Sitting of 21 April 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Marriages and Registration Act Amendment; Turnpike Roads' Continuance Bill.

PRIVILEGE.
Lord John Russellrose to bring forward a motion relating to the privileges of that House. A report had been made to the House from the select Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill, stating that parts of the evidence, and parts of the documents produced before that Committee, had been published in The True Sun newspaper. Had the publication been one of an ordinary nature, he conceived there would have been no difficulty in proceeding according to the ordinary forms and privileges of the House, and, without entering into any details on the subject, to direct at once, as in the case of the proprietor of The Dublin Evening Mail, brought before the House on the 31st of May, 1832, that the party offending be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms. But, in consequence of the declaration of the hon. Member for Southwark, who was instrumental in procuring

171
the publication of the proceedings of the Committee in The True Sun newspaper, he could only suppose that the hon. Gentleman, by taking part in the proceedings, and by avowing it, wished to bring under the consideration of the House the question of privilege—whether it were a privilege of the House or not, and whether, being a privilege of the House, it ought to be maintained. It was in consequence of the part that the hon. Member for Southwark had taken, that he felt it necessary, instead of proceeding in the ordinary course— seeing that a Member of the House wished to bring the matter under the consideration of the House—that they should come to some resolution that should embody the sense of the House on the subject. The resolution, that he should have the honour to move, stated not only that according to the undoubted privilege of the House no such publication could be permitted, but it stated likewise, that for the due protection of the public interest, no such publication ought to take place cither by a member of the Committee, or by any other person. And he was ready to say, that he placed that resolution upon the ground not only of the ascertained and undoubted privilege of the House, but likewise upon the ground that those privileges were for the protection of the public interest. He would state two or three cases in illustration of that assertion. In the first place, he would mention a case which occurred with respect to an inquiry relating to the affairs of Canada before a select Committee of that House, and in which, though he was not a Member of it, but as he understood, various documents were produced for the information of the Committee. At the close of the Committee, it was resolved, that those documents should not be presented to the House. Another case, which he thought illustrative of that now before the House, occurred in the instance of the finance Committee, of which also he was not a member, but before which the Duke of Wellington was examined as a witness. The noble Duke's evidence, which was extended to a very considerable length, related to the means of the military defence of our colonies and dependencies. The noble Duke might be very willing to give that evidence to the Committee—it might be of great importance to the Committee to enable them to make up their minds with respect to the question before them— but, at the same time, it might be very inexpedient that the particulars of that evi-
172
dence, or the statement of the Duke of Wellington with respect to the particular means of defending particular parts of our possessions, should be reported generally to the House, and thereby made public to all the world. There was one other case of a very different sort to which he would just call the attention of the House. It was the case of a Committee of which he was a member, namely, the Committee which sat to consider the subject of the renewal of the bank charter. Before that Committee some of the witnesses, and Mr. Rothschild in particular, stated, in support of the various opinions they gave, transactions of a strictly private kind. Mr. Rothschild, for instance, mentioned several private transactions of his with respect to the transmission of bullion, and also much of his affairs of a private kind with certain merchants in London and Paris. These were matters which Mr. Rothschild said, he had no hesitation to state for the information of the Committee, but, being of a private character, he did not wish them to he reported to the House. What he submitted to the House then was this—not only that it was not expedient in such cases that such evidence should be reported to the House, but that if it were decided, that all evidence taken before a Committee should be published, Committees would thereby be debarred from receiving evidence useful for the public interests, and prevented from obtaining information upon which their ultimate opinion might be formed. In the case of the Canada Committee, for instance, secret despatches were produced by the Secretary for the Colonies, which tended much to govern the decision of the Committee, but which could not have been produced if they must necessarily have been made public. So also in the case of the finance Committee. A military commander, like the Duke of Wellington, might hesitate to state facts with respect to the military defences of any part of our colonies, or any part of our possessions, if next day the whole of those facts were to appear in the public journals. In like manner, an individual like Mr. Rothschild might hesitate to state matters relating to his private affairs, if he knew the moment he stated them that they would be sure to appear in the newspapers of the following day. He wished not to debar the public from this information, but to preserve to Committees of the House the means of obtaining such information. It was upon

173
that ground, therefore, and for the public interest, that he wished to preserve the privileges of that House, which, as he was always ready to admit and acknowledge, ought only to be preserved and maintained upon the ground of their being favourable to the public interest. He would not allude any further to the resolution which he intended to propose; but he would say one word with respect to the amendment of which the hon. Member for Southwark had given notice, and which was to this effect—that the Committee upon the Poor-law Amendment Act, be directed to report the evidence taken before them from day to day. Now, he ventured to submit to the House, that the question he brought forward was one seriously affecting the privileges of the House, upon which they ought to come to a decision one way or the other— either that the privilege of the House should be maintained, or, if its maintenance did not tend to the public interest, that it should be abandoned. His objection to the hon. Member's amendment was this, that it did not deal with the question of privilege in any way, but tended only to put it aside, and to deal alone with the question of the expediency of the Committee being henceforward directed to report from day to day. It might, no doubt, be argued that the Committee ought to report from day to day, and, on the other hand, it might be contended that the rule they had hitherto adopted of reporting from time to time was the better one to observe. These were matters of convenience; and it was at any time competent to the Committee, if it thought proper, to ask leave to report from day to day. It was, also, competent to the House if it thought fit to instruct the Committee to report from day to day. But that, he repeated, was a mere matter of convenience, and had no relation whatever to the question of privilege. If the House agreed with him, that this privilege of preventing the publication of proceedings before Committees under certain circumstances tended to the public interest, he hoped they would vote with him in maintaining it. If, on the other hand, the House thought that the privilege did not tend in any way to the public interest, and that the publication of the proceedings ought to be allowed either to a member of the Committee, or to any other person, then, of course, they
174
would negative his resolution; bat be submitted that they could not enter into a debate on the amendment, which (related to a totally different question, and had no relation whatever to the privileges of the House. With these observations, he begged to move the following resolution:—"That according to the undoubted privileges of this House, and for the due protection of the public interests, the evidence taken by any select Committee of this House, and documents presented to such Committee, and which have not been reported to this House, ought not to be published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person."
Mr. Harveysaid, that the noble Lord had greatly mistaken the motive which bad induced him to suggest an amendment, when he supposed that it was to evade the operation of a principle. Quite the reverse. If it were, as the noble Lord bad contended, the undoubted and the universally acknowledged privilege of that House to prohibit the publication of evidence taken before Select Committees, whence the necessity of the resolution now moved? Apparently it was Parliamentary law as palpable as that they were legislators. If that law had been violated, there was a penalty for it; and whoever had incurred the penalty ought to be exposed to it, and be made to bear it. He was quite willing to do so if he had violated the law. Therefore, let it not be understood that be moved this amendment for the paltry purpose of evading a principle. He denied the terms of the motion when it was stated that the suppression of evidence was the privilege of that House, and at the same time, the interest of the public. It asserted two distinct propositions—first, that the House had privileges; secondly, that it had privileges apart from the interests of the public. He denied, that that House had any privilege apart from the interests of the public. Every privilege that the House possessed it possessed solely for the good of the public. But he did not understand exactly what was meant by the term "Privileges of the House." "Privilege," as he conceived, meant something that was conferred—something that some enjoyed, and from which others were excluded. It implied, therefore, the power of conferring. Now, it was impossible for Parliament to have any privilege conferred upon it; because its Members being the representatives of the people, were in themselves the people, and inasmuch as that they were the

175
origin of all power, so was it clear that they could confer no privileges upon themselves. But the noble Lord connected the privilege with the interests of the public. He confessed it was a matter of great regret as well as of surprise to him that a Government professing popular principles and a respect for popular rights should have thought it discreet, through the leader, of that House, for the first time to assert a great principle, under the pretence of protecting the rights of the people, at the very moment when those rights appeared to be placed in the greatest peril. If the noble Lord were proposing to the House that the Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Act should cease to be a Select Committee, and be converted into a Secret Committee, the precedents to which he had alluded would, be abundantly in point. The very fact of there being two distinct classes of Committees, public and secret, implied that there might be circumstances, rare but strong in themselves, to make it incumbent on the House to enforce the distinction. He (Mr. Harvey) could fully understand that, when the Duke of Wellington was examined before a Committee as to what the military defence of the country or the colonies should be, that that inquiry might take place under circumstances and at a time when the slightest publicity of the evidence obtained from such a quarter would be to strengthen the enemies of the country and prejudice the public interest. But the Committee before which the noble Duke was examined was not a public but a Secret Committee—secret under the highest guarantee that honour could invoke. The same observation applied to the Finance Committee, before which a great part of the proceedings were carried on by [symbols known only to a few. But if the noble Lord had inundated the House with precedents of that kind, if he had brought forward an ocean of cases, not like those he had quoted, but of another kind, where this right was clearly asserted, and its utility made manifest, he should take no heed of them; because he was ready to maintain that the Poor-law inquiry was an inquiry peculiar to itself. Who were the parties composing the Committee? On the one hand there was all the property of the country, in every variety and form, aggregated to support a measure peculiarly framed for its interest and protection. Who were the other party? All that was pitiable and miserable in the land, sunken
176
alike by ignorance and extreme poverty. The law that had been passed affected this latter class of persons in a degree which he would not trust himself to state, but which had been told in the Committee, and of which something yet remained to be said. Therefore, he regretted that the noble Lord had seized an occasion on which the rights and interests of the unfortunate were the peculiar objects of the inquiry before the Committee. If all other Committees of the House had been Secret Committees, he maintained that this Poor-law Committee ought for the first time to be an open and public Committee. See how it worked. Who were now before it? There was before that Committee, day by day, one of the most active and vigilant bodies of men—the authors, framers, and executioners of the Act; there were the Poor-law Commissioners—there were the Poor-law Commissioners' assistants—there was the whole establishment of Somerset-house— There was the active and intelligent Secretary—all sitting day by day; and beyond these the Committee had every resource it could require for the purpose of effecting its object. The Commissioners and their assistants sat there day by day taking minutes of what passed, and adapting the inquiry and the evidence they produced upon it to what they had heard stated. What was the condition of the other class—the unprotected and oppressed millions? Evidence was given before the Committee, affecting not only their little fortunes, but every thing that belonged to their character and history — The names of men were brought before the Committee, of whom it was said that so far from being prejudiced by the operation of the Poor-law Bill, they had been greatly benefitted by it, and were in a state of perfect contentment. There were 123 men whose names had been so brought forward? How were they to know what had been stated of them? How were they to know any thing of the proceedings in which their interests were so deeply affected, except by frequent and repeated publications? It was a mockery to say that the poor man might consult the printed reports of that House.—What time had the man who, to earn eight or nine shillings a week, was compelled to work from sunrise to sunset—what time had that man to wade through printed reports of many thousands of pages?—Looking, indeed, at the sad testimonies of emaciated forms which had appeared before the Committee,

177
he much doubted whether many of them would be sufficiently strong to bear home such bulky volumes, even if they ever had the means of getting them into their possession, or time to peruse them. How then was the working man, far away from places of public resort, and chained to the soil upon which he dragged out a miserable being, to become acquainted with what took place except through the newspapers? It was to be observed that there was no imputation that the reports published in the present instance had been garbled. The only imputation was, that they had been published some short time before the Committee of the House thought fit to authorise their publication. It was the more necessary that immediate publicity should be given to these proceedings, looking at the disparity of members upon the Committee who were the advocates of the law, and those who contended for substantial alterations. Of this latter number there were only four in a Committee of twenty-two. The right of giving immediate publicity to the proceedings of all the law courts in the kingdom, from the highest to the lowest, was ceded in every instance, often whilst most important questions—questions affecting the life or death of a fellow being— were pending. Why, then, should the right be refused in Committee of the House of Commons? The noble Lord had not uttered a syllable to show that the publication of which he complained had had any pernicious effect. On the other hand, he (Mr. Harvey) contended that the effect of the present motion, if carried, would be most injurious and unjust to the poor throughout the country. In his opinion, the Committee, as at present constituted, could not lead to any good. To be efficient, it should be an ambulatory Committee, holding its sittings in the work-houses of the great unions, and taking evidence upon the spot from all persons interested or concerned. He knew that parties whose interests were deeply affected by the Poor-Law Amendment Bill were actually afraid to come up to be examined before the Committee, because there prevailed such a spirit among those who were benefited by that measure, and who were endeavouring either to bolster up their rents, or to obtain the means of paying their rents, by squeezing the utmost that was possible out of the labour of the people. There were exceptions; and he mentioned it to the great credit of the clergy, that more than one clergyman had been examined, who
178
had given their evidence with a fairnes and frankness which reflected honour upon them as Christians and men. But these instances were rare, and it was utterly impossible that the object of the inquiry could be effected unless some mode were pursued by which the practical working of the Bill could be more efficiently examined. But as his Majesty's Ministers had negatived the proposition which he had made, that the Committee should be ambulatory, the only alternative was to publish from day to day what was passing before that Committee in Westminster. But it was said, "You will have the evidence from time to time." No such report had been published since the holidays, although the Committee had been sitting six days, and it would be impossible to give that evidence in less form than in six large sheets of The Times newspaper. Who was to read such a mass of print? and how was such an accumulation of matter to find its way into the quiet hamlets of the country? In what way were the agricultural labourers to be put in possession of it? Every question that had been put and every answer that had been given in the Committee bore most peculiarly on the humble fortunes of those people. Besides, how could they expect a poor man to pay so large a portion of his earnings for such a mass of printed matter? It was in evidence that those whom they were wont to call their country's pride, could not earn sufficient bread upon which to subsist. One man stated that he had not had more than three pennyworth of bacon a-week for himself, wife, and children, for the space of three months; and when he applied for relief he was told, that until he sold all his implements of trade he could not be relieved; and this man was actually compelled to sell his saw in order to entitle himself to assistance. Were these the men to buy the broad sheet of the Times or True Sun? The evidence ought to be published in a cheap form, and as Ministers had no objection to commissions, let them appoint Commissioners to disseminate these publications, in order that the people might know in what way that inquiry was carried on in which they were so deeply concerned. As far as he himself was concerned, if he had violated the rules or privileges of the House he ought to be subject to the penalties of that violation; but he begged to say that if he was to be interdicted continuing the publication of this evidence he should decline altogether

179
to be a Member of the Committee. He could not sit down without making one observation—namely, that this was not the only proceeding which had been taken in that House which had a personal origin, and a personal application to himself. Was this the first time, he should like to know, of a publication of this sort, but of which no notice whatever had been taken? It was hypocrisy to talk of it. What real means of protection had the House against publicity? There might be a hundred people in the Committee-room taking private notes; what was to prevent their dispersing them in the provinces? Hon. Members, too, might write letters, and make copious extracts from the evidence; in fact, they might be doing anything but that which was honest. He charged this Committee with a breach of that principle for which they seemed so sedulously alive, and that in a way which invoked reprehension; because, if the people were not allowed to be present, what right had the Poor-law Commissioners to be there? He pledged himself the very next day the Committee sat, if the Commissioners should be present, to move that they should be excluded. To allow the Commissioners to be present taking notes, and sending letters into the country, in order to get up evidence, at the same time that others were prevented publishing the evidence, was not merely a mockery of justice, but was an insult to the people of England. If those who were the guardians of the people's interests were to be interdicted from any intercourse with those who were effected by the inquiry, what right had any individual to have the slightest conversation, directly or indirectly, with any party on the other side? It was said there was a difference between publishing the evidence in the newspapers and writing confidential letters about it, but he did not understand this affected secrecy. Either the public had or they had not a right to know what passed before the Committee; and if they had not, then any communication, however secret, was a violation of the law, and ought to be treated criminally. He hated all evasion. He was now contending for the utmost publicity in a case in which unprotected and uncommiserated millions were concerned; and unless that publicity were given fairly, honestly, and fully, he would at once denounce the inquiry to be altogether fallacious, and one which would terminate in utter disappointment. He begged to tell the noble Lord that he should proceed in
180
the discharge of what he deemed to be his duty in publishing the evidence. He heeded not any penalties they could inflict, whether they consisted in sending him to take up his quarters in Newgate, or in expulsion from the House. He would brave both if necessary; he was determined to have the principle decided, whether the public had or had not a right to know what was passing before a Committee of the House of Commons upon an inquiry affecting the lives and happiness of millions of the industrious classes. He would now conclude by moving the amendment of which he had given notice; at the same time he was not anxious to press it now, if the noble Lord would say, that he was prepared to support the amendment as a substantive motion, because he had no desire to evade a discussion on the grounds of the noble Lord's abstract proposition; but if he (Mr. Harvey) could not secure that, he should feel himself compelled to pursue the course which he was now taking, with a view to effect an object which he felt it to be his bounden duty, by all means, if possible, to obtain. The hon. Gentleman then moved, by way of amendment, "That the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the administration of relief to the poor, under the orders and regulations of the Commissioners appointed under the provisions of the Poor-law Amendment Act, be instructed to report the evidence taken before them from day to day to the House.
Mr. Wakleyseconded the amendment.
Mr. Smith O'Brienwas anxious, that the greatest facilities should be afforded to the publication of the proceedings before the Select Committees of that House; for it appeared to him, that the value of an inquiry by a Committee, would be extremely deteriorated, as regarded the effect it would produce on the public mind, by the circumstance of the evidence not being communicated to the public from time to time, especially when the subject of the inquiry was calculated to excite a public interest. He considered, that the proceedings of this Committee were such as it was peculiarly incumbent on the House to make public, as the question was one of the greatest interest to the whole community. It had been his intention, if no other amendment had been moved, to have proposed as an amendment a resolution to the effect, that it was expedient that the publication of evidence taken before Select Committees, not being Secret Committees, should be permitted. But the hon. Member for South-

