that the prudent and vigorous conduct of the Queen's Government would soon restore tranquillity to Spain. He had read, he must say, with deep horror, a letter which had appeared in the public newspapers, and which purported to be written by the noble Viscount to a most venerable man, the Bishop of Leon. The Bishop of Leon was anxious that the Christinos of Spain should be less prodigal of blood than they had been for some months; and, to accomplish that great object of his anxiety, had written to the noble Viscount in the mild spirit of a clergyman, requesting him to exert his influence to save the lives of twenty-seven of his countrymen, who had been captured by a Spanish cruiser off the coast of Spain, whilst sailing under the protection of the British flag. What was the answer which the Bishop of Leon received from the noble Viscount? No answer, so far as the safety of those unfortunate men was concerned. He did indeed obtain a reply to his application, but it was in a tone bordering more upon flippancy than became a Minister of the British Crown. In answering that petition for mercy, the noble Viscount went out of his way to bring a charge against Don Carlos of having prescribed to his officers and soldiers, the assassination of their prisoners as a military duty, and after doing that, proceeded to sneer at the motives of the Bishop of Leon, who, he was informed, was a pattern of the Christian faith which he believed and professed. Spain was a member of the great European community, and her internal tranquillity must always form matter of deep interest to the other branches of the community, inasmuch as there could not be a Revolution in one State of Europe at present without something like injury accruing to every other. But when he looked to the condition of Spain, and heard men express hopes for its peace and tranquillity, and

125
saw nothing there but scenes of riot and disorder, he felt that he could not close his remarks upon that subject better than by reminding the House of an observation which had been made by a great master of men and manners, whose immortal works still attracted the same attention which they had attracted 2,000 years ago:—"In turbas et discordias pessimo cuique plurima vis—pax et quies bonis artibus indigent." Nothing could be more delightful than our present friendship with Louis Philippe, the hero of the barricades, the Monarch of the glorious days of July, the friend of the Press! ["Hear, hear."] Aye, there's the rub. He knew that in the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen a Throne could only be hallowed by illegitimacy. A legitimate Monarch could not have done one-hundredth part of what Louis Philippe had done. Nicholas of Russia, with all his barbaric pomp and power, dared not attempt a tenth part of the tyranny of Louis Philippe, The French were now paying the penalty of that great saturnalia of iniquity in which they had revelled during their Revolution; and such was the destruction of every barrier against despotism which then took place, that it was now found impossible to construct the fabric of a Constitutional Monarchy without making the nation previously undergo the ordeal of an absolute Oriental despotism. He wished to put the noble Viscount opposite on his guard with respect to the alliance with France, which he had every reason to believe the noble Viscount would find hollow and uncertain as a building of untempered mortar. Frenchmen never would forget the victories over them, achieved by British arms; the present generation thirsted for revenge—the next would inherit their feelings and tread in their footsteps; and an English alliance, unless for some immediate and interested purpose, would always excite the detestation of the French, because this country had hurled their idol from his Throne of power, and erected the standard of England on the heights of Montmartre. As long as the trophies of Waterloo existed, France would look for vengeance. One country had been at the head of the Revolutionary Movement for years, as the other had been the leader of the Conservative party of Europe; and it was not to be imagined, considering the circumstances and the jealousies to which he had re-
126
ferred, that an alliance between France and England could be reckoned upon as stable or permanent.