181
wark having already moved an amendment, he had DO alternative but that of giving it his support.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that having intimated an opinion that he should move an amendment almost similar in terms to that suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark, he felt it his duty to trespass for a few moments upon the attention of the House. The resolution of the noble Lord appeared to him to be totally unnecessary. He remembered, that in the case of General Darling, which was before a Select Committee, the majority of that Committee licensed (as far as they could do) the publication of the evidence. The minority appealed to the Speaker of that day, and he gave it as his opinion, that there was no such thing known to the law as the publication of any evidence or discussions of matters undecided by that House; and, certainly, they all knew that it was a breach of privilege to publish even what was, at the present moment, going on in the House. Yet it was a breach of privilege which took place every day, and all of them would regret exceedingly in their turn, if that breach of privilege did not take place. It was therefore difficult to deal with the Motion itself, while it was also difficult to negative any vote of the kind, if the opinion to which he had referred, was correct; because, certainly, cases might arise, such as the noble Lord had adverted to, when it might be improper to apply the general rule of publication to such excepted cases. But he was of opinion, that those excepted cases might be very well left to the discretion of the Committee itself. He was, however, strongly of opinion, that publication, as a general rule, would be highly beneficial. He did not think the hon. Member had accurately stated the rule as to the publication of proceedings in a court of law pending a trial, because the judges had latterly been in the practice of prohibiting such publication. He thought the judges were wrong; and that the prohibition did no mischief. It was a modern power assumed by them. In the year 1794, when there was a great conspiracy to get rid of the Reformers, a trial took place which lasted eight days. The evidence, during the first three or four days, was published, which led to the discovery of facts with regard to the character of certain witnesses that tended materially to serve the cause of the accused. He thought, with respect to proceedings in courts of justice, it was favourable to have the evi-
182
dence published; but he was quite convinced it was so, with respect to Committees of that House, where persons did not speak under the sanction of the oath, and where the utmost latitude was given, both as to the questions asked and the answers given. In reference to the evidence of the Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill, he conceived that there was every ground for affording to it the utmost publicity. The House, perhaps, might recollect, that he himself voted against that measure in all its stages; he had, however, since, become convinced that he was exceedingly wrong in having taken that course. He believed, that if time were given for it to be worked out, it was calculated to do great good. The hon. Member for Southwark appeared to him to be assuming too much, when he called himself, by way of distinction, the friend of the poor man. He thought, that every supporter of the Poor-law Bill had as good a right to be considered the friend and protector of the poor man as the hon. Member. Indeed, he considered this was just the case in which every publicity ought to be given, so as not to afford the slightest pretence for any one, to say, "Oh! you are getting up an ex parte case; I won't be a party to the delusion; I will throw up my brief." He did not mean to say, that the hon. Member for Southwark was not actuated by the purest motives, but the pretence he had described might be made, and he believed would be made, with a view to exasperate the public mind. It had been said, that this was a packed Committee. But was that true? He believed there was no Member on that Committee, who would either cause improper evidence to be given, or proper evidence to be suppressed. The Poor-law Bill was not a party measure, but was supported by Gentlemen on both sides of the House; and none had ever yet shrunk from the avowal, that they gave it their support; therefore, it was just that kind of measure which the House itself was concerned in having the fairest, fullest, most ample, and most unobjectionable investigation with respect to it. On Monday, the question of a Poor-law for Ireland would be discussed, and he should be pleased to have all the evidence he could from the Committee now sitting. It would enable the House to do their duty more efficiently, when a system of Poor-laws for a country which had hitherto no experience of the kind, was the subject of discussion. The

183
Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark, if not adopted by the House, was one which ought to be taken up by the Committee, to afford the country information upon a question which had already been the subject of so much misrepresentation. It had been made a topic at elections. They all knew what had recently occurred at Warwick. It was the principal war-cry of one Gentleman who went to Warwick avowedly to sustain the principles of a party, the leaders of which party had actually supported the Bill in this House. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary that the public should have an accurate knowledge on that subject. Let the advocates of the New Poor-law challenge investigation, let them take a lofty stand upon this —that the more there was of inquiry, the more there was of investigation, the more would the truth appear; and if the truth were against them, let them at once repeal or modify the law; but if the truth were with them, then the measure, no matter how distorted and misrepresented in its progress, in its ultimate results would, and must be, triumphant.
Sir James Grahamwas glad that he had given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, for although he did not think that this was exactly the proper time for discussing the Poor-law Amendment Bill, yet he rejoiced that he had given the hon. and learned Member the opportunity of making a declaration so honourable to himself, that although, perhaps, at this particular juncture, and at the earliest stage of the experiment of the amended Poor-law, that measure had not been altogether properly administered, and although the hon. and learned Member had opposed that measure in all its stages, yet he had now gallantly and publicly come forward and avowed, that even during the short time he had witnessed its workings, he believed it to be a most beneficial measure. He thought that such an avowal from that hon. and learned Member would be most advantageous to the country, and he therefore greatly rejoiced that he had given way to that hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Gentleman entertaining that opinion, said, that it was a measure that would bear investigation; but, on the other hand, it would be admitted that that investigation for the purpose of eliciting truth, must be conducted upon principles of the utmost fairness and safety. The question then arose, what was the safe and fair principle? The hon. and learned
184
Gentleman thought, it ought to be left to the discretion of the Committee. Upon that point he differed in opinion from him. The Committees were guided by the established usage of Parliament; therefore, whenever a departure from that usage was made, it should be by the House itself. Some confusion seemed to have arisen between a secret and a select Committee. He knew of no distinction except this: that while in a select Committee all the Members of the House had a right to be present during the investigation, though those only appointed by the House had voices, in a secret Committee no Member was allowed to be present who was not a member of the Committee. But with regard to the public, both Committees stood upon precisely the same grounds; and any publication of proceedings that took place before either, without the sufferance of the House itself, was decidedly a breach of the privileges of the House. It was said, that the resolution of the noble Lord was unnecessary: and if he were called upon to answer that question categorically, he should say he thought it was unnecessary; still he thought a declaratory resolution was highly expedient; he should therefore cordially support the proposition of the noble Lord. He could not conceive anything more cruel than to publish, day by day, evidence taken before a Committee deeply affecting the private character of individuals, and to which there was no opportunity of furnishing an immediate reply. It had been said, that in the courts of law the proceedings of part of a trial were allowed to be published where the case stood over to the following day. This, however, was by no means uniformly the case, for the court often forbade the publication of proceedings until the whole case was gone through. But' even if this was not the case, he did not think that it should be binding on that House. It should be recollected, that the evidence taken before courts was given in conformity with the strictest rules of evidence; whereas, indirect, ex parte, and hearsay evidence was taken before select Committees, and leading questions were put, and the examination was carried on in every manner calculated to bear on the subject. The Committees also broke up at ten minutes to four o'clock, in the middle of the examination of a witness. Now the evidence might contain the strongest accusations against private persons, and yet they would go forth uncontradicted until the next time the Committee met, for the

185
cross-examination would be prevented at the time the evidence was given. It would he too much, therefore, to allow such evidence to go forth, regardless as to its truth or to its bearing on the real merits of the case. The hon. Member said, that he would have the evidence in such parcels as were best calculated to give the best information. This was the view the majority of the Committee took of the matter when they supported the motion that the evidence should not be reported to the House day by day, but from time to time; for instance, when the whole evidence relative to any particular union had been given on both sides. This was the wish and intention of the Committee, and they adopted this course for the purpose of disabusing the public mind, as to the statements that had gone forward on the subject of the new Poor-law, and also before the evidence assumed that bulky shape which deterred many persons from reading reports of Committees. They had pursued this course in the reports they had laid on the table of the House, of the evidence taken before them. He did not think that the hon. Member for Kilkenny was aware of what had taken place before the Committee, he inferred this from the tenor of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Committee had been most anxious to prevent an appeal to the House on this subject, but it was forced on them. There had been a great difference of opinion before the Committee, but he hoped that there had been nothing of personal anger or hostility. He believed that the hon. Member for Southwark had stated to the House that he was the proprietor of The True Sun newspaper, which published from day to day part of the evidence taken before the Committee. The chairman of the Committee called the attention of the hon. Member for Southwark to the subject, but the publication of the evidence still went on. The hon. Gentleman was then in-formed by the highest authority, namely, the Speaker, that such publication of the evidence taken before the Committee was an undoubted breach of the privileges of that House. The hon. Gentleman was then told by the chairman of the Committee that if he persisted in the publication of the evidence day by day, that it would be necessary to call the attention of the House to the subject; but the hon. Member stated, that he had taken a view of what he considered to be his duty, and he should persist in
186
following that course which a sense of duty dictated. With this feeling the hon. Member published not the whole of the evidence given each day, but only extracts from it; and he (Sir J. Graham) must be permitted to say that they were not fair extracts, for many very important parts of the evidence were entirely omitted. Documents were also published which had been submitted to the Committee, and respecting which, doubts were entertained whether it was expedient to receive them or not as evidence. He had himself proposed that the question should be reserved for future consideration, as to whether the documents should be received or not as evidence. This was done because doubts were entertained whether the documents in question should be placed on the minutes of the Committee. The Committee adopted this resolution; but within forty-eight hours of their coming to the determination that the documents should be reserved for further consideration, which was carried against the proposition of the hon. Member that they should at once be received as evidence, the documents appeared in The True Sun newspaper. Thus the hon. Member, by the power he possessed, superseded and overruled the opinion of the Committee, which had not determined whether any portion of the evidence or documents laid before it should be printed and published. The hon. Member, in the course which he had adopted that night, had endeavoured to raise two questions entirely distinct the one from the other. He could conceive under the circumstances of the Poor-law inquiry, great anxiety prevailed as to the nature of the evidence, as well as to the importance of the subject, and that the publication of the evidence was anxiously looked for. If the hon. Member was dissatisfied with the decision of the Committee, a motion for the publication of the evidence day by day should have been made in the House, and thus the matter would not be left to the discretion of a Committee. The House would then state whether, under the circumstances of the case, it was expedient to report the evidence day by day. If such a proposition were made, he should certainly endeavour to induce the House not to consent to it. He could well conceive that a Member might entertain such an opinion, and desire to have the evidence printed from day to day; but still, a Member entertaining this opinion, might think that the privileges of the House should be

187
maintained. The one question then, was, whether that House would assert its privileges, and, asserting them, would maintain them, however painful to enforce them in the unpleasant manner that the indiscretion of any party might render necessary. The other question, which was entirely distinct from this, was whether a publication of the evidence of this Committee from day to-day should or should not be allowed. With respect to the former question, if a majority of the House should decide not only that their privileges should exist, but that they would exert them, it would then remain to be seen what course should be pursued with respect to an hon. Member, who stated that he would not bow to the authority of the House itself. If they consulted their own dignity, and, what was mare important, the cause of truth, the House must take care that in carrying on this inquiry, the evidence was published impartially and fairly. There had been expressed various doubts and threats, but they were too vague to be realised. The House, therefore, should at once come to the determination as to whether or not it would maintain its privileges. The question they had then to determine was, not whether the Poor-law Committee should be called upon to report the evidence taken before it from day to day, but the great question which Should not be blinked, was, whether the evidence taken before a select Committee, and the documents laid before it, should be published by any member of the Committee against the decision of that Committee, and against the orders of the House.
Mr. Harvey Mr. Harvey, in explanation, said, that so far from saying that he was prepared to withstand the authority of the House, he distinctly stated that it was not likely that a Member of that House would oppose himself to the authority of the body of which he was a Member. He also said, that he should not be deterred by any threats of being sent to Newgate, or of expulsion, from pursuing that course which a sense of fluty dictated to him. The right hon. Gentleman said, that it was something like a breach of the privileges of the House to publish documents in a state of abeyance before a Committee. The fact was this, Mr. Hawley, one of the assistant Poor-law Commissioners, was allowed, the day after he gave his evidence, to read it over for the purpose of correction, and also that he should produce a document for insertion in it, Now, instead of producing
188
the single document that he had read to the Committee, he produced a second paper, which he stated was essential to the inquiry. He was asked whether these documents had been read to the Committee. He replied that one of them had been read, and the other was a return which be thought it was necessary should be put in. On looking over this document, the right hon. Baronet wished to have it withdrawn; but on his (Mr. D. W. Harvey) seeing the paper, he was at once convinced of the importance of it and proposed that the two documents should be printed. The right hon. Baronet proposed that the second document should be printed for the use of the Committee only, and the Committee divided, for the motion 11, against it 5.
Sir James Grahamshould be sorry to be guilty of any want of courtesy to the hon. Member; but he could not help observing, that he considered truth to be of more importance than courtesy. It was true, that in the first instance he proposed that the document should be printed for the use of the Committee only; but on a moment's reflection he withdrew his motion, as he anticipated something like the course that had now been pursued.
Mr. Humewas accustomed to look upon the privileges of that House as framed for a wise and salutary purpose, and for the public benefit. With respect, however, to the rules adopted as to the publication of their proceedings, he must say, that one of the rules which was adopted at the commencement of each Session against the publication of the debates and proceedings of that House was of a most objectionable nature, and he had taken many opportunities of expressing his opposition to it. The motion of the noble Lord was, "That according to the undoubted privileges of this House, and for the due protection of the public interest, the evidence taken by any Select Committee of this House, and documents presented to such Committee, and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any Member of such Committee, or by any other person." He considered this resolution to be objectionable on many grounds. He would put it to the House, whether it was not inconsistent to provide accommodation for individuals to commit a breach of their privileges, and to allow them facilities to take notes to report the proceedings of the House. At any inquiry at the bar of the House the evidence would be taken, and published from day to day.

189
It had been the custom for strangers to be present during their proceedings, and during his time he had never heard of their being turned out. He also never recollected a period when it bad been treated as a breach of privilege to publish the evidence taken at the bar of the House. He wished to know whether the House would allow these proceedings to be published from day to day, while the publication of the evidence taken before a Select Committee, to which the House delegated its entire powers, stated that the evidence given before it should not be published. Before anything could be published by the House, it was necessary that there should be the fiat of the House, and the Speaker, but still the publication of the proceedings, without that sanction, was not regard-ed as a breach of privilege. No reason had been given against the publication of evidence taken before a Committee, unless it was, that evidence affecting private character might be given before it. But in examination of witnesses at the bar, the inquiry was often postponed in the middle of an examination or of a cross-examination. Again, the right hon. Gentleman must know, that although the Committees nominally adjourned when the Speaker took the Chair, that in reality the invariable custom was to complete the examination of a wit-ness, although it might last half an hour or an hour after four o'clock; the only check on this practice was, that no division in a Committee could take place after the Speaker took the Chair, and therefore if an occasion to do so arose, the Committee adjourned. He did not see any reason why a distinction should be drawn between the proceedings of the Committee of the House, and a Select Committee up stairs. He was of opinion, that in any case, except Committees of Secrecy, they should allow of the publication of the evidence. He was a Member of the Finance Committee, and he recollected the evidence given by the Duke of Wellington on the subject of the military expenses of the colonies, and he regretted that that evidence had been kept secret. If it had been published he was sure that it would have prevented the expenditure of two millions in Canada on the canals there. He had moved that the evidence taken before the Poor-law Committee should be reported from day to day, and he regretted that that motion had not been carried, for he feared that it would be considered an attempt to suppress the evidence taken before it, Although he
190
took a different view of this Bill from the hon. Member for Southwark, he still thought that it was only just that there should be the fullest inquiry into its operation; and he had no doubt if this was done, and the fullest publicity given to the evidence, much of the misapprehension which prevailed relative to this Bill would be got rid of. If ever there should be an exemption as to the general rule respecting the publication of evidence, it should be in this case.
Mr. Williams Wynnagreed with the right hon. Member for Cumberland, that the two motions were perfectly distinct, and were not in opposition the one to the other. It by no means followed that because they felt that the rules and orders of that House called upon them to support the first motion, that the second question could not be put separately and agreed to. The great point was, that that House should reserve to itself the right to regulate the proceedings of select Committees. The Committees could have no authority that did not emanate directly from the House, and it was only by a special rule that a Committee was enabled to send for a single witness, or call for a single document, for they could not do so until they were empowered to send for persons, papers, and records. In the same manner, it must have permission given it to adjourn from place to place, and to report its evidence from time to time. That power had been granted to the Poor-law Committee, and it was left to their discretion to take what they considered the best division of the evidence for the purpose of reporting it to the House. The Committee were not thereby precluded from reporting the evidence day by day to the House. On the contrary, full power was given them to do so, if they thought fit. The hon. Member appeared to labour under some mistake in supposing that the printing of the evidence taken before Committees, and the printing of that taken at the bar of the House, rested on the same authority; viz. the fiat of the Speaker. The Speaker had the power of authorising the evidence taken before Committees to be printed for the use of the members of the Committees, and of them only; but when an inquiry was conducted at the bar of the House, the Speaker had no power ovér the printing of the evidence. That was a matter entirely at the disposal of the House. He recollected that, during the inquiry into the Walcheren expedition, the late Mr. Yorke regularly exercised the right,

191
which every Member possessed, of clearing the gallery of strangers, in order to prevent the publication of the evidence until the House should think right to order it to be printed. The hon. Member for Middlesex thought it expedient the public should have full information of all the proceedings of that House. He was inclined generally to agree in that opinion, but occasions might occur where it would be judicious to prevent, for a time, the publication of what took place in the House. He, by no means, thought that the hon. and learned Member for Southwark had exercised an improper discretion when he cleared the gallery on a former evening, during a discussion which he apprehended was assuming too much of the appearance of a personal dispute, and in which the characters of two hon. Members were concerned. Doubtless, the hon. and learned Member for Southwark was of opinion that any differences which had arisen might be more easily reconciled when there were no auditors—no strangers present. With respect to the practice pursued by Committees, he might observe that, in many instances, they had very properly determined to report only a summary of the evidence taken before them to the House, and on motions being made that the minutes of evidence should be reported, the House had come to different decisions, according to the circumstances of each case. The general opinion appeared to be, that it was most convenient that the minutes should be published. At the same time, he had not the slightest doubt, that in the present instance, the motion made by the noble Lord was a true and proper assertion of the privileges of the House, and having been made, he should be sorry to see it passed by or evaded. He thought it desirable, that the evidence should be laid upon the table of the House in small divisions, though he would not have the examination and cross-examination of the same witness separately reported. It was impossible to lay down any general rule on this point, but it would be advantageous in his opinion that the rule should be adhered to of reporting the evidence only as the inquiry into each different union was concluded. At present, however, he did not see any sufficient reason, any omission on the. part of the Committee, which called for the interference of the House with that discretion which had hitherto been intrusted to Committees, of reporting from time to time, as to which, generally speaking, they were the best judges. The proper way for the hon.
192
Member for Southwark to have taken the sense of the House as to the particular question involved, would have been to have brought it forward as a substantive motion, and not as an amendment upon a motion which the House could not do otherwise than agree to as an affirmation of their undoubted privileges.
Mr. Warburtonlooked upon the hon. Member's amendment as an altogether erroneous mode of meeting the question. The hon. Member should have come before the House with a substantive motion. There could not be the slightest doubt about what were the powers and privileges of the House as to the publication of evidence, as a general rule; neither could there be the slightest hesitation on the part of the House in affirming, if called upon, that as a general rule, there was and ought to be in the House a power to exclude strangers; but the question was, whether the House was prepared invariably to exert those powers—whether on all occasions, when the House saw any publication of what had taken place in one of its Select Committees, it was prepared to employ all its powers in punishing those who had been guilty of the publication. He had repeatedly seen the proceedings of Committees published without the slightest notice being taken by the House of the circumstance. He remembered, for instance, the case of the Select Committee which took cognizance of certain Members of the House in the Arigna mine affair, the proceedings before which were regularly published, day by day, in The Times, without any interference on the part of the House. He was willing, he would repeat, to affirm the general rule; but he was not prepared to say, that a case might not arise in which it would be a highly expedient and desirable course to publish what took place in the House and its Committees. He could say for himself, that he had occasionally acted as a reporter in that way, and in so doing, he had considered himself to be exercising a sound discretion. His support of the noble Lord's resolution, therefore, by no means involved a condemnation of those persons who sometimes exercised a sound and wholesome discretion in publishing what took place on some occasions; and he should recommend the House to wink at the publication of what took place in Committees in the same way that it shut its eyes to the publication of the proceedings of the House. For his part, he had never been present on any Committee the

193
proceedings of which might not be with perfect safety published to the public.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that as it seemed admitted on all hands, that it was a breach of privilege for the hon. Member to publish the proceedings of a Committee, to proceed with the resolution would be a weak and unmeaning affirmation of what had been the custom of ages. It had been justly observed, that there might be cases in which the publication of the proceedings before a Committee was desirable. It appeared to him that if ever there was a case in which the deviation from a practice of the House was admissible, it was that now in question. Whose interests were attacked in this Committee? Whose interests had to be defended? In both cases those of the poor, the needy, and the helpless. What was the power arrayed before the Committee in support of the new Poor-law? The effective and well-organised power of the Commissioners sitting at Somerset-house. Who assert the rights of the poor in this Committee? Professional aid they had none. As far, however, as his own assistance could avail them, there he would never fail in the duty he owed them. He was bound, however, to state broadly and distinctly, as regarded the manner in which the proceedings before the Committee were conducted, that a spectator would find it utterly impossible to discover what was the bias, in reference to the new Poor-law, of any of the members who composed the Committee, everything was carried on with such entire openness and impartiality, and not the slightest disposition was evinced on the part of any Member to prevent any witness from making the fullest statement in his power, whatever its tendency. Seeing, however, the excited state of the public mind on this subject; the representations, true and false, extensively circulated respecting the operation of the act; it appeared to him that out of regard to the interests of the public at large, and the honour of the House, it was essential that the proceedings before this Committee should be laid before the public in the fullest and most open manner from day to day. If this were not done, he feared that most unfavourable impressions would arise in the public mind: for what would the poorer part of the community say? — "Oh, we see what this Committee is about; they are afraid the truth should transpire, and so they wish to keep the evidence secret till they have trimmed it and cut it down. If they were not afraid,
194
why do they withhold the evidence from us." The right hon. Baronet said, that injustice might be done by publishing the evidence day by day; perhaps, in one point of view, this might, to a certain extent, be the case; but balance the great good arising from the publication of the evidence against the evil of withholding it, and the good would be found greatly to predominate. Indeed, it seemed to him that if the evidence were not so published, the Committee had better at once terminate its labours.
Mr. Wardsaid, there was no doubt it was essential to the character of Select Committees that they should have the power of keeping the evidence taken before them secret, if they thought fit. At the same time, he perfectly concurred in the principle of the amendment, and he should have been ready to vote for it, had it come before them as a substantive motion. He felt, however, that he could not do so in its present shape, without negativing a rule which, it was generally conceded, it was essential to maintain as a general principle. If the hon. Member would only forward his proposition as a substantive motion, it should have his (Mr. Ward's) ready support. He had heard no reason why the rule should be too strictly enforced in this particular instance. It appeared to him to be a very great object that the public mind should be enlightened as to the real working of this measure in reference to the poor; and this object could not be better attained than by the publication of the evidence. He was sure that there was but one spirit among all the Members of the House regarding the welfare of the poorer classes; and that if it should appear that the working of the measure in any respect was injurious to these classes, the House would be perfectly ready to apply a remedy. The true state of the case would be shown in the evidence before this Committee, and for the sake of all parties, it was very desirable that no time should be lost in communicating that evidence to the public.
Mr. T. Duncombedid not rise to protract the discussion, but, on the contrary, to put an end to it altogether, for he rose for the purpose of moving that it be adjourned till that day six months. It appeared to him, that no case had been made out for the interference of the House. There was no doubt, to be sue, that the proprietor of The True Sun newspaper had committed a breach of privilege, but he saw no reason why the House should take notice of the circumstance any

195
more than it took notice of the circumstance that the proceedings before the Longford Election Committee were daily published in The Times. He could conceive no reason why the proprietor of The True Sun, in particular, should be selected for the censure of the House. He begged to move that the further debate on the subject be adjourned till that day six months.
Mr. Roebuckseconded the amendment. As the hon. Member for Southwark had observed, if it had been thought that the proceedings before this Committee should be kept secret, all that was necessary was, to declare it a secret Committee. No practical advantage could possibly arise from affirming in general terms a rule of the House which everybody admitted to he a rule of the House. The only effect of the resolution would be to exhibit the proprietor of The True Sun as a martyr in the people's cause, and the rest of the House as men desirous of grinding the poor.
Lord John Russellbegged to say he had no such object in view as the making a martyr of any hon. Member. His only object was, as it seemed that the privileges of the House had been partially called in question by one of its Members, that the rule of the House should be affirmed, so that there should no longer be a doubt on the subject. It was most desirable that they should come to some clear understanding as to the power of Committees respecting publication of evidence, and he therefore hoped, that before the discussion terminated, Mr. Speaker would state to the House his opinion upon the point.
Mr. Roebuckexplained that he had passed no opinion as to the object of the noble Lord's resolution; what he had spoken of was its effect.
Mr. Robinsonregretted that the hon. Member for Southwark had not made a substantive motion. Had the question come before the House in that shape, he should have supported it, for he considered that if ever there was a case which might be permitted to form an exception to the general rule of the House as to publication of evidence, it was this.
Mr. Richardsconceived that the proper course for the hon. Member for Southwark would have been to have taken the sense of the Committee as to the publication of its proceedings; had the sense of
196
the Committee been adverse to him, he could then have brought the question substantively before the House.
The Speaker: In consequence of the appeal of the noble Lord, and of what has fallen from hon. Members during this discussion, I feel it to be my duty to state under what authority evidence taken before Select Committees is printed. The rule of the House is, that all papers laid before the House shall, under the authority of the Speaker, be printed by the printer of the House; and all papers are published under the authority of the Speaker for the use of its Members generally. The evidence taken before a Select Committee forms an exception to this rule. The practice of printing the evidence taken before Select Committees, for the use of the Members of the respective Committees, is a recent one, the rule having been made in 1814. The practice from that period to 1816 was, that the Chairman of each Committee applied to the Speaker for permission to have the evidence printed by the printer of the House, without which, the printer would not print; and, this being granted, the evidence was accordingly printed, but only on the faith and clear understanding that it was printed for the use only of members of the Committee. If evidence taken before a Committee, were printed otherwise than on these conditions, — if it were printed not for the use of the Committee but for the public, this would clearly be a direct violation of the privileges of the House. And the reason is obvious; for see what would be the consequence if it were not so,— if it had no other foundation; for if the publication were to be extended for the use of the public, it would place the Speaker in a very awkward situation. The Speaker would be put in the position of sanctioning the publication of evidence which had not been communicated to the House; and the Committee would be directing the publication of evidence which it had not the permission of the House to make known. It is obvious, then, that should it become an ascertained fact that any Member of a Committee is in the habit of printing copies of the evidence in order to communicate it to the public, without the authority of the House for so doing, the Speaker must necessarily find himself placed between two alternatives — either to recall his permission to the Committee to print the evidence, or to bring the Member

197
before the House. The Committee has not any power to print without the permission of the Speaker, and that does not go further than to print for the use of the Committee. The Committee, then, has not the power to order any printing, much less to make public any evidence that may be taken before it.
The House divided on the motion for adjourning the debate. Ayes 18; Noes 131; Majority 113.

List of the AYES.

Crawford, W. S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Dennistoun, Alex.

Roche, D.

Elphinstone, H.

Ruthven, E.

Fleming, John

Thompson, Col.

Fitzsimon, C.

Walter, John

Hall, B.

Wason, R.

Hindley, G.

Williams, W.

Hume, J.

Leader, J. T.

TELLEES.

O, Brien, W. S.

Duncombe, T.

O'Connell, D.

Roebuck, J. A.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Gladstone, W. E.

Bailey, J.

Gordon, Robert

Baillie, H. D.

Goring, H. D.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baines, E

Grey, Sir G. Bart.

Balfour, T.

Grote, G.

Bannerman, Alex.

Halse, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Hamilton, Geo. A.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hardy, J.

Bewes, T.

Harvey, D. W.

Biddulph, Robert

Hawkins, J. H.

Blake, M. J.

Hawes, B.

Brodie, William B.

Hay, Sir A. L. Bart.

Brotherton, J.

Heathcote, Gilb.

Brownrigg, S.

Hector, C. J.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Buller, Charles

Howard, P. H.

Bulwer, Edw. L.

Humphery, J.

Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.

Ingam, R.

Chapman, A.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Chichester, A.

Knight, H. G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Lefevre, C. S.

Cole, Viscount

Lemon, Sir C.

Collier, John

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Collins, W.

Lennox, Lord G.

Coote, Sir C. C.

Lister, E. C.

Crawford, W.

Long, W.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Martin, J.

Ebrington, Viscount

Mosley, Sir O. Bart.

Egerton, Sir P.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Ellice, E.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Estcourt, T. H.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Etwall, Ralph

Palmer, G.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Palmerston, Viscount

Ferguson, Sir R. A

Parker, J.

Fergusson, R. C.

Parnell, Sir H.

Forbes, W.

Parrott, Jasper

Forster, C. S.

Parry, Sir L. P.

Fort, J.

Pease, J.

198

Peel, Sir R. Bart.

Stanley, Lord

Pendarves, E. W.

Stewart, John

Perceval, Col.

Stewart, P. M.

Philips, M.

Surrey, Earl of

Phillips, G. R.

Thomson, C. P.

Pinney, W.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Polhill, F.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Potter, R.

Turner, W.

Poulter, J. S.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Villiers, C. P.

Richards, J.

Vivian, J. E.

Richards, R.

Wakley, T.

Rickford, William

Walker, R.

Robinson, G. R.

Warburton, H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ward, H. G.

Ross, Charles

White, S.

Rundle, J.

Wilks, J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Williamson, Sir H.

Russell, Lord J.

Wilson, Henry

Sanford, E. A.

Winnington, H. J.

Scott, J. W.

Wood, Charles

Scrope, G. P.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Seymour, Lord

Wrightson, W.

Sharpe, General

Wynn, rt. hon. C W.

Sinclair, Sir G.

TELLERS.

Smith, B.

Maule, hon. F.

Spry, Sir S.

Stuart, R.

Amendment withdrawn. Original resolution carried.

CANADA.
The Order of the Day having been read for the House to resolve itself, into a Committee on the Canada resolutions,
Mr. Leader, in rising to move the postponement of the further consideration of these resolutions, hoped the Souse would extend to him its indulgence for a few minutes while he stated his reason for doing so. He was convinced it was the wish of his Majesty's Government, as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite, in supporting these resolutions to restore tranquility to Lower Canada. But his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bath had proposed the other night a plan regarding Canada, to which the noble Lord had objected, as not being in conformity with the wishes of the Canadian people, and of which the right hon. Baronet opposite had said, that it was not sanctioned by any constitutional authority. Now as that plan of his learned Friend was highly approved of by many persons out of that House, as well as by many hon. Members within it, all he wished was, that his Majesty's Government should postpone these resolutions, in order to give time to the Canadian people to state whether they agreed with the plan of his hon. and learned Friend or not. It was allowed by the noble Lord himself that the chief object

199
of the resolutions was to prevent the nonpayment of certain official persons. But the question was, whether the rights of a whole people should be postponed to those of a few judges — whether the salaries of a few unpaid officials were to be put in comparison with the constitutional claims of a whole nation. He trusted the noble Lord would not so insult the Canadian people, and for such a purpose. The course the noble Lord was pursuing was in every sense unjustifiable; and he might depend upon it the effect of these resolutions would be not only to exasperate the people of Lower Canada, but also to alarm those of the Upper Province, as well as all their North American colonies. The people of Upper Canada would naturally have the fear of similar resolutions hanging over their heads, in case it should ever become necessary for them to have recourse to a suspension of the supplies. The question was not, therefore, confined to Lower Canada, but affected the whole of our American colonies: and he would once more, and in the most friendly spirit, entreat the noble Lord, if he could not agree to any plan proposed by him, and those who thought with him upon this subject, at least to put off the further consideration of his own until communication with Canada could be made and replied to. He assured the noble Lord that it was as painful to those with whom he acted to oppose the policy of the noble Lord as it was for the noble Lord to be opposed by them. They had ever supported the Government when they could do so conscientiously; but, in the present instance, they felt it to be their imperative duty not to do so. — They had considered that their support of these resolutions would have been a flagrant desertion of their principles, and felt that their only course was to give them the most strenuous opposition. He begged, therefore, to move, as an amendment to the Order of the Day for going into Committee upon them, "that their further consideration be deferred for six months," for the reasons he before had stated.
Mr. Humeseconded the amendment. He entreated the noble Lord to consider what he would do if the people of Lower Canada would not submit to the proposed conditions. Was it likely that what the noble Lord proposed would promote peace in that colony? What confidence could the Canadians have in the good feelings
200
entertained towards them by the British Parliament, if these resolutions were adopted? To secure their allegiance we were bound to secure to them their rights and their property. The evils that must attend any attempt at coercion would be great. He entreated the noble Lord, therefore, to pause, to give time for consideration. He considered the resolution would only lay the ground for increased discontent. He therefore trusted the noble Lord would pause before he adopted resolutions which would take away the rights and property of his Majesty's subjects in Canada.
Sir George Greysaid, after three nights' debate on the same subject it could hardly be expected that they should anew discuss the question. Any discussion that might be necessary could take place in Committee. He would only say, that the Ministers had gravely considered the subject before they submitted the resolutions to the House, and had adopted them with great reluctance. Nothing but an imperative sense of duty had forced them to take such a course; but after they had adopted the measure they would not shrink from carry-it into effect.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, great discontent existed in both Canadas on account of the system of government which prevailed there. It was a system of favouritism. He had learned also that Orange lodges were still in existence in those colonies; and from accounts by the last packet it appeared that, but a short time ago, a number of new members had been sworn in. Much had been said about resolutions which had been passed in Upper Canada, approving of the government of Sir Francis Head. Now, what happened on the last day of the Session, when one-third of the members had left town? A motion was made by the Solicitor-General for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the act relative to the clergy reserves, for the purpose of setting them apart for the benefit of the Protestant Establishment; but it was rejected. He wished to know if that was the policy of the Government at home. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he thought the Government would be acting wisely in adjourning the further consideration of the resolutions for six months.
Sir George Greysaid, the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny was under a mistake as to the nature of the Bill. Indeed, the information which the hon.

201
and learned Member had received was at utter variance with the fact, as he would convince him if he would take the trouble of conversing with him on the subject.
Mr. P. M. Stewartdenied, that the resolutions would excite a flame in Canada, and hoped there would be no delay in passing them. He hoped the House would instigate the Government to go on. The colony had not a tittle of right to what they demanded. He was convinced that when the case became fully known the small minority which they had on the first division would dwindle down, and even doubted much if the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny would be in it. He admitted that abuses ought to be removed and grievances redressed. It was said that 350,000 Canadians called for the change advocated by the hon. Member for Bath; but he would ask the House also to take into consideration the wishes of 1,200,000 inhabitants of those colonies, who deprecated the measures proposed. He called on the Government and the House to proceed with the resolutions, not for the purpose of raising salaries for the Crown officers, but for restoring peace to the country. The two main resolutions had passed, and the only object now in view was delay.
Mr. Wasonentreated the House to pause and to give the Canadians an opportunity of expressing their opinion on these resolutions before passing them.
Mr. Roebucksaid, after the observations which had been made by several Members he wished to call the attention of the Government to the real state of the case. The noble Lord said there was a difficulty in the way. What was the difficulty? The officers of the Government were not paid. And what did the noble Lord propose? A series of resolutions to take away from the Canadian people their money and their rights. The House was called on to hurry —to allow no delay, because if they did, they said the state of the country would become more dangerous every day. But did the Government think that the resolutions would settle the point at issue? The Government might get the resolutions passed —they might excite people and pay the Government officers for one year, but when that year had revolved, the question would be in precisely the same state. He wished the Government to attend to that point; and if coercion was to take place he would say
202
the Government ought to listen to the advice of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley). If the Government believed coercion good they had not gone far enough —for their resolutions did not coerce but insult. From what had fallen from the noble Lord on a former debate, he understood that the noble Lord had not made up his mind on the plan which he had proposed. That being the case, he wished to know what evil there would be in delay? Why, the noble Lord said, the Government officers remained unpaid. Was that all the evil? And could no other means of paying these officers be found but by voting resolutions —to do what? To do all they could to prevent reconciliation. He had been asked if the House were to adopt the plan which he had proposed, would the Canadians agree to it? In reply to that he would say, if the resolutions were passed, they would not ask for it— the time was gone by, and war declared. The moment those resolutions arrived the people of Canada would declare war, and to prevent that, he conjured the noble Lord to hesitate before he passed such resolutions. But the noble Lord would not take his advice, but the advice of the right hon. Baronet opposite. (Sir Robert Peel) And why did he take that advice. Was it because the right hon. Gentleman had shown that he knew the wishes of the people of this country? Did he know their wishes on the question of Reform —did he know the feelings of the country on the question of Catholic Emancipation, or had he made up his mind on the question of granting Municipal Reform to Ireland? The noble Lord must know that the right hon. Baronet never saw danger when it was at a distance —he saw it like the speck of a cloud above the horizon, as large as a man's hand, but he admitted and felt it only when the tempest and the hurricane were around him. When the danger was distant the right hon. Baronet was totally unaware of it; that was the peculiar characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman, yet the noble Lord would take his advice as to what would satisfy the people of Canada. Did the noble Lord consult him, as to the wishes of the people of England when he introduced the Reform Bill? The right hon. Baronet said that Bill was absurd, as he had said the proposition which he had made for the settlement of the dispute with Canada was absurd;

203
yet the noble Lord did push that measure through the House; it pleased the people of England; and the time came when the right hon. Baronet said, he was Wrong—the people of England required Reform—they required the Reform Bill; they had got it, and he would endeavour to carry it into effect. The same would be the result as regarded Canada. The right hon. Baronet had pronounced ill's plan absurd. Now this alone ought to lead the noble Lord to reflection. The right hon. Baronet would act with Canada as he intended to do with reform. The right hon. Baronet had exhibited —he hoped he might be pardoned the word —considerable ignorance on colonial subjects when he pronounced the plan absurd. It happened that many of our colonies had just such constitutions as he proposed for Canada. There were such in our West-India colonies. The right hon. Baronet came down to the House and spoke as ex cathedra, and yet he was not acquainted with the colonial hornbook. He was like a blind man with a stick, feeling his way, seeking a place whereon to set his foot, and not knowing where he might stumble. The tight hon. Baronet came to that House because of his extraordinary powers and long standing, was considered of great weight; but he would show the little value of his authority. His plan was pronounced absurd, yet he had shown the right hon. Baronet that it was a system which already existed, and was acted upon in many places. If it would appear that his plan would prove palatable to Canada he would ask the noble Lord to pause before he proceeded to a course which would for ever preclude its adoption. If the coercion system were once begun it must be continued. The noble Lord should bite as well as show his teeth. Indeed, the intimidation system had already been begun. Sir Charles Grey, one of the Commissioners, told every one with whom he conversed—had told many Members of the House of Assembly—that England was prepared to send out three or four regiments, and to force the resolutions down the throats of the Canadian people with the bayonet. He had a letter from M. Papineau stating that fact. Were these the persons to send out to pacify the Canadians? He would beg of the noble Lord not to put faith in such men, or follow the advice of the right hon. Baronet. Let the noble Lord delay a little—offer his
204
plan to the Canadians—and see whether it would be accepted. The resolution of 1825 had been referred to, but this resolution had never been carried out. Would the noble Lord give the people the legislative council in accordance with that resolution? If not what would he give? Of what use would be a half-dozen in the legislative council? How would it operate if tried here in the Upper House? Would not the composition of that House be still the same? If the object Was to give the House of Assembly a predominance in the Council, why do it at once, and not palter with a sham reform. Where was the necessity for hurrying these resolutions? Was there not business enough for the Ministry without them? Oh, but they could not do that business: they could not carry measures beneficial to Ireland—what was it that they could carry? Nothing but coercions. Something must be done, and as they could do nothing else, why they carried coercive laws. As they could not carry liberal, they carried illiberal, measures, if it were only to show that they could carry something.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) had proposed a scheme of government for the Canadas, which, of course, that Gentleman deemed the fittest and most proper as well as the wisest that could be adopted. But the hon. and learned Gentleman must allow him to say, that he appeared to him to be a little too irritable for the framer of a constitution. On the present occasion, however, it appeared that all the irritability exhibited by the hon. and learned Gentleman arose from his having expressed an opinion that the hon. and learned Gentleman's scheme was absurd. He should have escaped all the phials of wrath that the hon. and learned Gentleman had poured out Upon him if he had not used the word "absurd" in reference to the famous scheme of government he had propounded. He (Sir R. Peel) was sorry, however, notwithstanding all the hon. and learned Gentleman's indignation, that subsequent reflection only confirmed his first impression with respect to that scheme. His original impression was, as he had stated it to be, that the scheme was absurd — intervening reflection induced him to retain the same opinion. He still thought it absurd. When he said this he intended to speak with no disrespect of the hon.