Mr. Humesaid, the hon. Member for Dover had characterised the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster in a manner and in language that could not be borne in any civilized country. There were no epithets in the English language worse than those which the hon. Gentleman had applied to his hon. and gallant Friend, and to the British troops which were serving under him. Did the hon. Gentleman seriously think that a gallant officer, who had so highly distinguished himself in the British service, ought to have been spoken of in such terms? The time would come when his hon. and gallant Friend would have an opportunity of vindicating himself; but as that time had not arrived, he (Mr. Hume) could not refrain from protesting against the course which had been pursued by the hon. Member for Dover. The language used by the hon. Member was entirely inapplicable to the object of his attack, who was perfectly justified in what he had done. Was it the first time that English troops had fought under foreign banners? And for what did they fight? For the cause of the constitution and for the cause of liberty. He would take upon himself to say that, considering the whole of the language used by the hon. Member for Dover and the hon. Member for Sandwich, with respect to the system of proceedings in Spain, those hon. Gentlemen ought to be grateful for any assistance that was calculated to put an end to such a system. Did the hon. Member for Dover suppose that there was any man in that House, on which side so ever of it he might sit, who approved of the atrocious proceedings of either the Carlists or the Republicans; or who would give his sanction to the dreadful proceedings which had taken place at Barcelona or elsewhere? It was true that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had in that House distinctly characterized those proceedings, and had condemned Mina and the other individuals connected with them in the manner in which they deserved to be characterised; but did the hon. Member for Dover, therefore, suppose that there was any man in that House prepared to defend those proceedings? For himself, he willingly admitted that it was impossible to conceive any thing more horrible than the Barcelona murders. But what was

127
their cause? It was the violence of the proceedings on the other side of the question which had led to retribution and punishment. All this only showed what must be the result of civil war, and ought to act as a strong inducement on those who had the power of putting an end to it to do so. He, therefore, thought the whole of that portion of the speeches of the hon. Members for Dover and Sandwich which was addressed to this subject was irrelevant; and he thought that those hon. Gentlemen had cast aspersions where they ought to have abstained from doing so. The Address itself contained allusions to so many important questions, that he was unwilling to offer a single observation upon them. When he looked at the statements respecting the prospect of a continuance of peace in the world, the expediency of settling the Tithe Question in England and Ireland, the justice of putting the Dissenters on the same footing as their fellow-subjects, and the other measures adverted to in the Address, he could only say that he considered those measures as the harbingers of the peace and prosperity of the empire. On the whole, he hailed the Speech from the Throne as pregnant with advantage to the country. But there was one single point on which he begged leave to say a word; he meant the proposition for increasing the supplies required for the navy. If his Majesty's Government would get rid of 10,000 of the troops now employed in Ireland (which, in his opinion, under existing circumstances, they might do with perfect safety), they might apply the money to the naval service. The reasons assigned for this increase of the naval expenditure were the same as those which had been assigned in similar cases by every Government in the country during the last twenty years. For his part he could see no sound reason for the step, and he hoped his Majesty's Ministers would reconsider it. He protested against that proposition as the only part of the Speech and Address to which he had an objection. He repeated that he had no objection to reduce the army in Ireland for the purpose of increasing the navy. While Ireland was ill-treated it must be filled with troops; but if justice were done it, if it were put on the same civil footing as England, so also might its military establishment. In his opinion, his Majesty's Ministers in that House deserved great credit for their persevering resistance to the Amendment
128
on the Address which had been moved by the right hon. Member for Tamworth. He wished their colleagues in another place had shown equal firmness. How was it to be understood that Ministers, sitting in the same Cabinet should hold different opinions on a question of so much importance? He was quite aware that it might be supposed that there was a majority in the other House of Parliament which rendered any opposition to the proposed Amendment hopeless. But that was the very reason for persevering in that opposition, as the result would show the country who were the parties favourable, and who were the parties unfavourable, to liberal principles. To him it would be the last recommendation of any proposition to say, that it was favoured by the House of Lords. He considered the Peers as destitute of fellow-feeling for their countrymen; as out of the pale of general sympathy; and the time was coming when this would be the universal conviction of the community. Though the Lords were privileged, they were not privileged to do evil. The proceedings of the House of Lords last year were not of a nature to recommend the adoption of any of their propositions. While, therefore, he congratulated the Ministers in the House of Commons on their successful resistance to the Amendment of last night, he lamented the acquiescence in it of the Ministers in the other House of Parliament. This state of things, however, could not go on long. The Lords must be made to feel that the people were determined upon having a real reform of abuses, and a good and economical Government; and, unless they turned over a new leaf, whatever they recommended would be opposed, and whatever they opposed would be supported and carried. Out of that House, no voice was raised in favour of the House of Lords. He defied any man to show him a public meeting at which the House of Lords had been spoken of with favour. They might be courteously treated in conservative societies; but he repeated his denial that at any public meeting they had been spoken well of by any class of the people. He hoped there would be no change in the determination of that House; he hoped there would be no change in the determination of his Majesty's Ministers, evinced last year, and in which determination the country would warmly support them, to yield equal justice to Scotland, Ireland,

129
and England. That certainly would not be the case if the Tories were to come into place. He would not refuse them the indulgence of fancying they might do so; but in his opinion there was very little chance of it. In the meanwhile he would continue strongly to recommend public economy. It had been found that Acts of Parliament would not keep up the price of corn. The remedy was to reduce the establishments of the country, as the prices had been reduced, to the level of the year 1792. To that they must come. The expenses of the Government, notwithstanding the great reductions which had been made by the present Administration, were still altogether too much. The country ought not to be saddled with any additional expense for the navy or army; and he had confidently expected that great reductions would have been made in the colonial and other branches of the Government. Ministers would never have his uniform support while he saw them continuing a larger system of expense than, in his opinion, they ought to maintain. With these observations, he entirely concurred in the proposed Address.