205
and learned Gentleman himself—he applied the term not to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but to his plan. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of his (Sir R. Peel's) ignorance upon colonial matters, the hon. and learned Gentleman must allow him to say, that he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had only proved his own. He did not profess to be very abundantly versed in colonial affairs. But what was the course that the hon. and learned Gentleman had pursued? Suddenly, and without any previous notice, he came forward with a plan of his own, and, in asking the House to adopt it, proposed at once to change the whole course of policy suggested by the Government, and to postpone the resolutions that had been brought forward, in order that his scheme might go forth to the Canadian people. And, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, addressing himself particularly to him (Sir R. Peel), "You are entirely wrong in supposing that my plan would not be acceptable to the Canadian people: you said, that the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was not necessary —you were wrong; you said that Parliamentary Reform was not required—you were wrong; you say now that the people of Canada will not like my plan—there, again, I tell you, you are wrong." This was the line of argument adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, was it borne out by the fact? Had not the people of Canada passed a resolution declaring that they preferred a different plan? He presumed that the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow, that the people of Canada knew at least what their own views were, even if they did not understand their own interests. He had read an extract from a Canadian resolution, by which it appeared that so far from preferring a legislative council holding office at the pleasure and mere will of the Crown, the people of the Canadas expressed and placed upon record an opinion that the form of council which they preferred was a council elected by the people. What right, then, had he to infer that the plan of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be acceptable to the Canadian people, when he had before him the strongest evidence to the contrary. His impression upon the point was not founded upon surmise; he had before him the declaration of the Canadians that the form of council that they preferred was a council deriving its existence and its authority
206
from them by election. Such were their views; yet the hon. and learned Gentleman told him, that by not agreeing to his plan he (Sir Robert Peel)proved himself utterly and entirely ignorant of all colonial affairs, because, in point of fact, a similar plan already-prevailed in some of the colonial possessions of Great Britain. As he had before stated, he did not profess any intimate knowledge of colonial affairs, nor had he of late inquired much into the colonial system of government; but he was greatly mistaken if he was not right, and the hon. and learned Gentleman wrong, when he stated that the form of government which he proposed already prevailed in some of the colonies. He was very much mistaken if in any one of our colonial possessions such a form of government prevailed. This was the point upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman founded his charge of ignorance. "You contend against my plan," said he, "and call it absurd because it has never been tried or exhibited in any one of our colonies; I tell you, on the other hand, that you are totally ignorant upon the matter, because the plan has been tried and does certainly now prevail in some of the colonies." He had yet to learn in what colony it prevailed, Now, as to the plan itself, what was it that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed? "I object," said he, "to a council appointed for life, and at the will of the Crown, and, therefore, I propose to establish a council of a different description." When the hon and learned Gentleman made that proposition did he in fact propose to establish a legislative council? Just observe the gross fallacy of the proposition — "I object to a council appointed for life and at the will of the Crown, therefore I will have a council established on a different principle." He said, that such a council as that which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed would not be a legislative council. The hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition amounted to this, —that the present legislative council should be abolished and that some other assembly should be substituted in its room. There were Legislative Councils in the other colonies holding office during pleasure, and appointed by the Crown; and, indeed, as far as appointment was concerned, he knew perfectly well that the Legislative Councils of the Canadas were appointed by the Crown; but there was this difference between the Canadas and

207
our other colonial possessions —in the former the Legislative Councils held office for life, in the latter they held office only during pleasure. But the question, at issue between him and the hon. Gentleman was this, "Is there any colony appertaining to the Crown of Great Britain in which there is a House of Assembly deriving its authority from election of the people, in which there is not also a council, however that council may be appointed, which has co-ordinate functions with the House of Assembly?" That was the question; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman did not know that there was no such colony, as the last thing that he (Sir R. Peel) wished was to bandy terms with him, he would not say that he showed his ignorance, but that he had at all events vindicated himself from the charge of ignorance, which the hon. and learned Gentleman had levelled against him. The hon. and learned Gentleman produced a scheme of Government which he (Sir R. Peel) understood to be this —that in Lower Canada there should be a body, which the hon. and learned Gentleman called a council, which should have no legislative power whatever, but which should have the agreeable task of washing up the dirty linen of the provincial legislature, of correcting, in other words, the blunders of the House of Assembly; but to whose labours, in their choice and enviable avocations, the House of Assembly should not be bound to pay the least attention. If that were a correct statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman's plan, he (Sir R. Peel) repeated that the council he would establish would not be a legislative council, but a mere body appointed by the Crown, with the power of humbly suggesting certain amendments that it might happen to think proper in bills that had passed through the House of Assembly. Now, to the opinions or suggestions of such a body, appointed only during pleasure, it appeared to him (Sir R. Peel) exceedingly improbable that the House of Assembly would attach any great weight. He thought it most likely that the same difficulties, arising from offended pride, as regarded the adoption of amendments, would exist between the new council and the House of Assembly, as had already existed between the Legislative Council and that body; and then the governor, as the arbiter between the contending parties, would have to interpose his simple veto.
208
Now, it appeared to him to be a course much more abrupt, and more likely to give offence to an assembly elected by the people, than if there were an intermediate body, composed of persons of as high authority as could be procured in the colony, and to whose decision all the weight should be given that could be derived from their occupying an independent station— it appeared to him that, à priori, the colony would be less likely to reject measures accepted by such a body, than if they came recommended only to them by the assent of a governor sent out to them by the mother country. That was the ground upon which, in the former debate, he had expressed his dissent from the hon. and learned Gentleman, admitting that he had not had time to give to his plan a very mature consideration.
Mr. Grotedid not think, that the right hon. Baronet had been very successful in vindicating himself from the charge brought against him by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. If, indeed, the right hon. Baronet had been successful at all, it was only in artfully concealing the question which the hon. and learned Member for Bath intended to raise, and did raise. As he understood that question, it was this —whether it was politic to maintain a legislative council possessing co-ordinate powers of legislation, and independent of the Governor. The hon. and learned Member for Bath, in alluding to the constitutions of other colonies, pointed out this, which he, (Mr. Grote), believed to be the fact —that there was more than one colonial possession of Great Britain in which there was no legislative council appointed by the Crown. And holding place for life, so as to make it totally independent of the Crown. That was the point for which he (Mr. Grote) contended. When the right hon. Baronet spoke of a legislative council appointed by the Governor, and holding place during the pleasure of the Governor, he must see, as every body else did, that the veto of such a council was, in fact, nothing more nor less than the veto of the Governor under a different name. Such being the case, he approved of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that the legislative council should be converted into a council of advisers of the Governor, and that to the Governor in council should be given the veto which was essential to the government of every

209
colony of Great Britain. The right hon. Baronet recollected, of course, the history of the American colonies, before their final separation from this country. He believed that there was not in one of those colonies such an institution as a council for life, appointed for life by the crown, and exercising co-ordinate powers of legislation. If there was one instance of the kind, it constituted the exception, not the rule. The right hon. Baronet in vindication of his criticism on the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath said, that the proposition was in itself absurd; and that the veto of the governor would in-fact become totally inapplicable, if there were no intermediate assembly exercising co-ordinate powers with the assembly elected by the people. He differed from the right hon. Baronet upon that point. In his opinion, a veto put upon the wishes of the people of Canada, by a council, composed of persons elected from amongst themselves, but in reality possessing no distinction of property or birth, was infinitely more obnoxious than the veto of the Governor, for whom they could not fail to entertain feelings of deep respect as the representative of the power and majesty of the King. If the right hon. Baronet took the pains to look into the report of the Commissioners, he would see that it was in fact impossible to conduct the government of the Canadas with two Houses of Assembly, constituted on contrary and antagonist principles. He agreed with the hon. Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Leader) that this was the fittest and most proper period to discuss the question of delay, before they arrived at the eighth resolution, which was the penal resolution. Before such a severe resolution as that were passed, he thought that the Canadians ought to be told fairly and distinctly what it was proposed to concede to them. No such communication had yet been made; he, for one, therefore, should vote for the amendment.
The House divided on the original question. Ayes 182; Noes 29; Majority 153.
The House went into Committee.
On Clause 6 being proposed as follows —"That the legal title of the North American Land Company to the land holden by the said Company, by virtue of a grant from his Majesty, under the public seal of the said province, and to
210
the privileges conferred on the said company by the Act for that purpose made in the fourth year of his present Majesty's reign, ought to be maintained inviolate,"
Mr. Roebuckopposed the resolution, and contended that the establishment of the Land Company had been injurious to the Crown lands, and productive of no public good. The Act by which it was created, had been smuggled through the House; it had been made a mere money speculation, and the general interests of the public had been neglected. He demanded, therefore, that no resolution should pass the House affirming the privileges which had been conferred on that company till a Select Committee had investigated the grounds upon which the act for its establishment had been founded, and till it was ascertained whether the powers which the Company possessed had not been exercised injuriously for the crown lands and for the public interest. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an amendment, "That it is the opinion of the Committee, that no resolution shall be come to by the Committee respecting the North American Land Company till an inquiry shall have been instituted into the circumstances under which the land held by that company had been obtained."
Lord Stanleyopposed the amendment, and defended the policy and the proceedings connected with the passing of the act in ques-tion. Before it was adopted by the Government to which he belonged, every possible inquiry was made as to the proper value of the crown lands in Canada, and the opinion of the law officers of the crown taken on the subject. These preliminaries having been settled, all that remained for him to do was to fix the terms upon which the amendment was to be made. The Bill was a long time before the House, and though the hon. and learned Member for Bath might not then have been a paid agent of the colony, yet he was a Member of Parliament; and did he mean to say, that interesting himself as he did in the affairs of Canada, he had not been aware of the progress of that Act through the House? It had gone through the usual course and had received the sanction of Parliament, and there was therefore no ground to question its validity, or to doubt of the fairness of the steps taken in regard to it. That company, however, tended to encourage the settlement of natives of this country in Canada, and

211
the French people of the province wished to exclude the British settlers, and to maintain the population exclusively French. That was the reason of the opposition to the Land Company, for the French Canadians wished to monopolise every advantage and to prevent the settlement of British subjects. If the House would refer to the Report of the Commissioners, the good effect of the establishment of the Land Company would at once be seen. The Commissioners reported that the Land Company had already effected much good in the country. The number of families located in the country districts during that year had been 200, and in the townships 5,000, and the Company provided employment for settlers, and all necessary supplies at a reasonable cost, and did everything to encourage settlements and improvement. The Commissioners stated further, that they did not think the powers of the Company were such as they ought not to possess, or took too much out of the hands of Government. The Land Company had conferred great benefits on the provinces, benefits which the Government could not have conferred. He denied all the charges that had been made against the Company, and upon the short statement he had made to the House, he was willing to rest his case and the case of the Company. He was satisfied, that whatever might be the result, Parliament would never depart from engagements which Parliament had sanctioned, whether right or wrong; but he must repeat his opinion that the bargain entered into with the Company had been eminently successful in promoting the welfare of the colony.
Sir George Greywished to ask the hon. and learned Member for Bath, why he had departed from the demand made by the House of Assembly, that demand being the pure and absolute repeal of the Act of Parliament under which the charter to the Land Company was confirmed? Why did he not adhere to that demand? Was he influenced by finding himself left in a dwindling minority, or was it that he had discovered that there was a sense of honour existing in the British Parliament, which would, by an unanimous vote, negative any proposition to repeal an act upon the faith of which property had been bought and sold, transactions of the most extensive kind had taken place, and British emigrants had proceeded to the
212
provinces in large numbers, and had been located there by that aid which was detailed by the Commissioners, and which was now promoting the tide of emigration to an unparalleled extent. The House having already negatived this demand of the Assembly of Lower Canada, he would ask whether they were by a side wind, and by appointing a Committee of inquiry, to throw doubt upon those titles so acquired, and to imply that a time might come when that charter, which had been granted by the Crown and confirmed by Act of Parliament, might be repealed, and every transaction set loose, and those improvements which had taken place under the British Land Company be retarded, and the tide of emigration checked in the province of Lower Canada? The Government felt bound to adhere to the resolutions they had proposed, and he hoped that by an unanimous, or an almost unanimous vote, the proposition of the hon. and learned Member would be rejected.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that the hon. Baronet had spoken of a dwindling minority; he could refer the hon. Baronet to a dwindling majority. But did the hon. Baronet therefore think that the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill was less deserving of public approbation and support than when it was passed by a majority of eighty? The British Land Company was said to be formed under the sanction of Parliament, and they were told that it would be a disturbance of the rights of all property if they were to go into an inquiry as to the formation of that company. He denied that proposition altogether. This company was of a peculiar nature; and if its charter were rescinded to-morrow, it would not shake the confidence of any one man in Canada as to the validity of his title to his private property. What he wanted to have inquired into were the circumstances under which that company was formed. He was sorry he did not see the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, in the House, because he should like to have asked that noble Lord his opinion as to the propriety of establishing that Land Company, and whether, when he was under-secretary of the colonies, he approved of it or not? The hon. Baronet had spoken very pathetically about checking the tide of emigration, but did he not know that the number of persons emigrating from England to the United States of America was just

213
as great as the number emigrating to Canada? Did they ever hear of the American people selling 100,000 acres of land at eighteen pence an acre? No such thing. The government of America was a frugal and an economical government, and responsible to the people; and what did the Americans do? They sold their land by public auction, and during the last year only they received 4,000,000 l. for the sale of their waste lands. But in Canada the land had been given away, and the hon. Member for Worcester had made a capital speculation.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, the hon. Member for Bath was in the habit of speaking in a most unscrupulous manner. He charged that hon. Member with being guilty of one of two things —either that he knew that the Bill in question was passing through the House, and had neglected to oppose it; or that he did not know of it, and was thereby ignorant of what it was his duty, as a Member of Parliament, to have known. The Bill was brought in on the 24th of March, 1834, was read a second time on the 12th of April, a third time on the 5th of May, and received the royal assent on the 12th of May. It was too late, therefore, for the hon. Member new to say that he had been taken by surprise. The people of Canada also had known that the company was being formed the year before, and yet they never made any objection. In fact, the whole thing was an after-thought. What was the real objection to the British American Land Company? Not that it had not effected great good in Canada —no, it was because it had effected, and was still effecting so much good in that colony; it was because the company were inducing people to emigrate and settle there; and because new towns and villages were thriving and flourishing in that country by its means; and by the blessing of God there would, in a few years, be raised up in those new settlements a population of many hundreds of thousands; it was because the French Canadians would in a short time be deprived of that majority which they now possessed, and of which he was sorry they made so bad a use, that the hon. Member for Bath and his friends in Canada, so much objected to that company. It was said that the company was a monopoly; but he denied that statement. Almost any number of acres of land might now be bought for little more than the price
214
paid by the company to Government, either from individuals or from the Government themselves. Lower Canada possessed many millions of acres of excellent land, situated in a most valuable and fertile country, in a climate, it was true, somewhat severe, but at the same time healthy, and useful for all agricultural purposes, but which would be of no use whatever, unless rendered so by the instrumentality of a great company like that of the British American Land Company. No individual enterprise could have the least effect in those boundless wastes. He was in possession of extracts from publications by disinterested parties, which showed what was the result of the establishment of the Land Company. It was the conversion of a vast extent of waste land, which was useless to the mother country, and to the colony, into a valuable and cultivated and well-peopled district. He complained of the underhand manner in which the hon. and learned Member opposed these resolutions, namely, his stating that it was expedient that they should be postponed till the people of Canada should have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon them. He hoped that the House would not be deceived by the argument, and that they would reject the motion.
Mr. Leadersaid, that the hon. Member had brought a serious charge against the hon. and learned Member for Bath, namely, his being ignorant of a private Bill that was going through the House. He begged to ask the hon. Member for Worcester, did he know really and truly every private Bill that was at that moment before the House? It was impossible to know of every private Bill that came before the House. With respect to this particular resolution, he must say he did not want to repeal the Land Company Act. On the contrary, he only wanted an inquiry into the manner in which the Bill passed, how the land had been appropriated, and how the money that was paid for it had been appropriated. He thought it right that an inquiry should be made into the way in which the Act was passed. There were other reasons for inquiry. This company had a large extent of land in Canada, which gave them great power, and they had a right to inquire bow they employed that power, and whether there was anything unconstitutional in the manner in which that power was exercised. This

215
corporation derived its power from an Act of Parliament, and was responsible for the exercise of that power to the House. All they wanted was inquiry.
Mr. Humecould not deny that he had had a knowledge of this Bill; on the contrary, when the Bill was passing, the only complaint he made was, that it was a private Bill to appropriate public property. He considered that a most improper proceeding. Whether the Bill was right or wrong it had now passed into an Act, and the parties who held property under that Act, had a perfect right to be protected in the possession of that property. What he complained of was, that this association had, as he understood, become a political engine. They exercised their power for political purposes, and this was the objection he had to the company. He contended that the land of the company should be sold for the benefit of the colony, and that the produce of the sale ought to be expended in supporting the civil and military establishments of the colony. The manner in which the company's affairs were conducted was hostile to the peace of the colony. The value of the land was day by day declining in consequence of the disturbed state of the country, and these disturbances were, in a great measure, the result of the conduct of the company. Would these resolutions remove the causes of disturbance? On the contrary, the moment they reached Canada, there would be almost the certainty of a civil war; and how could they expect that emigrants should settle, and pay a large price for land, in a country so situated? He objected to affirm these resolutions because in his conscience he believed they would be most prejudicial to the interests of this country and the colony.
Mr. Robinsondenied, that the Land Company had ever used their power for political purposes.
Mr. Wardsaid, that he felt bound to oppose the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The Land Company was incorporated under the sanction of an Act of Parliament. If there were abuses in its administration, let a substantive motion for inquiry be made, and he would support it.
Mr. Grotefelt also under the necessity of declining to vote for the amendment; but he felt the same difficulty as regarded the resolution. If the title of the company was good, there was no occasion to affirm
216
it again by this resolution. He would vote neither for the resolution nor for the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath.
The Committee divided on the amendment. — Ayes 6; Noes 166. Majority 160.
Resolution agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to set again. We subjoin the Lists of the first division. — See page 209.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Egerton, Sir P.

Ainsworth, P.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Angerstein, J.

Fector, J. M.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bailey, J.

Ferguson, R.

Baillie H. D.

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

Baines E.

Finch, G.

Balfour, T.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Bannerman, A.

Fleetwood, Peter H.

Barnard, E. G.

Forbes, W.

Bell, M.

Forster, C. S.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Fort, J.

Bentinck, Lord W

French, F.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Geary, Sir W.

Bernal, R.

Gladstone, T.

Bewes, T.

Gladstone, W. E.

Blackburne, I.

Gordon, R.

Blackstone, W. S.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Boldero, H. G.

Goring, H. D.

Bonham, R. F.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Brodie, W. B.

Hale, R. B.

Brownrigg, S.

Hamilton, G. A.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bruen, Colonel

Hanmer, Sir J.

Bruen, F.

Hawkins, J. H.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Heathcote, J. G.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Heneage, E.

Chalmers, P.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Chandos, Marquess of

Hillsborough, Earl of

Chapman, A.

Hinde, J. H.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Chichester, A.

Hodges, T. L.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hogg, J. W.

Clive E. B.

Hope, J.

Clive, Viscount

Hotham, Lord

Clive, hon. R. H.

Houstoun, G.

Codrington, C. W.

Howard, R.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Howard, P. H.

Cole, Viscount

Hughes, W. H.

Collier, J.

Ingham, R.

Collins, W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cookes, T. H.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Coote, Sir C.

Jones, T.

Corbett T. G.

Kearsley, J. H.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Knatchbull, rt. hon.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Sir E.

Dillwynn, L. W.

Knight, H. G.

Dundas, hon. T.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Dundas, J. D.

Lambton, H.

Eastnor, Viscount

Lefevre, Charles S.

Eaton, R. J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Ebrington, Viscount

Lennox, Lord George

217

Lister, E. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Long, W.

Sanford, E. A.

Lowther, hn. Colonel

Scott, James W.

Lushington, C.

Seymour, Lord

Maclean, D.

Sharpe, General

Mahon, Viscount

Sinclair, Sir G.

Marshall, W.

Smith, V.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Somerset, Lord G.

Martin, J.

Stanley, Lord

Martin, T.

Stanley, W. O.

Maule, hon. F.

Steuart, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Stewart, J.

Mosley, Sir O.

Stewart, P. M.

Mostyn, hon. E.

Strangways, hon. J.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Strutt, E.

Ossulston, Lord

Sturt, H. C.

Parker M,

Surrey, Earl of

Parker, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Parry, Sir L. P.

Taifourd, Sergeant

Pease, J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Pechell, Captain

Thompson, Alderman

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Perceval, Colonel

Turner, W.

Philips, M.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Philips, G. R.

Vesey, hon. T.

Pinney, W.

Wason, R.

Plumptree, J. P.

Welby, G. E.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

White, S.

Pringle, A.

Whitmore, E. C.

Pryme, G.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Wilkins, W.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Williamson, Sir H.

Richards, J.

Winnington, H. J.

Richards, R.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Rickford, W.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Robinson, G. R.

Wrightson, W. B.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

TELLERS.

Ross, C.

Dalmeny, Lord

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Grey, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Blake, M. J.

Potter, R.

Brotherton, J.

Roche, David

Crawford, W. S.

Roebuck, J. A.

Elphinstone, H.

Rundle, J.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Ruthven, E.

Grote, George

Thompson, Colonel

Hall, Benjamin

Tulk, C. A.

Hawes, B.

Villiers, C. P.

Hector, C.J.

Wakley,T.

Holland, Edward

Warburton, H.

Hutt, William

Ward, H. George

Marsland, H.

Wilks, J.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Williams, W.

O'Brien, W. S.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, D.

Hume, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Leader, J. T.

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent:—Royal Mint; Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Scotch and Irish Vagrants.
Petitions presented. By Lord STRAFFORD, the Earl of OXBRIDGE, the Earl of ALBEMARLE, the Earl of RADNOR, and the Duke of NORFOLK, from Dissenting Congregations, Holyhead, and other places, for the Abolition of

125
Church-rates.—By the Bishop of LONDON, the Earl of HAREWOOD, the Earl of BROWNLOW, the Earl of BEAU-CHAMP, the Earl of BRADFORD, and the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from various places, against the Abolition of Church-rates—By the Earl of ROSEBERRY, from the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Council of Edinburgh, for the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill.—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from the Bishop of Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin, and from the Clergy of the united Dioceses, against the present system of Education in Ireland; and from Factory Labourers of various places, for the better regulation of Factories.

SPAIN—LORD J. HAY'S DESPATCHES.
Lord Alvanleysaid, the motion of which he had given notice, and which he was then about to make, related to certain despatches which had been received from the British naval officer on the north coast of Spain, which narrated on the one side the disaster which had befallen the British Legion, and on the other, described the great bravery which had been displayed by many of those who were engaged on this occasion. The object of his motion was, to call the attention of his noble Friend opposite, of that House, and of the country in general, to the extraordinary position in which the marine forces and the artillery, now serving in the north of Spain, were at that moment placed. Before he made the remarks which he felt it to be his duty to offer on this subject, he would take the liberty of stating his opinion on the policy which had placed those gallant men in such a position. His opinion was, that that policy was detrimental to the interests and injurious to the honour of this country. He thought that it was detrimental to the interests of this country, because he had heard, and he believed, that the wisest and most enlightened statesmen of England, men of all parties, had laid it down as a principle not to be departed from, that nothing but a paramount sense and apprehension of mischief to itself could justify one country in interfering in any way with the internal regulations and administration of another. He was of opinion, that the policy which had been pursued was injurious to the honour of this country, because the sending of his Majesty's troops without any declaration of war to oppose the inhabitants of a country which was at peace with England, to attack those who were fighting for a man whom they believed to be their rightful Sovereign—who were contending for liberties which were as dear to them as the liberties of England were to Englishmen—was most unjustifiable. The present policy of this country with reference to Spain was founded on the Quadruple Alliance which was entered
126
into three years ago. He had always deprecated that treaty, because he looked upon it as one that encouraged the interference of England with the internal affairs of other countries. The objects of that treaty were, first, to secure the Crown of Spain to Queen Isabella; next, to remove Don Carlos from Spain; and lastly, to secure for that country a constitution of a liberal nature, a Government of a fixed description, and likewise to establish peace. Now let their Lordships examine how far these objects had been effected. In a very short time after that treaty had been signed Don Carlos left this country. He proceeded through France, and arrived safely in the Basque provinces, where he was received with open arms. His presence, indeed, produced an electrical effect. An army was instantly raised — a general movement was made—every man capable of bearing arms was enlisted in the cause. The most celebrated general of Spain, Zumalacarregui, was placed at the head of this force; and at the beginning of the war victory declared everywhere in favour of the arms of Don Carlos. His generals unquestionably out-manœuvred and outfought the Christino generals; and he believed if this country had not despatched forces to the scene of action the city of Bilboa must have fallen into his hands. The Government of this country thought proper, in consequence of these successes, to make a military demonstration n favour of the Queen, and by an Order in Council the Foreign Enlistment Act was suspended, consequent upon which the British Legion was formed, for the purpose of supporting the Queen's cause. He believed, that at the time all the people in this country, without exception, who were acquainted with the Spanish character, prophesied that the effect of this step would be, to strengthen and consolidate the Carlist cause, and to weaken that of the opposite party, in consequence of the jealous feeling which the presence of a foreign force was likely to create. Nay, they looked upon it as very probable that the British would be betrayed. Had not those prognostications been found to be too true? For two years the Legion had been in Spain. During all that time they had suffered the most gross ill-treatment—they had very nearly been betrayed into the hands of the enemy by a Spanish general, whose name he would not mention, and their numbers had dwindled from 10,000 to about 4,000 men. Within a very short time, their spirits being broken

127
by fatigue and privation, they had been driven back from Hernani to St. Sebastian by the very Carlists whom thy were sent out to exterminate. But it was proposed to establish a fixed, a settled, and a liberal Government in the Peninsula. Looking at that point, he would ask, what had happened? Why, since the treaty had been entered into there had been six different Administrations in Spain, which was more, he believed, than the history of any portion of Europe could show in so short a time. He might mention an anecdote which bore in some degree on the question. A gentleman with whom he was acquainted was appointed to act in a diplomatic capacity in one of the states of South America, where it was necessary to give a month's notice before an ambassador could be received. He remained there for two years, but during that time no President remained sufficiently long in office to enable him to present his credentials in form. And what was the case with respect to the establishment of a firm and liberal Government in Spain? Nothing of the kind had been effected, but the Throne and the Crown had been dragged through the mud by a set of drunken soldiers. A body of military men had rushed into the presence of the Queen-Regent, and forced her to accept of the greatest of anomalies, the constitution of 1812. What, he asked, had been effected in a military point of view? Why, at this very moment two-thirds of the roads of the Spanish provinces were in the possession of the Carlists. Gomez had traversed a great part of Spain. He had approached and threatened Seville—he had entered Cordova—and he had pursued his course to join Don Carlos, almost without interruption. When a great and powerful nation like this took such a step—when it interfered with the concerns of another country—those who sanctioned such an interference ought at least to take such measures as were likely to insure success. It was asserted, that the treaty was entered into for the purpose of preventing the northern powers, as they were called, from interfering with the affairs of Spain and Portugal. Now, anybody who studied the policy of these courts must at once have seen, that the treaty was calculated to produce a diametrically opposite effect. The northern powers were waiting quietly to see how the Spaniards and Portuguese would settle their own quarrels; they wished to leave the parties to themselves; but when they saw the British Legion sent
128
out to Spain—when they saw his noble Friend sending out his military propaganda, they became alarmed, not knowing to what extent the system might be carried, and if under these circumstances they had interfered, who could complain of them — or wonder at it? He should say no more about the policy of this country towards Spain; but he would go to the principal object of his motion. By the third article of the Quadruple Treaty, a naval co-operation was provided for with Spain, which was strictly carried on for some time. But when the Legion were sent out, the Government allowed a certain number of marines and artillery to cooperate with them. Now, he did not care whether those marines went one mile or ten miles into the country—it could not in either case be considered a naval co-operation. He would not advert farther to the propriety or impropriety of that co-operation; but the chief fault which he found with it was, that under the system which had been pursued it might be carried to any length or extent, however great, from 400 to 4,000 men. There was no saying how many men might thus be sent abroad to fight with those against whom war had not been declared. He considered it also a strange anomaly that those troops should have been placed under the command of a captain of the navy, who could know nothing of warlike operations upon land; and he strongly objected to the whole force being commanded by a foreign general who had no responsibility. He should now draw the attention of the House to what had taken place during the last three months in Spain. After Espartero with the assistance of the English marines had relieved Bilboa, the next attempt was by a combined movement to put an end to the war in the Basque provinces. General Evans received an additional force of 6,000 men, and Espartero was to have advanced from the Durango side, and Saarsfield from that of Pampeluna, to co-operate with him. Under these circumstances, General Evans commenced the campaign. On the 13th of last month he marched out of St. Sebastian with 13,000 men, English and Spanish. He was joined by a battalion of Royal Marines, amounting to 400 men, and twenty guns. Lord John Hay was also sent to assist. After advancing successfully on the 13th and 14th, they on the 15th took the heights above Hernani, and secured possession of the Venta hill. On the 16th they endeavoured to carry Her-

129
nani, and here they failed. The right of the army was supported by the Royal Marines, the left rested on the village of Aristenaga, where there was a bridge over the Urumea. That village was not occupied., neither was the bridge secured. The attack upon Hernani, which commenced at nine o'clock in the morning, was carried on feebly. In the middle of the day, about half-past eleven o'clock, 3,000 or 4,000 Carlists arrived at Hernani to strengthen and support those who were already engaged. They debouched on the right, and took possession of the village which he had already mentioned. General Evans detached two battalions of his troops to retake it. They were defeated, and immediately afterwards the whole army, with very few exceptions, retired in great disorder. So little were the Spaniards accustomed to witness or to expect such conduct from British troops, that they did not attempt to pursue, believing the retreat to be a ruse de guerre. But when they ascended the heights they saw the army retreating, or rather flying, like an undisciplined mob, towards St. Sebastian. It was, however, but justice to say, and it was ascertained by undoubted evidence, that the conduct of the officers was beyond all praise. From the general to the lowest subaltern, every officer did his utmost to quell the panic, to rally the troops, and to retrieve the fortune of the day. It would be asked, why, when the panic took place, was not the reserve marched forward to correct the disorder and give the troops an opportunity of rallying? The answer was, that no reserve had been prepared—and it was impossible to check the confusion. The troops fled to St. Sebastian—one of those thousand names so glorious in the annals of the British arms—in sight of those scenes where the illustrious Duke had won such imperishable laurels, within view of the summit of the Pyrennees, where formerly the British flag had floated triumphantly. Nothing could restrain the fugitives—nothing could stop them. But there was one bright point in this action. One body of men was seen in the midst of the battle, standing firm, unmoved, impenetrable. On them the Carlist force could make no impression. Yes, a gallant battalion of British marines, consisting of 400 men, commanded by the brave Colonel Owen, successfully covered the retreat. This battalion, assisted by forty British sailors, opposed themselves to the advancing party and but for them the artillery would
130
inevitably have been taken. They covered the retreat of the army most successfully, and enabled them to carry off every piece of artillery. He happened to receive a letter from a person who was a spectator, not an actor, on this occasion; and he described the conduct of the marines on this unfortunate day as the most brilliant and the most gallant that could be imagined. He declared, that looking to their numbers, the Carlists might have thrown down their arms, and by mere physical weight and force have overwhelmed this handful of marines. How happened it, then, that these 400 marines resisted, and successfully resisted, a body of troops, fifteen times their number — who had previously forced the Legion to seek for safety in flight? The reason was, that the latter force was composed of mercenaries, who served for their pay, and for their pay alone, without any feeling but for what they might gain; while the other gallant set of men felt that they were responsible to their King and country for their conduct, and knew moreover that the character of a brave corps, the glory of which had never been tarnished, was intrusted to their care and keeping. He did not pretend to throw blame upon General Evans or any of the officers of the Legion; all that he meant to say was, that the Anglo-Spanish force fled in disorder, and left the British marines to bear the brunt of the defeat. He therefore would ask his noble Friend opposite, what would have been the case if this had occurred to a British army under the command of a British officer responsible to his Government? Why, in twenty-four hours after the intelligence of such a defeat, that officer would have been superseded, a court of inquiry into his conduct, or a court-martial, would have been instituted, and if it was found that he had done all in his power to insure success, or if it was proved that the panic which took place was one of those events which no human foresight could anticipate, he would be acquitted, and an opportunity given to redeem his military character; if, on the contrary, he was found wanting in any of those qualities which were essential to an efficient general officer, then at, least, the honour of the British soldiery would no longer be intrusted to him. That being so, he asked his noble Friend opposite (Viscount Melbourne) to deal with general Evans in the same manner as he would deal with a British officer under similar circumstances. Of course his noble Friend could not have either a court-martial or a

131
court of inquiry, but his noble Friend could communicate with the Spanish government, and state to it that he looked upon himself as responsible for the welfare and safety of the British soldier in whatever part of the world that soldier might serve, and being so responsible, he could not allow the British soldier to co-operate with the general or the army whose conduct at Hernani had been such, as described until that conduct had been inquired into and completely cleared up. If his noble Friend refused to do this, he would, in his (Lord Alvanley's) opinion, incur a fearful responsibility. Suppose General Evans in his anxiety — a most natural anxiety — to redeem his character, proposed another operation—suppose the same troops were to tale part in it, a similar disaster to the last to occur, and the troops again to be ex posed to overwhelming danger—in such case the blame and disgrace would recoil with tenfold force upon the heads of his noble Friend opposite and his colleagues. The people of England, and the relations of those now serving in Spain, would be entitled to tax the Government with having risked the lives and reputations of the gallant soldiery, their countrymen, by allowing them to co-operate with the general and the army whose conduct in the opinion of all military men ought to undergo investigation. These were all the observations he (Lord Alvanley) had to make on the present occasion. He considered this to be neither a political nor a party question; it was simply a question in which the honour of the British flag was involved, and for the protection of that honour he held his noble Friend opposite and his colleagues to be responsible. True it was that this country was bound by treaty to afford assistance to Spain, but the Government owed another duty to them selves and their country, and that duty was to preserve unsullied and untouched the high military and naval reputation which the brave and gallant British army and navy under the command of his noble Friend near him (the Duke of Wellington) and others to hand that high character down to their successors as pure and untainted as it had been received from their predecessors. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a copy of the despatch from Lord John Hay relative to the affair at Hernani.
Viscount Melbourne: The despatches which my noble Friend has moved for have been laid on the table of the other
132
House, and I have therefore no objection to the motion; but the noble Lord has made a formal motion with a view to go into a long detail of our policy respecting Spain, and respecting the civil war which unfortunately rages in that country. The noble Lord said the policy of the Government was detrimental to the interests and injurious to the honour of the country; but that policy was known to their Lordships— it was known to the noble Lord — two years ago; and if it appeared so detrimental to our interests, and so injurious to our honour—so injurious to the safety and welfare of the country as the noble Lord states—I think it would have been more suitable and more becoming if the noble Lord had come forward sooner. I should think he ought to have interfered sooner, and he should not have seized the opportunity when a defeat had been sustained to arraign and condemn that policy which he had hitherto fully, openly, and deliberately acquiesced in. If the noble Lord has not done that sooner, I think it is not fair, I think it is not just or generous, after acquiescing in such a line of policy for two years, to come forward now and seize the occasion of a reverse to condemn that policy which for the first time he declares to be so detrimental and ruinous. I say more, such a course of proceeding is not only unfair, but it is injurious to the country. If the noble Lord believes the policy which we are pursuing with regard to Spain to be detrimental—if he believes it to be dangerous to the safety and injurious to the honour of the country, was it hot his duty to have proclaimed that sooner, and have done what he could to avert the danger? The noble Lord has not done so, but allowed the policy to be persevered in till a partial defeat is sustained, and then he takes advantage of it with a view to weaken the stability of the Ministry. It was the fault of all countries that there was frequent changes of Government —it was the vice and error of constitutional as well as of despotic governments that such changes took place, inasmuch as these changes prevented foreign powers from trusting the new administration or placing any confidence in their conduct, and induced them to withhold their confidence till they saw what line of conduct was most likely to be sanctioned by the Sovereign and the people. There was reason in such a mode of proceeding, because foreign powers did not know but those very measures which they might be disposed to