Mr. Arthur Trevorwould not have obtruded himself on the House had he not felt strongly the unjust terms applied by the hon. Member for Middlesex to the speech of the hon. Member for Dover. The hon. Gentleman charged the hon. Member for Dover with using unjustifiable expressions in reference to General Evans. He had listened with pleasure to the speech of his hon. Friend, but felt at a loss to recollect any expressions deserving of the animadversions of the hon. Member for Middlesex. He understood the hon. Members for Dover and Sandwich to argue, that if ever there was an instance of unprovoked and improper interference with a foreign power by Ministers professing neutrality, it was to be found in the conduct of the British Government towards Spain. He fully concurred in this view of the case, and while he denied that the allusion of the Member for Dover reflected upon the character of General Evans, he acquiesced in the opinion that those whom he commanded were the refuse of the rabble of London, and he thought it a disgrace to the British army to find an officer like General Evans, of some distinction, and the possession of considerable reputation, engaged in a species of warfare such as had been alluded to. The hon. Member
130
for Middlesex had indulged not only in. unjustifiable but uncalled-for and unconstitutional observations on the other House of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman said, that "he liked no one of its acts." God in heaven forbid that the hon. Gentleman ever should like any act of the House of Lords. God in heaven forbid that the advocate of reckless change, and the hater of existing institutions should ever sully with one expression of approbation an assembly to which every sincere friend of the monarchy looked in times of danger for protection and salvation. He was not indeed surprised, when he recollected the hon. Gentleman's language both out of doors and within those walls, to find him casting such aspersions on the Lords; but he must say, that such conduct was derogatory and unworthy of the character and dignity of a Member of that House. He saw not what business any Member of that House had, on every occasion, to bring forward the House of Lords, and convert its proceedings into subjects of debate, unjustly attempting to expose them to public odium, representing the Peers as indifferent to the best interests of their country, deaf to the prayers of the people, and ignorant of their wants and wishes. Such charges were unjustifiable and gross, and, if not transgressing the rules of Parliamentary discussion, he would add, that they were worthy of the hon. Gentleman who made them. He for one, in justice to the principles which he professed, could not do otherwise than enter his solemn protest against the Address about to be sent up to his Majesty. "With the exception of what was sufficiently clearly expressed with regard to the Irish Corporations, the whole was vox et pretœrea nihil, for not another subject was placed in a clear or satisfactory light. One important subject introduced by Ministers last Session, and converted into their war-cry, had been consigned to the tomb—he hoped he might add, to oblivion. Of course he referred to the Appropriation Question. They were told, indeed, of a hope that the Question of Tithe in Ireland would be settled so as to establish harmony and peace in that country; and it was also stated that, on receiving a further Report from the Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the dioceses of England and Wales, the Parliament was to direct its attention to the Ecclesiastical Establishment, with the intention of rendering it

131
more efficient for the holy purposes for which it had been instituted. He sincerely wished the establishment might thereby become better adapted for its sacred purpose; but when he considered into what hands the changes to be made, and the management of the plan would fall, he looked on the matter with an extremely jealous eye. He had no confidence in the individuals who, last Session, supported the proposition of appropriating the revenues of the Irish Church to Other than Ecclesiastical purposes—he did not think they would do justice to the Church property of England; and, in fact, he anticipated nothing short of this—that, if unchecked, they would pursue some similar system of spoliation with respect to the Church in this country. He hoped, however, that there would be such an expression of public feeling as might induce them to pause in their course.
Mr. Ewartobserved, with reference to the accusation preferred by the hon. Member for Durham against his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, of treating the House of Lords with disrespect, that the House of Lords had on former occasions been compelled to adopt measures which had been advocated by the hon. Member for Middlesex, and that it was exceedingly probable that they would be obliged to do so again. There were measures which the hon. Member for Middlesex would advocate that might be carried—that must be carried through the other House. The hon. Member for Sandwich had panegyrized with some vehemence the phraseology in which the hon. Member for Dover had characterized the conduct of one of the parties in Spain. On that point he would only say, that, like the hon. Member for Middlesex—and he was sure like every other Member of that House—he reprobated inhumanity, on which side so ever it might be exhibited. But there was one part of the speech of the hon. Member for Sandwich against which he must strongly protest: he meant the passage in which the hon. Member spoke of the enmity that existed between this country and France. He must say that he had heard with great regret and pain the declaration, that because one generation might have cherished such an enmity it must be cherished by the next generation also. This was a strange and unphilosophical view of the tendencies of nations, and he trusted it Would prove to be an
132
erroneous one. For his own part, he hailed with infinite satisfaction the statement in his Majesty's Speech of the intimate alliance between the two countries—an alliance, however, which he wished to consider not so much between the Monarch of this country and the Monarch of France, as between the people of this country and the people of France. To the late Monarch of France it was impossible not to apply a line from the works of one of the greatest poets of which that country could boast—
"Jamais l'exil n'a corrigé les rois."