133
sanction, would be abandoned by a new government. They did not, therefore, wish to enter into intimate terms with a government, or Form an alliance with a nation, which, on account of such changes, could not be trusted or confided in when they might want that assistance which they were taught to look to, and on which they were told they might confidently rely. The noble Lord has laid it down as a rule, that nothing but matters of the deepest interest, nothing but matters which deeply affected the safety and welfare of our own country, could justify us in interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Now, I deny that there has been any such interference in the internal affairs of other countries; and even if there Were, I am astonished that such a complaint as that made by the noble Lord should come from the opposite side of the House. I must say, it is rather a strange and curious argument to come from that side of the House, that the supporting of an established, legal, and constitutional government against rebels was an improper interference in the internal affairs of other countries. There were other parties in the country from whom I might have expected such doctrines, but, I confess, I did not expect to hear them from noble Lords opposite. But, passing that by, I ask is there nothing in the state of the Peninsula which might effect important interests in this country, and which would justify us in interfering? Is the safety of Portugal nothing? Is it nothing that by the treaties which bind us to that country we might be involved in hostilities with the adjoining kingdom? Is there any thing, therefore, novel or dangerous in the policy which his Majesty's Ministers had judged proper to adopt? I ask, also, was the tranquillity of the world nothing? Is the peace of Europe nothing? Is that not a subject of deep interest [" Hear, hear," from the Duke of Wellington.'] The noble Duke cheers, and I understand that cheer to mean that the peace of Europe would be rather endangered than secured by the course which we have pursued. That may be a question between us. But I ask the noble Duke whether, when he concurred in our foreign policy two years ago, and particularly in our policy respecting the question before the House, he did not do so with a view to preserve the peace of Europe? That, I confess, is one of the great objects for interfering with the affairs of Spain, because I am convinced that the peace of Europe is most likely to
134
be secured by establishing tranquillity in Spain. My noble Friend objects to the Quadruple Treaty, and to the views of the Government which led to that treaty. Now, I can assure the noble Lord, that the views of the Government are not such as he supposes. The object of the British Government was, not to establish any particular form of government in Spain, but to secure the peace and tranquillity of the country. If the peace of the country could be secured by the establishment of a constitutional government, we could pursue no other course than that of doing everything in our power to promote the establishment of a constitutional government, and secure its stability. The great object of the Government was, to secure the peace of Europe, to put an end to civil war, and to establish the power of the Queen whom we had recognised, and to whose support we were bound by treaty. The noble Lord has also objected to the step which the Government had taken with regard to the Foreign Enlistment Bill, and has stated that any person at all acquainted with Spain, every person of reputation or character, or who had any knowledge of that country, had condemned the policy of the Government. If such were the fact, they must have condemned it silently, for I have never heard of it. That was a step on which the sense of Parliament might have been taken; but no such course had been proposed. In my opinion, it is not fair. I had almost said it was hardly honourable, for noble Lords opposite to condemn a line of policy in which they themselves had acquiesced. If any censure had been passed on it, most probably it would not have been persevered in. It is unnecessary for me to make any observation on those parts of the noble Lord's speech which refer to the various revolutions and civil changes which have taken place with great rapidity in the Peninsula. These are circumstances, no doubt, which are much to be regretted; but they do not originate with us, but from a source over which we have no control. They are circumstances which, as far as we could have any power in such a matter, we were anxiously desirous of preventing. My noble Friend afterwards proceeded to what I apprehend to have been the principal object and point of his speech, namely, the state in which English forces are placed in Spain, the dangers to which they are exposed, and the consequences likely to result there from. I am certainly unable to follow the noble Lord

135
through all the details of these occurrences from the day of the 16th downwards, or to pronounce any opinion as to the conduct of the officers engaged on that occasion. My noble Friend says, that he does not know to what extent we may be drawn in this matter, and how much further we may be obliged to go, and what forces we may be induced to employ. All I can say upon this point is, that, whatever may be done, it is impossible anything can be done in the dark, and that, if anything is done of which Parliament disapproves, it would have ample opportunity of expressing its disapprobation, a disapprobation which it had never yet manifested. My noble Friend passed an eulogium on the conduct of his Majesty's troops for the manner in which they acquitted themselves on the occasion, and then made some severe animadversions upon the conduct of the soldiers belonging to the Legion, who, he says, did not behave with the same firmness. For this my noble Friend gives as a reason, that the first are soldiers responsible to the Government, the others mercenaries employed by a foreign government with whom they can have no dealing, and they can have no sympathy. Why my noble Friend was pleased to distinguish the latter by the title of mercenaries, lam at a loss to imagine. Why, my Lords, all soldiers are mercenaries. [" Hear, hear! and no, no!"] I say yes —mercenaries they are—they are paid for their service, they fight for pay, and therefore they are mercenaries. As for the conduct of these men, I believe that they have behaved with as much gallantry and as much enthusiasm in the case as any soldiers who have ever fought in our own service. Will the noble Duke opposite be one to join in this denunciation of those whom it is thought proper to denominate mercenaries? Did he never command mercenaries—had he never foreign troops engaged to serve under him for pay? Where is the difference, I ask, between the soldiers who were engaged under the noble Duke in the last war, and the men of this Legion, who, by virtue of an order in council, in pursuance of the ancient and wise policy of this country—of a policy sanctioned by the authority of the act itself, the operation of which that Order in Council went to suspend—have been permitted to enlist in the service of an ally of his Majesty. The gist of my noble Friend's speech was this: —Will you, in consequence of the behaviour of these officers, and of the misconduct of some of those with whom they are
136
allied, permit the marines and artillery belonging to his Majesty to remain in co-operation with the army in Spain? My Lord, I answer most distinctly that I will. My noble Friend says Irun a great responsibility, under existing circumstances, in continuing these troops in Spain. This responsibility I will take upon me; but I will not take upon me the responsibility, in a moment of temporary defeat, of disaster, of withdrawing from the Queen of Spain that assistance to which, by every dictate of good faith, every principle of honour, his Majesty is pledged and plighted to render her. I say, my Lords, I will not do it, because it would be entailing upon me a responsibility and disgrace deeper than any with which I have yet been charged by the noble Lord himself. The noble Lord says, that if what has happened in Spain had occurred in our own service — that if General Evans had been our officer commanding on that occasion, he would have been dismissed. I say, not if I were minister. I say that an officer who serves his country ought to be supported not only in victory, but in defeat; it is the duty of his country to stand by him; and a moment of temporary check, my Lords, is not a time to mark such an officer with disgrace or dishonour, much less withdraw from a cause which appears to be blighted or failing, that support which we are bound in honour and justice to permit to be given to it. My Lords, I am ready to incur all the responsibility of these troops remaining in Spain; and all the responsibility of any further operations which may be undertaken there. I do not wish to entertain any sanguine expectations on the subject; but, at the same time, I must say, that I do anticipate a fortunate and successful result from these operations—fortunate and successful, not only as regards Spain, but the world in general, both at home and abroad. My Lords, we all know, that in every country, both at home and abroad—in every part of the world—difficulties and embarrassments will sometimes occur which nobody can specifically account for, or point out the time when they may or may not occur. We all know this; but, my Lords, I will not argue in that lowering and degrading language which has been admitted in discussion elsewhere as to the general state and prospects of their country. I hold it in the highest degree unwise, impolitic, and, not to use a harsh or unparliamentary expression, I do consider it to be a labour of an humble and creeping charac-

137
ter, and if for the purpose of political advantage, quite unjustifiable to circulate and propound such notions. My Lords, I can only say in conclusion, that I see nothing in the state of the affairs of this country, either at home or abroad, to induce any minister to withdraw from office, or to deter any one not in office from accepting it, if, in other respects, he deems it advisable.
The Duke of Wellington:* My Lords, I am exceedingly happy to hear from the noble Viscount that the state of the country is of that satisfactory nature which he has just described. The noble Viscount has thought proper to object that the subject of the present discussion has never, on any former occasion, been brought regularly under your Lordships' consideration. I can only say, that I have more than once taken opportunities of expressing my decided objection to the course of these operations. It is perfectly true, that I have never considered it my duty, and have never thought proper, to bring the subject distinctly under your Lordships' notice by way of motion. My reasons for adopting this course were founded, in the first instance, upon my desire to avoid interference, by a vote of this House, with any affairs of the Executive Government. I have very great objections, —founded on the existing state of the Constitution of this country, and considering the relations in which this House stands, at the present moment, towards the other House of Parliament, on the one hand, and towards his Majesty's Ministers, on the other,—to originate the discussion of this or any other question connected with the policy of the Government.
With this feeling, my Lords, and under these circumstances, I have done everything in my power to prevent discussions from being brought forward, on subjects of this nature. On more than one occasion, when a noble Friend of mine, (Marquess of Londonderry) whom I do not see now in his place, has endeavoured to bring under your Lordships' consideration subjects of this description, I have done everything in my power to avoid the discussion.
It is true, that when the Order in Council in question was produced by his Majesty's Ministers, I gave notice of my intention to submit a motion on that subject. My reason for giving that notice was, that a noble Friend of mine having asked the noble Viscount opposite a question as to the ope-
* From a corrected Report.
138
ration of that Order in Council with respect to pensions for wounds, and retirement allowances to officers and soldiers,—and not considering the answer of the noble Viscount satisfactory, I did wish to discuss the question more at length, in order that I might elicit the noble Viscount's opinion, on that and some other matters. It appeared to me that the noble Viscount, by that Order in Council, had suspended only one half of the clause of the Foreign Enlistment Act; and that the other member of the clause, that which inflicted penalties on persons who should enlist others into the service of a foreign power, was not suspended. I did not, however, bring forward my motion, because some of my noble and learned Friends did not agree with me upon the subject, and I thought it best not to proceed with it.
This, my Lords, is the real account of the transaction. I have never, from that day to this, brought forward the subject, though I have frequently given my opinions upon it; and I abstained from so bringing it forward for the reason I have before assigned;—namely, my desire to avoid a vote on any question relating to the measures of the Executive Government, which was not called for by some passage in a speech from the Throne, or by some proposition brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers; so as in some manner to render it necessary that I should state my opinion. But upon all such occasions I have not failed to state my opinion; and have stated it upon this subject more than once.
The noble Viscount, in replying to the speech of my noble Friend, appears to think that the Government acted precisely according to the policy and terms of the Quadruple Treaty; and he talks of that which the Government have done, as if theirs had been a system of policy adapted to the salvation of Portugal, and the preservation of the peace of Europe.
This question divides itself, my Lords, into two distinct branches: the Portuguese question; and that which is perfectly separate and distinct,—the Spanish question. My Lords, I must confess that I did not approve of the original Quadruple Treaty. I considered it inconsistent with the ancient principle, and the policy and practice adopted in this country with regard to Portugal, to avoid to interfere in the disputes between the two Princes of the House of Braganza, which had been the policy of this country for many years. It

139
sanctioned the introduction of Spanish troops into Portugal, which measure was inconsistent with our defensive relations with Portugal; and had been objected to and prevented in this very contest between the rival Princes of the House of Braganza. Yet it gave no fresh assistance to bring the contests in Portugal to a conclusion, excepting the promise to give the aid of this country by the employment of a naval force in co-operation with the Spanish and Portuguese troops, which aid was not necessary. Another objection which I entertained to the Quadruple Treaty was, that it mixed up France and this country in the offers and promises made to Don Carlos and Don Miguel, in the fifth and sixth articles of the Treaty. These Powers became, in fact, guarantees for the performance of these engagements, as well as for the performance of the engagements made under the same articles of the Treaty, to the subjects of Portugal and Spain. It is impossible to describe the inconvenience of such articles. They require the interference of the Government in hundreds of little questions. I have felt the inconvenience of those articles since their adoption—I stated my objections to them at the time, and I have seen no reason since, to alter the opinion I then formed. Don Carlos and Don Miguel evacuated Portugal, and Donna Maria became Queen of Portugal, and Don Pedro took possession of the government of that kingdom;—the objects of the Quadruple Treaty were thus attained. Don Carlos having been brought to England, and having proceeded from thence to the north of Spain, the additional articles to the Quadruple Treaty were agreed to on the 18th of August, 1834. These articles are, in some respects, essentially different from the articles of the Quadruple Treaty itself. The Quadruple Treaty did not require the King of the French to do more than be a party to it, or to aid in the attainment of its object, until he should be called upon by the other three contracting Powers. The King of England was required, under article three of the Treaty, to co-operate with the troops of Spain in Portugal by the employment of a naval force. But, by the first of the additional articles to the Treaty, the King of the French obliged himself to take such measures in those parts of his dominions which adjoined to Spain, as might be calculated to prevent succours of men, arms, and warlike stores, being sent from France into Spain: and the King of Great Britain en-
140
gaged, under the second of the additional articles, to furnish such arms and warlike stores as her Majesty the Queen of Spain might require; and further, to assist her Majesty by a naval force if necessary. The Duke of Braganza was to give the best assistance to serve her Majesty that he might be called upon to render. So that those additional articles were essentially different from the terms and provisions of the original Treaty, by which the removal of the two Princes from Portugal was effected. I do not mean to say, that, in the preamble to that Treaty, allusion is not made to the affairs both of Spain and Portugal; but there still is a remarkable difference between the words used in the Treaty, and in the additional articles; and most particularly in relation to the part to be taken by this country.
Those additional articles were signed in the month of August, 1834; and in the month of November, 1834, I was called upon to carry the treaty into execution. It was not then considered to be a treaty of the description given by the noble Viscount; it was not considered as a treaty for the preservation of the peace of Europe, or as a plan for great operations to be performed by arms. My Lords, I have a right to say this, because I myself had an explanation on the subject—first, with the Government of the King of the French, in which it was clearly stated, that the parties were bound not to interfere in the internal concerns of Spain, or in the contest then going on in that country;—it was so stated distinctly at that period, and the statement, having been communicated to all the parties in the Treaty, and in the additional articles, was satisfactory to all. The noble Viscount appears to be of a different opinion. I refer to the despatch to prove the truth of my statement. That, I assert, was the distinct understanding of all the parties in the Treaty. The noble Lord has thought proper, in answer to my noble Friend (Lord Alvanley), to take quite a different view of the case. I speak, not only from a perfect recollection, but a perfect knowledge of the facts and words; and I now challenge the noble Lord to produce the despatches of that time. I believe that the original object of the naval force which it was agreed should he supplied under the second article of the additional articles of the Treaty was, to establish a blockade on the north coast of Spain, from the Bidassoa to Cape Finisterre: but it was discovered that that blockade could not take place; —

141
that blockade was an act of war which this country could not execute, as it was not at war. It was unfortunate that the noble Lord should not have; ascertained this important fact a little sooner. But, as soon as it was ascertained, the Spanish Government was informed, that this country, not being at war, could not blockade the Spanish coast. The noble Lord appears to doubt this fact; but I again refer him to the despatch. The result of these discussions was, that her Catholic Majesty thought proper to pass a decree, by which all the towns and ports on the north coast of Spain, although in the actual possession of her Catholic Majesty, were declared to be under maritime blockade; thus, in fact, exercising a right of war against her own subjects— living in towns and ports in her own possession, under her protection, and in her allegiance.
There are some noble and learned Lords in the House who will feel surprised how such a decree should have been passed, and should have been carried into execution; and among them the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who was not then in his Majesty's Council. It was very soon discovered, however,— I think early in 1835, that Spain could not declare the blockade of her own coast in her own undisturbed possession. But, very shortly after, the irregularity of this blockade having been discovered, her Catholic Majesty thought proper to give directions that certain Spanish vessels from England, bearing the certificates of the Spanish Consul in English ports, should be admitted into the ports of the Spanish coast blockaded by this decree. The blockade was thus put an end to, as no party could submit to it as long as it could be relaxed for any description of ships. From the commencement of November, down to the month of April, our squadron remained on the north coast of Spain, engaged in no manner in the operations of the war; excepting, 1 believe, on one or two occasions, that they conveyed the Queen's troops from one part of the coast to the other, I understand that a noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department has said, in another place, that my right hon. Friend, who was at the head of the Government, had carried into execution these articles fairly and honourably. It certainly was my object to carry these articles fairly and honourably into execution. I must say, however, that I never saw any mode, or any opportunity whatever of carrying into
142
execution that particular part of the second of the additional articles, or the third article of the treaty. But, for what reason? Because, my Lords, the enemy of the Queen of Spain has not even a cockboat— not a single port, not a fishing village— much less a coast, or ports upon that coast, which any naval power could attack, or against which any naval service could he performed.
From some observations which fell from certain Friends of the noble Lords opposite a few evenings ago, I gather that I am considered to have been very much in error; but it is admitted, at the same time, that I executed the treaty fairly and honourably. I must say, that, up to this time, I conceived that the treaty to which his Majesty had been pleased to affix his signature, had been, by me, fairly and honourably executed. The Government of that day saw no mode by which naval assistance could be rendered to our ally. The articles of the treaty requiring the supply of arms and ammunition were carried into execution. But although we found that we could take no steps towards attaining the objects of the additional articles by military force, we felt that the real strength of this country, in a case such as that which we had before us, consisted in that influence which it possesses, founded on its justice, its fairness, its disinterestedness, and the wisdom of its councils. And we considered it our duty to exercise that influence with a view to put a stop to the practice, which at that time prevailed on both sides of this unhappy contest, of putting their prisoners of war to death. We accordingly prevailed on the Spanish government to consent to our endeavour to establish a convention or cartel to attain that object; and Lord Eliot was sent on a mission to the head quarters of Don Carlos. Lord Eliot conducted himself with so much ability, that he succeeded in establishing a cartel for the exchange of prisoners; and had the satisfaction, on the day of his arrival at the head quarters of Don Carlos, of saving the lives of twenty-five men who had been made prisoners, and who were about to be put to death. I contend, as I have before contended in this House, that his Majesty's present Ministers ought not to have departed from the position which the Government of which I speak had established while they were in power. I will not pretend to say what would have been the result of their having followed put that course; but this I do say, that the course

143
pursued by his Lordship's Government has not benefited the military or the financial affairs of Spain, or promoted the peace of that country or the general tranquillity of Europe, or attained any of the political advantages which the noble Viscount boasts have been attained by his departure from that position which the previous Government had occupied, and had left to their successors. But, my Lords, it did unfortunately happen that certain parties in this country had been connected with the Spanish finances; and it was important to those parties that red coats should make their appearance in Spain, and that the name of "Great Britain" and of the British Legion should be mixed up in the operations of the war. Money was raised in this country to defray the expense of the equipment of the "Legion," as it was called, of 10,000 or 12,000 men, and also of their pay, their food, and maintenance, for a certain number of months; and the noble Lords, in order that this scheme might be carried into execution, gave their consent to the order in council for the suspension of the Foreign Enlistment Act. The corps quitted this country and went to Spain, in the spring of the year 1835, nearly two years ago. Their first operation after their arrival at St. Sebastian was a march over the very same ground, to the very spot which was the scene of the late disaster. My Lords, up to that moment, the Eliot Convention, as it is most honourably and justly called, had been carried into execution. It was on that day departed from on both sides, and from that day to this, I firmly believe, from all I have seen and read—and I have read much on the subject within the last few days— there has been no certainty in the execution of that convention. Not only has there been no certainty in the execution of that convention, but, notwithstanding the millions of money that Spain has expended—notwithstanding the blood which has been shed, and the number of lives which have been lost,—I will venture to say, that the military affairs of the Queen of Spain are in a worse condition now than they were in the month of May, 1835. When the Legion embarked for Spain, it was sent to the northern parts of that country. Soon after the disaster at Hernani in 1835, as soon, I believe, as the original sum of money allowed for its equipment and its first expenses had been expended, the corps was sent to join the other troops at Vittoria, having been under
144
the necessity of crossing the Ebro in order to reach that place from Bilboa. The Legion suffered the greatest possible privations of all descriptions at Vittoria. These were not likely to improve their discipline or subordination. There, however, they remained, during the winter of 1835, 1836. But a crisis was approaching in the financial concerns of Spain. The interest of the debt was to be paid in money, and it became necessary that the Legion should be brought again to the coast, that Great Britain should appear to take an active part in the war,—that, in fact, something else should be done in order to produce a particular sensation in a place called the Stock Exchange. This corp, towards the spring of the year, was brought, by a very circuitous march, to Santander, and thence, by sea, to St. Sebastian, where they were employed in the relief of a blockade of St. Sebastian, a town of which the blockade had been maintained for some time by a Carlist officer, by name Guibelalde. It was thought absolutely necessary to raise the blockade. In the meantime, I should inform your Lordships, that the British squadron, under the command of an officer for whom I entertain the highest respect, (Lord John Hay) had been on the coast, and, as I said before, had done nothing, for, in fact, there was nothing to do. But it being found to be absolutely necessary to relieve the blockade of St. Sebastian, the corps was accordingly brought from the neighbourhood of the Ebro and Vittoria in order to carry into execution this operation. Then, my Lords, the British squadron came into active operations with its sixty- eight pounders in the steam boats, which were fired with great success into the works constructed for the defence of the flanks of the Carlist's position. This was the great affair of the 6th of May, as it has been called all over Europe. But, my Lords, what was the result? The Carlist lines were removed a little further off, just beyond the reach of the fire of the sixty-eight pounders of the steamboats of the British fleet; and there the blockade of St. Sebastian has remained and been maintained from the 6th of May, 1836, up to the present moment. The whole of the policy of the British Government, therefore, all the operations of the British Legion, backed by the British squadron have effected nothing more nor less towards putting an end to the war, and giving peace to Spain and to Europe, than the removal of the blockade

145
of St. Sebastian from one point to another, so as not to come within the liability of being affected by the sixty-eight pounders of the British steamers, under the command of Lord John Hay. I defy the noble Viscount, or any noble Lord supporting the same line of policy, to show that a single advantage of any description has been gained from that day to this. The noble Lord has, therefore, no reason to boast of the consequences of these operations, since the removal of the blockade to the distance of one mile is all that has been effected by the very great and serious risks which he has thought proper to incur. If the noble Lord supposes that the safety of St. Sebastian had been more or less endangered by the blockade, I can assure him that he is much mistaken; for, from what I know of that fortified town, which is one of the first or second order in Europe, I can take upon myself to say, that the Carlists might have been left in their original position without any danger whatever to the town, because they could not make an attack upon such a fortress. In the whole course of the war, they have not, to my knowledge, taken, by an attack, any fortified post; or even, open town of any magnitude, prepared for its defence. They could not have distressed St. Sebastian for provisions, because its communication with the sea could not be prevented. I say, it could not be prevented, even if the whole British fleet were blockading it, instead of being stationed there to relieve it. The amount of inconvenience felt by the town from the Carlist force being in its neighbourhood, was neither more nor less than the unpleasantness of ladies and gentlemen, residing there, being prevented taking their evening walks in the neighbourhood. This is the whole amount of the inconvenience from which the town was relieved. This was the whole amount of the service rendered. Under these circumstances, my Lords, I cannot think these operations of such importance as the noble Viscount seems to attach to them; I mean the operations of the squadron as connected with the Legion.
But, my Lords, I will go a little further. I will say, that I firmly believe that the connexion between the Legion and the fleet, has been injurious to the military operations of the Queen of Spain's generals. That is my decided opinion, founded upon my knowledge of the nature of the country, and of the position of both parties.
146
My Lords, there is one point to which I wish most particularly to refer; that is, the want of a communication between the Queen of Spain's generals, which can be relied upon. If corps of the size of those now employed are not actually joined, there must be a certain communication between them; for, without communication, there can be no co-operation; and any attempt at co-operation would, in my opinion, in all probability, lead to disasters such as have recently taken place at Hernani. How are these troops situated? General Evans's troops are at St. Sebastian; General Saarsfield is at the other side of the Borunda, at Pampeluna; and Espartero, with his army, is at Bilboa. It is impossible, that there can be any communication between these three, except by the French frontier, and by sea from Socoa, or by the Ebro. An arrangement is made for an attack, and a day named. What was the consequence? General Evans made an attack, but General Saarsfield, at Pampeluna, does not attack; there is a frost, or snow, or rain, or some physical impediment which prevents a movement on the part of Saarsfield. General Evans cannot be informed in time, and the enemy has opportunity and leisure to throw his whole force upon General Evans; who, even if the troops had behaved well, would have been compelled to retire. The position, therefore, of the Legion at St. Sebastian, in order to cooperate with the British squadron, that there might be something like British cooperation, was not an operation of war; it was one of stock-jobbing. My Lords, it is a matter of much surprise to me, that General Evans, who, having acquired the confidence of his Majesty's Government, and that of the Queen of Spain, I presume must be an able man—it is, certainly, a surprising circumstance, that having had experience of the difficulties of carrying on communication in that country, and having met with a check in the month of January, 1836, for want of communication, he should not have felt the danger of his position, and should have omitted to put himself in communication to a certainty with that corps in whose co-operation he was to act, instead of keeping himself at a distance from it, in order that he might carry on operations in concert with his Majesty's fleet. There is another occasion upon which his Majesty's fleet have acted, to which I wish to refer, namely, at the siege of Bilboa, one transaction connected with which has, for some time past, made an impression on

147
my mind; and I am now desirous of mentioning it, merely for the purpose of obtaining an answer in explanation with regard to it. Don Carlos attacked Bilboa; the siege of which General Espartero endeavoured to interrupt. The British fleet co-operated in these endeavours. It has been stated by respectable authority, a noble Lord, a Peer of the realm (Lord Ranelagh), who was at the time in the Carlist camp, that the following circumstances took place. The plain facts are these:— "His Britannic Majesty's ship, Ringdove, lay at anchor during the greater part of the siege in the Bilboa river, between Fort Desierto and Portugalette, within half musket-shot of the Carlists, where, had she been considered as an enemy, she would have been seriously injured, and, perhaps, destroyed. It was rumoured, that she fired three or four shots ashore, and a great sensation was created in the Carlist camp at the idea of such a gratuitous outrage during a state of virtual neutrality and mutual forbearance, where no provocation had been given; but these shots were afterwards discovered to be nothing more than signals to steamers in the offing, and nothing of retaliation was attempted or thought of. His Britannic Majesty's brig, Saracen, lay further up the river, moored till the last under Fort Desierto. This fort and the Spanish gun boats were, almost daily, engaged with the Carlists; yet the Saracen, which lay in the midst of the latter, took no ostensible part in these contests, but (as it now appears) sent her crew to work the guns in the fort; while she herself continued to lie quietly at anchor, apparently neutral and harmless. Had either vessel acted openly on the offensive, the Carlists would have known with whom they had to deal, and I should have withdrawn to another part of the provinces." I allude to this letter, in order that a contradiction may be given, if possible, to the facts stated in it. They represent a state of things which ought not to exist. Parties engaged in the operations of war, cannot appear at the same time in two characters. They cannot avail themselves of the advantage of a neutral character to take a position from which an hostile attack can be made with advantage.
The noble Lord has stated, that he will not recall the marines. I would beg to remind your Lordships, and the noble Viscount in particular, of this fact,—that the marines are properly the garrisons of
148
his Majesty's ships, and that upon no pretence ought they to be moved from a, fair and safe communication with the ships to which they belong. The noble Lord states, that he is responsible; and that he will take upon himself the responsibility. I have commanded his Majesty's armies, and have incurred as many risks and faced more difficulties than, I hope, the noble Lord will ever have to encounter. I have been engaged in hostilities of this description, where co-operation was carried on upon the coast; and, although I certainly would do as much for the service, and I believe I may say, have done as much for the service, as the noble Lord; yet I would not venture, and have never ventured, to put any corps whatever in co-operation with the Spaniards, or in any situation whatever in which the detached troops could not communicate with the corps from which they were detached; and, above all, upon the sea-coast, where the troops detached could not hold communication with the ships. The first order to each of these detachments was to keep the communication with their ships. The loss of 400 or 500 marines may not materially involve the honour of this country; but the lives of the men ought not to be endangered, as they must be, if care be not taken that they should have a communication with a point of safety, without some very extraordinary cause. We hear of the operations of the marines with the Austrians. But the Spanish troops, and particularly the British Legion, are not the Austrians. I cannot consider this corps of General Evans to be in a state of discipline and subordination, such as a body of troops ought to be in, with which his Majesty's marine forces ought to be connected. They have suffered very considerably; their losses have been great, and have affected their subordination, their good order and discipline, particularly, in presence of an enemy. A disaster or panic may occur among the best troops; but, among such, order can be reestablished. It does not appear, that these are in the state in which they ought to be, to render it safe to co-operate with them. No efforts of their officers can, in such cases, have any effect upon them. The noble Viscount says, that we are carrying on these operations with the object of maintaining the peace of Europe; and these objects are, more especially, put forth in a pamphlet which is attributed to a colleague of the noble Viscount, who has applauded its opinions, if he has not gone

149
further, and adopted them as his own. Is the noble Lord desirous, in accordance with the policy so set forth, to press upon the nation the adoption of the system of a general combination of the powers of the west, upon principles offensive as well as defensive, against the powers of the north and east of Europe? If so momentous an affair, and such a course are seriously contemplated, they should not be commenced by stealth, but in a manner worthy of the character of a great nation like Great Britain. It is not by allowing Spain to raise a Legion here in the first instance, and afterwards by sending a few hundred marines, that any really important object can be accomplished. But if the noble Lords are in earnest, a message should be sent to Parliament, and the support of the country should be called for, to this new scheme of policy; and a commanding force should be sent, in order to carry it into execution. But I recommend to the noble Viscount well to consider the length of time which must elapse before these operations can be brought to a conclusion; the expense which must, in the first instance, be incurred; and the lengthened period which must elapse before the troops can be withdrawn, and the other expenses can be discontinued, which must be incurred if this scheme is to be undertaken. The noble Lord must establish a government in Spain; he must have the assistance of a Spanish army; and he must pay, equip, and provide for, not only his Majesty's troops, but every Spanish officer and soldier employed in the settlement of the government of the country. It may be said, that there are financial resources in Spain; but I am much mistaken, regarding the state of the Spanish military establishments and Spanish finances, if there are not non-effective establishments, such as pensions, retired allowances, expenses of garrisons, and others which will consume the whole of the pecuniary resources of Spain, however well managed, even without including the interest of the existing debt. I think, that if this country should have this matter fairly brought under its view, it would not be thought advisable to enter upon the scheme proposed in this pamphlet. But we are told, that France ought to act this part; and that we ought to give France our moral support. France act! At whose expense? Prance would have the same difficulties— nay, greater difficulties—than this country. Is it intended that we are to subsidise France? No such thing; we are to assist
150
with our ships and marines on the coast; but it is France that is to carry on the operations in the interior, and pay this expense. Is it believed, that Louis Philippe has lost his senses? If we cannot expect that France will defray all this expense, what is to become of the integrity of the Spanish dominions, and the independence of the Spanish government after the operations shall be concluded?
I think, that I have shown your Lordships how little has been gained for any party by the system of operation which has been followed upon the coast of Spain, and the inutility and danger of the continuance of that course; and the absence of any ground for hope that Parliament or the country will consent to adopt the larger scheme of policy suggested in a pamphlet recently published, as is supposed, by authority. I would, therefore, suggest to the noble Lord opposite, the expediency of reverting to the station which the Government of this country had taken in Spanish affairs, when they succeeded their predecessors in office. Your Lordships are aware of the great influence of this country in the affairs of Spain, for many years—an influence founded solely upon a belief of our justice, and disinterested views, and confidence in the wisdom of our councils. I do not pretend to say, what can be effected by our mediation; but it will be, at least, as much as can be attained by our petty warfare. Let us resume, in reality, the neutral position that becomes us, which we occupied before the order in council was issued; and we shall have a chance, at least, of restoring tranquillity.
Lord Hollandsaid, that there were some matters referred to in the speeches both of the noble Duke who had just sat down and of the noble Lord who had introduced this matter to the notice of the House, upon which he was anxious to make a few remarks. He gave the noble Lord (Alvanley) all due credit for the candid and manly explanation which he had given to the House of the grounds upon which his opinion was formed. The noble Lord must, however, allow him to say, that there was some inconvenience in discussing matters of so grave a nature as the general policy of this country, viewed in connexion with the construction of a particular treaty, without bringing the question before the House in the shape of a specific motion. And he must further ask his noble Friend at the opposite side, as well as the noble Duke who had last addressed the

151
House, why, if they had all along dissented from the foreign policy pursued in this respect by his Majesty's Government they had declined to embody that dissent in a specific shape before; and, especially why they should have selected the present moment for bringing it forward, after the occurrence of a disaster which, but for the brave conduct of his Majesty's Marines might have been certainly still more disastrous? What particular purpose, could be served by indulging in invectives of this description, without calling upon the House to give its assent or dissent to any distinct proposition? Again, he would ask, was this the proper moment to recall our marines, and to express, not by a vote of their Lordships' house, but through the medium of speeches merely, their disapprobation of the military conduct of General Evans? The principal objections which his noble Friend had urged against the policy pursued by his Majesty's Government towards Spain were our interference, by force, with the civil disputes of a foreign country, the suspension of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the extended construction of a treaty. With respect to the meaning of the treaty, as connected with the interference complained of, he certainly thought that the noble Duke had not been sufficiently accurate in his statement. The noble Duke seemed to think that the object of the treaty was attained when Don Miguel and Don Carlos were both excluded from Portugal. He must say, that he felt it impossible that any man could attentively peruse the preamble of the treaty without perceiving that the affairs of Spain were equally made its subject as those of Portugal. The noble Lord then read a passage from the preamble, which stated the interests which the King of Great Britain, and the other powers who were parties to the treaty, had always taken in the security of the Spanish monarchy, with a view to the maintenance of peace, as well in the Peninsula as in every other part of Europe. He contended that this interference with Spain was perfectly justifiable, as ancillary and subservient to the maintenance of the peace of Europe. But it was said, forsooth, that they had not preserved the peace of Europe. He could, however, with truth, as he believed, state, that peace had been preserved; and, in his conscience, he believed that it had been so preserved through the agency of the Quadruple Treaty. At the period when that treaty was signed, it was believed that the adoption of such a measure was
152
essential to the preservation of this country from being involved in a war with the northern Powers of Europe; and the belief was at that period very generally entertained, that money had been sent from various quarters to assist Don Carlos in his military evolutions. For his part, he entertained little doubt that Don Carlos would have been at the present moment enthroned in Madrid, and that the relations subsisting between this country on the one hand, and Spain and Portugal on the other would have been materially different, had not the moral force, and the naval and military assistance of Great Britian, been extended to those countries. It was declared, however, to be alike immoral and inglorious to carry on a war in this manner without openly proclaiming it. But, surely, no noble Lord was ignorant that the laws of nations contemplated and recognized auxiliaries as well as belligerents, allies as well as principals in military operations. If this treaty were really objectionable in principle, why had not noble Lords endeavoured to prevent it from receiving the sanction of the Crown when it was under the consideration of Parliament? With regard to the right of intervention, it seemed to be assumed by noble Lords opposite that the Ministers should make vows of chastity and forbearance, and politically and diplomatically lead the life of vestal virgins. Great, indeed, was expected to be their forbearance, when it was to with hold them altogether from interfering in any war of succession. Had it always been the policy of England to withhold her interference under similar circumstances? There was not one British heart which beat with greater delight than did his at the contemplation of the successful service which the noble Duke had rendered during the Peninsular war. Now, surely the noble Duke was engaged upon that occasion in a war of "foreign interference." Why, the history of England abounded with instances in which British subjects served as mercenaries in foreign armies. It was in this capacity that the illustrious Marlborough had gained his early military experience. If he were to mention all the great names of individuals similarly circumstanced, the noble Duke would be quite appalled. From the time of the Black Prince, who had served literally as a mercenary, down to that of Elizabeth, cases of this description had repeatedly occurred, and many of the instances which had arisen during the reign of that Queen were

153
exactly analogous to the present case. There was no declaration of war made at that, period, notwithstanding that so many-British subjects had been sent or permitted to serve in the wars of Foreign countries. Passing to the case of King William 3rd., whose character no man admired more than he did, what was it that constituted that monarch's peculiar glory? Was it not the fact, that when he saw his father-in-law trampling on the liberties of this country, and ready to subject its inhabitants to popish tyranny, he did not hesitate, without the proclamation of a war, without the sanction of a treaty, to connect himself with the discontented party in this country, associating himself in arms with some of his own countrymen, and thus to achieve a revolution which had consecrated for ever his "Glorious memory." Coming down to later times, when George 2nd exhibited his imperturbable valour in the battle of Dettingen—did he not exhibit it as an auxiliary? It might be said, that this Sovereign was also Elector of Hanover, but this did not affect his argument. Was not that distinguished diplomatist, Lord Stair, so deeply versed in international law, also present as an auxiliary at the same battle? Yet according to this new code of political honour, those distinguished personages had disgraced themselves by acts which were recorded with praise in the page of history. Referring to another head of objection, if he were asked what he was to understand by one nation, engaging to give "naval co-operation" to another, he would answer, such cooperation as an admiral of any nation was bound to give to a general of the same. It was, unquestionably, true, that the person against whom war is made, and to whose adversary he gave assistance, has a perfectly just ground for proclaiming war against us if he chooses. They (the Ministers) had, however, made no mystery of their intentions in this matter. Their object was, avowedly, to expel Don Carlos from Spain, and their reason for adopting this course was, that they believed they were thus contributing to the maintenance of peace in the Peninsula and throughout Europe, by the only probable mode of attaining that object. [The noble Lord here sat down for a few seconds, apparently overcome by debility; but, notwithstanding the cries of "Keep your seat," he immediately rose, leant upon the table, and proceeded as follows]:— Entertaining the highest respect for the noble Duke opposite, and
154
for the strict attention which he paid to his Parliamentary duty, he must contend that the policy of Ministers with respect to this question was straightforward and intelligible. They had acted in conformity with the provisions of a treaty, into which they had entered, not for the purpose of establishing a particular form of Government, but to maintain the legitimate rights of the Queen of Spain, which were invaded by insurgents. They considered themselves bound, as far as they could consistently with honour, justice, and prudence, to carry that treaty into effect in accordance with its spirit. The policy which they had adopted was clearly intelligible. They had interpreted the words of the treaty according to its spirit, largely, and deliberately and if circumstances should arise rendering such a measure desirable, there would, no doubt, be a further treaty proposed. To those who objected to the foreign policy of Ministers, that it had a tendency to involve this country in a general war, he (Lord Holland) would say that when, in conjunction with his colleagues, he assented to this treaty, he had, of course, reflected upon and taken his chance of the consequences. He had compared the chances both ways, and he felt no hesitation whatever in now asserting, that they had succeeded, not in directly driving Don Carlos out of Spain, but in proving to the satisfaction of every person, both in and out of Spain, that Don Carlos never would reign in that country. He should say then, looking at the whole state of affairs in Spain, that Don Carlos was not one step nearer than before to the object to which he directed his operations. Indeed, the very ground that his noble Friend occupied, instead of proving that Don Carlos was likely to succeed, proved that nothing could be more unlikely than his success; and furthermore, he trusted their Lordships would recollect that not a town joined Gomez; that the Spaniards—he meant, of course, to limit the observation to the inhabitants of those towns—appeared to be as averse to municipalities as were the noble Lords opposite last year. On a subject like the present he should necessarily be most unwilling to venture upon a prediction, he had never been betrayed into a prediction but once, and then he was wrong; but with respect to Don Carlos, he might say thus much, that he was not now in as good a situation as before. He should not follow the noble Duke through his remarks on the military operations in Spain, which certainly ought to