In those parts of the Address alluded to by the hon. Member for Middlesex, he (Mr. Ewart) cordially concurred. Although circumstances might warrant an increase of the navy, he trusted that no long time would elapse before they would be enabled to reduce the army, especially that part of it which was quartered in Ireland. Sure he was that the only real and sure road to economy was through the means of reason and justice.
Mr. Pottercould not but regret the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Trevor) in reference to the hon. and Gallant Member for Westminster. The reflections attempted to be east upon the conduct of that Gallant Officer he thought were wholly uncalled for. As regarded the Speech delivered from the Throne, he confessed that to him it had afforded unbounded satisfaction, and as it became known throughout the country he had no doubt but that the feeling of satisfaction would become general. As a Dissenter, he begged leave to thank his Majesty's Ministers for the intimation which the Speech conveyed of their intention speedily to remove those grievances under which the Dissenting bodies still laboured. Upon that point he hoped he might congratulate them that one of the intended measures of relief would be the removal of the odious impost known by the name of Church-rates. He rejoiced exceedingly in the decision to which the House had come last evening, because he felt it would carry peace to Ireland, and to enable us to carry on the Government of that country without the necessity of maintaining so large a military force as unfortunately had hitherto been found requisite. He hoped, also, that the men and estimates for the navy would be met by a large reduction of those for the army.
Dr. Bowringhad heard, with great pain and regret, the speech of the hon. Member for Sandwich. Last night he had hailed it as a triumph for the cause of humanity, liberty, and civilization, when the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, sitting in the same place as that at present occupied by the hon. Member, stated that he at least saw with delight the arrival of an epoch at which the intimate union which existed between France and England might be referred to as one of the boasts and triumphs of the present times. On the other hand, it was most painful to hear language Falling from the lips of a British senator, which was nothing less than calumnious towards two great nations. The hon. Member for Sandwich represented the Spanish nation as unworthy of freedom, and he spoke with something like an intimation that he was intimately and peculiarly acquainted with the circumstances of Spain, and the nature and character of the troubles by which she was at present distracted. Emboldened by that knowledge, the hon. Member broadly declared that the popular feeling of Spain was ranged on the side of Don Carlos. The hon. Member must allow him to say that that was not the fact. He was not without some personal knowledge of Spain, and he would venture to assert that for the last thirty years the people of the Spanish nation had every day been rising in intelligence, and every day feeling more and more the desire to obtain constitutional guarantees for freedom. And he would venture further to assert, that the Spanish people had entered upon a career in which they would ultimately succeed—a career which would infallibly lead to the overthrow of misrule, and to the establishment of good government with all its happy consequences. There existed in Spain a desire and determination to obtain popular institutions, and, in spite of Don Carlos, and in spite of the advocates and admirers of Don Carlos, the people of Spain would obtain the object of their long enduring struggles, and a constitutional Government would be firmly established in that country. The friends of liberty looked brightly to the future—the friends of despotism could look only darkly to the past. Neither was the hon. Member warranted in what he asserted of France. The days of enmity towards England bad passed away, and had been
134
succeeded by nobler and friendlier sentiments. It had been his privilege to traverse France in all directions; and, with the knowledge he had thus obtained of the feeling of that country, he could venture to assert, that as soon as England got rid of the incubus which so long had depressed her energies—as soon as England appeared in her reformed and regenerated character, every feeling of animosity ceased, and the affection of France and Frenchmen was obtained for her; and, he had no doubt, that England would reap the full benefit of this improved state of things. If the present judicious policy was pursued, he ventured to predict that all animosities between the two countries would pass away, and that the alliance between England and France would establish the peace and prosperity, not only of Europe, but of the world at large.
Lord Francis Egertonhad not intended to are taken any part in the discussion of the evening, nor should he have done so but for the notice which the hon. Member for Middlesex, (Mr. Hume) had taken of a cheer which came from him whilst the hon. Member was speaking. It certainly did appear to him (Lord F. Egerton) that the line of argument pursued by the hon. Member for Middlesex laid down the position that this country through all ranks and classes, held something like an unqualified concurrence in the opinions which the hon. Member himself entertained. Fancying that to be the position intended to be laid down, he in his situation in that House, did take the liberty of expressing his dissent from it; for he could not but feel that, however easy it might be to raise a clamour, and to beat down argument, amidst that portion of the community which was not prone to express its sentiments in the noise of public meetings, he had at least a right, representing as he did some thousands of constituents in that House, to state that those sentiments were not entertained by a portion, and not the least respectable portion, of the community. That was the meaning of the cheer to which the hon. Member referred. Being then before the House, he might, perhaps, be allowed to make one or two observations on certain passages contained in the King's Speech. He was bound to say that he felt anxious to express, with more energy than he could convey by a silent vote, his own individual concurrence in the sentiments expressed

135
by his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth last evening, and which met with the approbation of the noble Lord opposite, with respect to the relative position of this country towards France. He might, perhaps, entertain some doubt as to whether it were altogether prudent or politic to lay a stress upon the connexion between the two countries, as compared with those specific relations which, he thanked God, England still maintained with respect to the other powers of Europe. Congratulating ourselves too strongly upon our alliance with. France, other nations might, perhaps, be disposed to take umbrage at our expressions, and this, he thought, ought to be avoided. At the some time he was not disposed to criticise or to quarrel with the terms of the Address, because he thought it well that the Ministers of Foreign Powers should know that the continuance of our connexion and alliance with a great and powerful neighbour was one of the main features of our foreign policy. Some separation had of late taken place between France and the very remarkable, and able, and powerful man in whose hands her destinies were at present placed. He (Lord F. Egerton) was not one of those who was disposed to eulogize in themselves some of the measures which bad been adopted by the Government of France, but he should be as little inclined, without a full and due reference to all the circumstances in which that Government was placed, to involve its leader in the strong and, as it appeared to him, somewhat indiscreet censure which had been lavished upon him elsewhere, and by those very persons who, he believed, were the loudest advocates for the maintenance of the connexion which at present existed between the two countries. He knew that Louis Philippe was seated on a throne surrounded by bayonets; he knew that his Ministers were taken from among those who were once first in the ranks of periodical literature, and bad condemned the very semblance of such measures as had been adopted in France under their own auspices; but he asked those gentlemen who were so zealous for the alliance of that country with England, to pause before they passed an indiscriminate censure upon those measures, and to consider for a moment the circumstances under which they had been resorted to. He did not presume to be sufficiently informed with
136
respect to those circumstances to form, a decided judgment upon them; but be had seen something of the main features of the necessity under which they were had recourse to, and at least he could draw this moral from the events that had appeared before him; he could ask gentlemen to consider that if such consequences had grown up from what they would call, and what he did not mean to dispute, was a necessary and more than justifiable revolution in the affairs of France, what could they expect from a revolution not justifiable in itself, nor called for by any exigency in which the country was placed. It was in that point of view he confessed that the measures he alluded to presented to him no obstacle in the further cultivation of those friendly relations which he thought of such importance to our political relations with the Continent. These were no new doctrines of his own—they were the old and acknowledged doctrines of that party to which he belonged, and to which, in more fortunate days, the noble Lord opposite was himself attached; they were the doctrines acted on by Lord Castlereagh in the first Congress after the war, when England entered into an alliance with France and Austria, in opposition to Russia and other Powers of the North. He thought the alliance with France one of the utmost value. "With regard to that passage of the Speech which referred to the affairs of Spain, he must say that were he called upon by any distinct motion to concur in those peculiar expressions, which were not at the moment before him, he should feel some difficulty, not in expressing the hope, but in concurring in the expectation that the measures which had been adopted by the Government of this country to afford assistance to the Government of the Queen of Spain, were likely to effect a speedy-termination of the sanguinary contest in that country, which every man who heard him, as well as every man in England, must desire to see terminated. It might be that the noble Lord (Palmerston) was in possession of information upon the subject, which was not accessible to ordinary observers; it might be that recent dispatches and recent accounts had furnished the noble Lord with grounds for hope which, as at present informed, he could not, himself entertain. But however that might be, he (Lord Francis Egerton) should not so fat depart from the rules of

137
practice which he had always observed in that House, as to put any direct question to the noble Lord upon the point, standing as the noble Lord did in the peculiarly delicate situation in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs was always placed. He asked for no information, therefore, which the noble Lord did not think proper, of his own accord, to lay before the House; but there was nothing that he was aware of before the country which could give him or any one reason to suppose that the steps which had been taken by the Government with the view of terminating the war in Spain, had, as yet, succeeded in producing the slightest diminution of the horrors of the contest, or in affording any reasonable hope that within a short period the struggle would be terminated. He should be glad to read his recantation if events should justify him in doing so. He, for one, entertained no wish nor desire to see a Government reestablished in Spain which, should rest upon the violent Catholic party or upon the Inquisition. But so rash had been the measures of those opposed to that system, and to that policy, that it was impossible for him to look forward with hope or expectation to the period when tranquillity should be restored in a country so distracted and torn by civil convulsion as the Peninsula of Spain. Upon these grounds, because he thought that passage in the Speech from the Throne insincere and untrue, (he did not mean to use the terms offensively to those who drew the Speech), it would certainly have been out of his power, had the matter been brought before him in a separate or more specific form, to have given his assent to it. The opinions which he had expressed with respect to French politics might have some shades of difference from the opinions of those gentlemen who had previously addressed the House upon the subject; they were opinions, however, which he honestly entertained, and which he had not hesitated frankly to declare.
Viscount Palmerston: It is not my intention to trespass upon the attention of the House for more than a very few minutes; but, in consequence of the turn which the debate has taken, I am anxious to offer a few words before the report of the Address is agreed to. I must begin by expressing my sincere regret that any hon. Members should have thought it expedient—should, have thought it consistent with their sense
138
of duty and with their feelings—to express the opinions they have done with regard to those Members of the House who have so nobly, as I contend, volunteered their services in the cause of the Queen of Spain. I regret that any hon. Members should have expressed opinions which I am convinced are so utterly opposite to those of the great mass of the people of this country, and which are, in my opinion, founded upon so erroneous a view, and so defective a feeling upon the subject to which they relate. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, who is row serving at the head of a large body of our countrymen in Spain, deserves well of his country for having undertaken the service in which he is engaged; and I can assure the hon. Member for Sandwich that the hopes, and feelings, and wishes, and prayers of a great portion of the people of this country are embarked in the success of his cause. The hon. Member for Sandwich, feeling, no doubt, and remembering how difficult it is for a man to be a prophet in his own country, and perhaps diffident of his own powers to make himself an exception to the rule, has started to-night as a prophet with respect to Foreign Affairs. He has given us one prophecy with regard to Spain, and another with regard to France. With regard to Spain he has told us—and he pledged his sagacity, his knowledge of human nature, his foresight, and his wisdom, on the accuracy of the prophecy—that the cause of Don Carlos will succeed, and that the 100,000 men who are now in arms, as he tells us, will speedily replace Don Carlos—not replace him, by the by, for he never yet occupied the seat, but will speedily place Don Carlos on the throne of Spain. With regard to France he says, You weak and blind Ministers of England indulge not in idle fancies of friendship cemented between England and France. The friendship which at present exists, so far from being, as we hope, lasting and firm, is destined, he tells us, from the very nature of things—from the deep-rooted feeling of animosity which exists between the two countries, speedily to give way to some dark and monstrous intrigue, which he paid me the compliment to suppose I understood, but which, I confess, I understood not at the time he was speaking, nor have been able to comprehend since. With regard to his opinions on the subject of the French alliance, I am content to leave them to the re-

139
buke which they have received from the admirable speech of the noble Lord (Lord F. Egerton) who sits next him; and I must say it was refreshing to me to hear the sentiments which that noble Lord expressed, in contrast with those which had fallen from the hon. Member for Sandwich. And this is undoubtedly a remarkable circumstance, that amongst the hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House, although generally united to oppose the Government, a great diversity of opinion prevails amongst many of them upon almost every question of foreign policy. There is amongst them, on domestic affairs, almost every shade of opinion, from those who profess to be for every description of Reform to those who say they wilt make no alteration at all. There is amongst them, on Foreign Affairs, almost every shade of opinion, from those who, like the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) last night, and my noble Friend this evening, say they wish for an alliance with France—that they think the alliance between the two nations consistent with the honour and advantageous to the interests of England, and, founded upon enlightened principles, likely to perpetuate the peace of Europe: there is amongst them every gradation of opinion, from those of these enlightened men, down to those of the hon. Member for Sandwich, who seems to look with aversion even at the slightest contact with our neighbour—who rejoices and delights in our former wars and battles, and who tells us, with an air of prophetic truth, that there are recollections which will ever prevent an union between the two countries. Events will prove whether he is right and whether we are wrong. But at least we have the satisfaction of thinking that in anticipating the growing connection between the two countries, and feeling a conviction that that connexion is founded upon the best principles of human nature, the most enlightened principles of public policy—at least we have the satisfaction of thinking, that in indulging in that anticipation, we have enjoyed a pleasure which I am sure it is impossible for the hon. Member for Sandwich to feel when he anticipates the disastrous separation between the two countries, which is to be the result of the unknown and monstrous intrigue which he has so darkly shadowed out. Now a few words with regard to the Spanish prophecy. The hon. Member gave us to
140
understand that he had in his pocket an accurate return of the strength of Don Carlos's army. It would of course be idle and ridiculous for me to dispute the accuracy of that return. My means of information are not the same as those enjoyed by the hon. Member. Don Carlos may have 100,000 men in arms. The hon. Member tells us he has: therefore it is true, no doubt. It may be true that the great mass of the people of Spain are in favour of Don Carlos. The hon. Member tells us that they are; therefore, there can be no doubt. All I can say is, that if the fact be so—if Don Carlos have a great majority of the people with him, and if he has 100,000 men in arms, it is the strangest thing in the world that he should still be shut up in the mountains of Biscay. How, with the 100,000 men in arms, the whole population of the country in his favour, and the 4,000,000 l. of money which we hear has lately been raised for him here—how, with all these means of triumph it happens that Don Carlos still remains in the modest retirement of the mountains of Biscay, is really more than I am able to understand. I certainly do share the hope expressed in the Speech from the Throne, that hostilities in Spain will soon be terminated, and that they will terminate the firm establishment of the Government of the Queen. The hon. Member's hopes lie in a different direction, and, as he justly states, it will remain for events to show which of the two hopes are best founded. In the mean while I can assure the hon. Member and the House, that the Government will continue to make every effort in their power to realize the hopes which they entertain. The hon. Member, on the other hand, will, no doubt, continue those oratorical efforts by which he hopes to gain the House over to support his views. Which is most likely to be successful, events will also prove. There is, however one point upon which I really wish to be very clearly understood, especially as other Gentlemen have alluded to it as well as the hon. Member for Sandwich. If there be any man who can believe that Government views with unequal horror and disgust the atrocities which have been committed on both sides in Spain—if there be any one who thinks that we regard with less disgust the atrocities committed by the partisans of the Queen than those committed by the followers of Don Carlos—he does us an atrocious injustice. And

141
the hon. Member for Sandwich is very much mistaken if he thinks that the interference of the British Government has been confined to one side of the question. If the hon. Member has such an impression on his mind, I assure him he is greatly ignorant of what has taken place. We have felt it to be our duty in cases in which we have had reason to believe that these proceedings have been taken on the part of the Queen's troops, to declare our indignation and disgust at them, and to express a hope not only that punishment would be inflicted upon those who were guilty of them, but that active and decisive steps would be taken to prevent a recurrence of them. There was one particular case which took place some months ago, in which it was understood that some prisoners were executed by the Queen's troops, A remonstrance was immediately made on the part of Great Britain, to which the reply of the Queen's Government was, that the report was utterly unfounded, and that no such occurrence as had been represented had taken place. With respect to the correspondence to which the hon. Member adverted, I must certainly admit that I wrote the letter to which he referred. He says I addressed the letter to the newspapers. That is not the fact.
Mr. Grove Price: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, I merely said that I had read the letter in the newspaper. I did not say that the noble Lord addressed it to the newspaper.
Viscount Palmerston: Well, then, I will only say, that so far from wishing to deny the letter, I fairly tell the hon. Member that I felt great satisfaction in having the opportunity afforded to me of writing it. I think that the application of the Bishop of Leon, addressed to me, came ill from him, and at an ill time. I do not wish to speak harshly of those in whose opinions, sentiments, or feelings, I do not concur; it is a practice I do not follow. I will say nothing, therefore, of the Bishop of Leon, which shall at all contradict what the hon. Member for Sandwich has said in his praise. It happened, however, that but a short period before the letter of the Bishop was addressed to me, the English Government had sent a special mission to the head-quarters of Don Carlos, for the purpose of endeavouring to prevail on him to disavow and retract the bloody edict by which it was declared that all foreigners
142
taken in arms in the service of the Queen, should be immediately and barbarously murdered. Don Carlos refused to retract. With his own lips he refused to retract or to disavow that atrocious edict. The officer dispatched by the British Government returned with a positive refusal from the lips of Don Carlos. I say, then, with such an answer recently received from. Don Carlos, to have a letter of fulsome praises towards England, reminding us of the services which England had rendered to Spain—of the English blood shed for the cause and in the service of Spain—to have a long letter of that sort written by a person who, whether at present the confidential adviser or agent of Don Carlos or not, was certainly a person much in his councils and confidence whilst he was in this country—I say that to a letter of that kind, written under such circumstances, it did not appear to me that any other answer was requisite than that which I gave to it. But let not the House imagine because I [did not accede to the request of the Bishop of Leon, that on that account I took no step in favour of the prisoners. I had in fact interceded a month before. The Bishop's letter was dated on the 10th of October. On the 1st of September I sent out instructions to the proper persons to endeavour, if possible, to obtain the release of the twenty-seven prisoners. Therefore, however well-in formed the hon. member for Sandwich may be upon other points, the House will see that he has been wholly misled upon this. And if the hon. Member will only take the trouble to inform himself on both sides of the question, perhaps his anticipations as to the result of the contest in Spain might be materially altered. I say that it is most untrue that the British Government have shown any indifference to the bloody practice which has prevailed on both sides during the war in Spain, and that the hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken if he supposes we have looked with partiality to the atrocities committed on one side, or not endeavoured by all the means in our power to induce the combatants to conduct their warfare more according to the usages of civilized nations. I believe I have now touched upon all the points to which the hon. Member adverted. I will only add, therefore, that there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne which induces me to regret, as the hon. Member stated he was persuaded I

143
must do, any expressions which felt from me during the last session in consequence of some remarks which he then made. The hon. Member reminded me of having said, on that occasion, that the imputations which he threw out against the Government of the Queen of Spain were, in my opinion, an abuse of the privilege of Parliament. I remember that the hon. Member, on that occasion, insinuated though he did not state, that the officers of the Queen had sent prisoners on board ship, under the pretence of sending them from one port to another, but in fact, for the purpose of drowning them at sea. It was to that insinuation that my observations applied. I certainly did think, and I retain the same opinion still, that it is not a becoming use of the privilege of this House—not a becoming use of that liberty of speech which is the unquestionable right of every member of this House, to throw out insinuations of that kind against the officers or instruments of a foreign nation, unless the party who makes the charge is in possession of such facts as will prove beyond dispute, the authenticity of what he is stating. The hon. Member will see the distinction between what has since happened, and the circumstances to which he then alluded. The massacre at Barcelona was a thing of a totally different description. The authorities acting under the Queen were, I think, grossly criminal for their neglect. I think their apathy was culpable in the highest degree; but I am sure the hon. Member will see a wide difference between that case and the one which was supposed to have taken place, but which nothing that has since come to light has proved to be true.
Lord Mahonrose, not for the purpose of taking any part in the debate; another opportunity would, he trusted, be given to him to express his opinion on the subject; but he rose to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord had stated, and he had heard that statement with unmixed pleasure, that the noble Lord had shown such zeal in the cause of humanity as not to confine his application in favour of the prisoners on One side only, but had on the first day of September last, interposed on behalf of the prisoners taken by the Queen of Spain. The question he wished to put to the noble Lord was this. What was the result of that application; and were the lives of those unhappy beings spared?
Viscount Palmer start: The noble Lord will well remember that the lives of those prisoners never were in danger. They were taken when the noble Lord himself was in office, on board of an English sloop, which was captured on the coast of Spain; and by the interposition of the then Government of this country, the lives of those persons were saved; but they were kept prisoners. It was in consequence of the convention negotiated by Lord Eliot that a question was raised respecting their detention. Being taken before the convention was entered into, they were not strictly entitled to the benefit of the exchange of prisoners under it. The only question on which any discussion had been raised by the present Government was, not whether the lives of those prisoners should be saved, because their lives had already been guaranteed to the preceding Government; but whether they should be set at liberty by an exchange of an equal number of Christine officers who had been taken prisoners by the troops of Don Carlos. It was to that point alone that the application of the 1st of September was directed. That application was not successful. It was stated in reply that these prisoners were not strictly entitled to the benefit of the convention, and that from peculiar circumstances it was not considered for the interests of the Queen of Spain to send them back to the army of Don Carlos. But I believe that every measure has been taken, not only on the one hand for the security of those officers from escape, but on the other for the prevention of any outrage towards them on the part of the Queen of Spain.
Mr. Borthwickexpressed his admiration of that part of the noble Lord's (Palmerston's) remarks in which he stated that the praise given in the King's Speech to the vigour and prudence of the Queen's Government was not meant to include the conduct of Mina and other Officers in her service. The noble Lord had asked why, if Don Carlos had such a large military force and such pecuniary resources, he had not been more successful? But the question might be retorted, and it might be asked why, if the cause of the Queen was so firmly fixed in the hearts and affections of the Spanish people, she had not been able to establish her authority over any part of her dominion; or why had it been necessary to send out a large; armed force from this country to enable

145
her to establish her authority? Such questions as these would cut at one side as well as the other. It was, he contended, idle to talk of the contest now going on in Spain as any other than, a doubtful struggle. What he wished to see fully established was the principle of non-interference, and he would contend that if we departed from that principle we were as much bound to support Charles the 10th on the throne of France, as we were to support the young Queen on that of Spain.
The Report was agreed to, and the Address ordered to be presented to his Majesty, by the whole House on the following day.

Preamble
MINUTES.] Bill. Read a first time:—Capital Punishments' Abolition Act Amendment.