155
be listened to with great deference; but he would submit to the noble Duke that the fact of Don Carlos being still not a step nearer the capital, proved strongly the utter impossibility of his final success. The expedition of Gomez, too, the strangest event which had ever occurred in any war, seemed to corroborate the fact. The people evidently were against him. He should make one remark more, and then conclude. It had been said, that the suspension of the Foreign Enlistment Act was improper, but it should be borne in mind, that a special clause gave the executive a power to suspend it. For what reason could that clause be inserted if it was not in contemplation of some such concurrence of circumstances as had produced the suspension. The possibility of the power being used, was evidently thought of, or the clause would not have been necessary. The noble Duke said, that he should not have consented to the suspension, as he gave a different meaning to the clause. The noble Duke, from his great military knowledge, was certainly well able to judge of what should be done in the case; but he would ask him whether, if the Government had refused to suspend the Act, the people of Spain would not be ready to exclaim that the English Ministry were indifferent whether Don Carlos or Donna Isabella reigned over them? The advisers of the British Crown were charged with being partisans of Christina; he charged those who brought the accusations with being Carlists. It had been made matter of complaint against the policy of his Majesty's Government, that they had not adopted the means which the treaty supplied, but his opinion was, that even if the treaty had not authorised them, they ought still to have pursued the same course. There was one other point on which he wished to address their Lordships before he sat down; if he observed in all oligarchical governments an absence of those principles, and of those results which, as it appeared to him, were material to the happiness of mankind, he must be permitted to say, that in this country, possessing as it did the best |of popular Governments, he should be the last to advise any other course than that which had been adopted. He should be the last to accede to the doctrine, falsely called Conservative, which affirmed that the people were made for their rulers, and not their rulers for mankind.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that not-
156
withstanding the able and convincing speeches which his noble Friends near him had addressed to the House, there still remained some considerations which he should take the liberty of submitting to their Lordships. He would endeavour very briefly to show the course which his Majesty's Government had pursued in adhering to that treaty, which in the course of the present discussion had been so often adverted to. He would begin by observing, that it was undoubtedly according to law that the Government of this country should interfere, provided they did so in conformity with the stipulations of the treaty—according, as he should say, to the received interpretation of the treaty; but the proceedings of the Government were wholly at variance with the treaty—they were different from it, and not to be justified by any part of its provisions. So far from this being the case, according to any fair interpretation of the treaty, he should say it would not be a difficult matter to show that directly the reverse had occurred —that the King's Government had not only acted immediately after the ratification of the treaty in violation of it, but that they had so acted by their declarations and conduct since. They told the country that they had great pride in an observance of the treaty. He desired to see them abide by that declaration; that for which he was most anxious was an observance and a present observance of the treaty. One of the most important considerations for the House was to determine the nature of the engagements which that treaty involved, to determine likewise what were the objects of the treaty, and the means by which it was proposed to carry those objects into effect. Of course the House would readily believe, that he did not wish to go at length into the origin of the treaty, but in order to a useful explanation of the position in which this country stood it was necessary that he should shortly refer to the ground over which we had passed. He should not enter into the question which regarded the claims of Don Carlos, and for this simple reason, that they were not material to the present discussion; neither should he enter into a controversy with the noble Baron opposite on questions of Spanish law, for, however high his authority might stand as a Spanish jurist, he would take leave to say, that the legal question was one which in no degree affected the present discussion, and therefore it was one on which no Member of

157
that House was called to pronounce an opinion. The law of succession in Spain had been acquiesced in, and acknowledged for upwards of 100 years, and according to that law, Don Carlos must have succeeded to the throne. That that course of succession should have been departed from merely under the "pragmatic sanction" of Ferdinand VII., delivered in favour of his daughter, was an event which could not have occurred without shocking the feelings of the great majority of the people of Spain. On the death of her father, the Queen succeeded to the throne of Spain; all the authorities, however, the great body of the people, the army, and, he might say, a large proportion of every class, acquiesced. The Queen on her accession was recognised by the British Government. He did not quarrel with that recognition, neither did he object to the step taken by the Government of sending out a Minister from this country for the purpose of affording to the Administration of the Queen all the moral force which the sanction of this country could supply. Shortly afterwards Don Carlos being then in Portugal, was called upon to give in his adherence. This having been declined, Don Miguel, then the ruler of Portugal, was called upon to expel Don Carlos from his dominions. Don Miguel not choosing to do so, the Spanish Government had recourse to arms in order to give effect to their demand, and thence the origin of the treaty. His noble Friend had very justly and correctly said, that when those two Princes had retired from the Peninsula, the object of the treaty had been accomplished—that the designs and wishes of the contracting parties to that treaty were fully satisfied. If any man looked at the treaty with a sincere desire to apprehend its true meaning, and brought to the task the most moderate share of intelligence, he could not fail to see, that the case was precisely as he had stated it. Two forces existed in the kingdoms of the Peninsula, and it became necessary to expel both. To their expulsion there were two acceding Powers, and this expulsion unquestionably was the ratio suasoria of the treaty. He repeated, that no one could fail to see, that the interpretation he held to be the correct interpretation of the treaty was the only one which it would bear; in fact, it was that which the noble Viscount himself put upon it, when pressed by a noble Marquess, whom he did not then see in his place, three years ago. It did appear
158
to him (Lord Aberdeen) that nothing could be more material to the present question, nothing more conclusive, both as to the meaning of the contract and the sentiment of the noble Viscount, than his reply to the noble Marquess on the occasion to which he had been referring; it was to this effect—
"But his Majesty's Ministers were blamed by the noble Marquess for having suffered Portugal to be invaded by a Spanish army. Now, what were the circumstances under which that invasion took place. The claimant to the Throne of Spain had taken refuge in Portugal, and around him were collected the band of disaffected persons by whom his pretensions were encouraged. It was clear therefore, that while he occupied such a position there could be no security for the Spanish Government, but still no attempt was made at invasion until Don Miguel had more than once rejected the respectful applications which were made to him to deliver the pretender up. If ever, therefore, one country had a right to enter another for its own protection, Spain possessed that right in the instance referred to. An absolute necessity existed for the course pursued by the Spanish Government, and that being the case, was it not the duty of the Government of Great Britain to take care that the intervention took place under the conditions of a treaty which would limit the parties from doing more than was really necessary for the accomplishment of the object which they had in view. This, in fact, was the main ground on which this treaty proceeded.*
He now put it to their Lordships whether anything could be more clear than that the treaty had been amply fulfilled when those two Princes were expelled from the Peninsula? As it appeared to him, the contracting parties could not, under the treaty at least, proceed further. So soon as Don Carlos re-appeared in the Peninsula, additional articles were entered into, but these articles contained no new reasons for further diplomatic engagements. He begged to read the preamble to those articles, which was as follows. After reciting the names of the contracting parties, and describing them as the same that signed the treaty of April, 1834, it proceeded to say, that these parties—
"Having taken into their serious consideration the recent events which have taken place in the Peninsula, and being deeply impressed with the conviction, that in this new state of things new measures would become necessary for the complete attainment of the objects which it was the purpose of the said treaty to
*Hansard (Third Series) vol. xxv, p, 952,

159
accomplish, agreed to the following additional articles of the treaty of April, 1834."
From this preamble, and from the additional articles themselves, copies of which were in the hands of noble Lords, nothing could be more apparent than that the expulsion of the two Princes from the Peninsula was the new object which the contracting parties had in view, though the reasons for the former treaty confessedly-remained in full force. Now, it would appear, according to the new interpretation of the treaty, that the object was not merely to expel the two Princes alone, but by that expulsion, and by other means besides, to establish the internal peace of Spain. His Majesty, in the speech which he delivered from the Throne, in the month of August last, was advised to say, that—
"He lamented deeply that the state of Spain still rendered that country the only exception to the general tranquillity of Europe, and he regretted that the hopes which had been entertained of the termination of the civil war had not hitherto been realised,"
What! engaged in promoting the internal peace of a foreign land? He must be permitted to say, then, that that was the first occasion upon which this country had been engaged in anything of the sort. By the treaty it appeared, that his Majesty had undertaken to supply the Queen of Spain military stores and the aid of a naval force, but the Government even now admitted that no part of the treaty bound this country to continue its aid with the view of that aid not ceasing until the internal peace of Spain should have been re-established. The noble Baron opposite desired a large and liberal construction to be put upon the treaty; but would any honest man, having the use of his understanding, and taking the words in their common and legitimate sense, say for a single moment, that the species and extent of assistance given had been limited to the terms of the treaty—that it consisted merely in military stores, and in the aid of a naval force? A couple of brigs were sent out, the complement of marines to which would probably have been about forty or fifty, but if instead of that number 400 or 500 marines went to Spain, he felt satisfied that both Parliament and the country must see, that there was nothing of naval assistance beyond the fact, that the marines were carried in ships to the place of their destination; it was precisely equivalent to sending an equal quantity of infantry. On these grounds, then, he affirmed, that what
160
had been done under pretence of carrying the treaty into effect was neither more nor less than a fraud upon the public and upon Parliament. It was a most material consideration to be borne in mind, that this country did not stand merely in the situation of a single party to the treaty; England was not the only party; England was not at liberty to act as she might think fit, nor were we at liberty to put such interpretations as we might think proper upon the terms of that treaty, seeing that there were other parties to the engagement. He could not fail to rememember what had been said on the necessity of being governed by the spirit of the treaty, but so much stress being laid upon the mere spirit made him somewhat apprehensive that there existed a design to put an arbitrary and unwarrantable interpretation upon its terms. The King of the French was also a party to the treaty; but that Monarch did not put on the treaty any other than a precise and justifiable interpretation. He told his Chambers that he had scrupulously and religiously fulfilled in Spain the stipulations of the Quadruple Treaty. If England were entitled to put a larger interpretation upon the treaty than the King of the French had found himself warranted in putting, why did they not avow it at once? Why did they not announce to the Queen of Spain that they would do all in their power, and to stop at nothing, to promote the internal peace of Spain. The present Government in this country professed to proceed upon a principle of non-intervention. Spanish pride would not allow of intervention being used, therefore the favourite word was "co-operation," and yet in France they did not seem to think that there was much difference between the two; but in the Parliament of Great Britain the avoidance of the word "intervention" appeared to be so important, and phraseology altogether appeared to be of such moment, that a new word, "translimitation," was invented to serve the purposes of the Foreign Office. The French Government, however, knew too well the situation of affairs in Spain and the relative positions of the parties to the treaty to follow the example which England had set. The French Ambassador at Madrid— a very able man—wrote a letter, an extract from which he proposed to read to their Lordships, in which he described the nature and degree of the interference necessary to accomplish the objects proposed by his Majesty's Government. That letter was read

161
in the course of a speech made on the present subject in the Chamber of Deputies in Paris, and was as follows:—
"As the passions which the struggle of parties and the existence of civil war have excited cannot be calmed in an instant, it would be necessary that the French army, in order to consolidate its work, should occupy for a space of time, more or less extended, according to circumstances, the country to which it shall have given peace; otherwise the flame would indubitably spring up again, either in the provinces of the north, or in some other parts of Spain. The length of time for which this occupation should continue ought to be determined on beforehand, and in addition it should be stipulated most strictly, that the French troops should not quit the Spanish territory, even after the expiration of the time agreed on, unless after a deliberation held together by the two Governments, and not on the simple demand of the Spanish Government alone. An immensity of embarrassment to us, and of evil to Spain, had arisen from the liberty left in 1823 to King Ferdinand to put an end, at his own will, to the occupation of his country by our troops. The same fault must not again take place. Let us never forget that we should always expect constant caprice on the part of the Spanish Administration, and such caprice as might in a moment overthrow what we might have done for preserving the tranquillity of the Peninsula. We ought to take our measures in accordance with this view. I am naturally led by this state of circumstances to speak of the line of conduct that we ought to mark down for ourselves with respect to the Spanish Government. It evidently cannot, at least before the majority of the Queen arrives, overcome the difficulties which are inherent in her position and character, but in leaning for support on us. Our present co-operation ought not to be an isolated act, but the first step which shall take place in a new system. It is absolutely necessary, even while treating Spain as a perfectly independent state, to retain her many years under our guardianship. It is only by such a proceeding that she shall be enabled to undertake a real reform in her laws and her morals—to effect a calm in the violent passions which ferment in her bosom—and to prepare for herself a future condition of peace and prosperity."
With this, the French view of the subject, the Government of this country was not content. How changed were times when the responsible advisers of the King of England appealed to, entreated, nay, were affronted with the French Government for not" entering Spain and occupying it for several years! He did not mean to say but that the Government were led into all this, step by step, but he requested the
162
House to look at the point at which they had at length arrived—that of, in effect, soliciting the interference of the French Government for the purpose of maintaining, or rather restoring, the internal peace of Spain. He would ask, did not that attempt to make ourselves responsible for the pacification of Spain amount to rendering us responsible for the acts of the Spanish Government, even though those acts extended to the confiscation of the property of the Church, the sending forth the inhabitants of the religious houses to beg, and driving them even to destitution and death? It was so throughout. Ministers had embarked in a scheme for obtaining an object which was unattainable under any circumstances, and which was certainly unprecedented in the history of this country. Their Lordships had heard a good deal from Ministers about their pacification of Greece. But how had they pacified Greece? They had drawn an arbitrary line—they had separated the population on the two sides of that line, and they had said, "You shall keep the peace; you shall neither of you pass this line, or if you do we will attack you." Their Lordships had also heard a good deal about the mode in which Ministers had settled the affairs of Belgium, though in point of fact the affairs of that country and Holland remained as unsettled as ever. There, too, they had drawn an arbitrary line, and had said, "Whoever passes that line, that party will we attack." But in this case they had said, "We will restore the internal peace of Spain," not by the expulsion of Don Carlos, supposing that they were able to effect it, nor indeed by another specific or definite measure. They had given the Government of Spain a mere gratuitous pledge of assistance; and if it were to be permanent under all changes of government, and they had already had one government changed, and an anarchical regime founded on military insurrection established in its stead, where, in the name of common sense, was their assistance to end? If their object were the restoration of internal peace to Spain, then in case the Government of Spain were avowedly a republic, as it was practically at present—nay, even in case Don Carlos were to be at Madrid, the treaty must go on indefinitely so long as a single smuggler was to be found in any corner of Spain. He mentioned this to show how vague, indefinite, extensive, and impracticable, the object of this treaty was. He contended, that we ought not to have

163
mixed ourselves up in a war of which we knew little or nothing of the origin. What, he would ask, was the British interest, which bound us to such a vague, extensive, and impracticable treaty? The noble Baron had thrown out that it was some undefinable interest which bound us to unite our efforts with those of the Government of Spain, to establish in that country a free constitutional government, and to form a solemn league and covenant against the attacks of the northern Powers, in consequence of their continual encroachments, designs, and plots against all constitutional states. With such great objects in view, was the measure which the British Government took of their importance limited to a mere force of 400 marines 9 If it were the object of Ministers to establish in Spain a constitutional government, then ought they to spread wide their banner of freedom— then ought they to surround the country with the pomp, and to confer upon it the glory, of war, and not to deprive us of the security and tranquillity of peace. If Ministers were prepared to enter into a compact against the northern Powers—if the report were true, that an open declaration had been made to that effect by the representative of our Court at Madrid, and if they were really determined to combine against Powers with whom they were at present in intimate alliance, he hoped that they would not do it in this mean, paltry, furtive, and underhand manner. Let them proclaim to the world the course they intended to pursue, and then let them act in a manner worthy of it. He, for one, denied both the necessity and the policy of such a course, but it would at any rate be intelligible—it would meet with the sympathy of some, and with the reprobation of others, whilst at present their course was Warned by all parties. He must say, that from all the information which he had been able to obtain, it did appear to him, that the noble Lord had shown himself ungrateful for the forbearance with which he had been treated by the northern Powers—for, with all the Spanish lore, of which the noble Lord had proved himself to be a master, he thought he would admit, that the right of succession of Don Carlos was at any rate uncertain. For a century or more it had Been certain, and though doubt had been thrown on it by his brother Ferdinand's decree, that very circumstance proved that it was still doubtful. What, then, was to hinder other persons from acknowledging Carlos as King, just as we had acknow-
164
ledged Isabella as Queen? And if they had thought proper to acknowledge him as King, what was there to prevent them from engaging to assist him as King which did not prevent us from engaging to assist Isabella as Queen? He well recollected, that one of his Majesty's Ministers in the other House of Parliament had admitted the right of foreign Powers to do so if they thought fitting. With his usual complacency, he admitted that such might be the case and with more than his usual complacency he added, that he did not care whether it were so or not. The noble Lords on the opposite benches had reason to be thankful for the prudence and forbearance of the Powers who had hitherto taken no part in this quarrel; and he believed that it was true that, if any ill-will existed at present on the part of those Powers to the cause of Queen Isabella, the existence of the Quadruple Treaty, and that alone, was the cause of it. The noble Lords might, however, some day find, to their cost, that those Powers were not inclined to carry their forbearance too far. One reason of the forbearance which they had hitherto shown might be the contemptible degree of assistance which we had rendered to our ally—he did not mean in character but in amount. They knew well that 400 marines could never expel Don Carlos from the throne of Spain; but if the manifesto, of which their Lordships had heard so much, were to be carried into effect, then the noble Lord might perhaps find that the northern Powers were not inclined to carry their forbearance any further. They might not be inclined to view with the same complacency which distinguished one of his Majesty's Ministers the occupation of Spain, even for a time, by a French army. He did not mean to say, that under some circumstances—indeed, he could conceive the circumstances—a more decided course even than that which the noble Lord had either taken or proposed to take, might not be justifiable; but those circumstances had not yet arisen, nor could it be desirable for this country that they should ever arise. Ministers had made this country parties, or rather auxiliaries, to a war in whist), not only had we no interest, but in which it was not even pretended that either our safety or that of Spain was concerned. With us it was merely a question whether we should take a step to restore the internal peace of Spain, and for that step we had made ourselves a party in one of the most brutalising and demoralis-

165
ing wars that had ever disgraced humanity. He could not persuade himself that any-war was justifiable which was not a war of self-defence, or which did not involve interests of such a magnitude as to bring it under that character. He was not, he believed, more squeamish upon such points than others, but he must say that, without any such cause, to make ourselves parties in; such a brutalising contest was to in our a dreadful responsibility indeed. He knew that war was in many cases a necessary evil, and that the usages of civilised nations in depriving it of its brutality had deprived it also of half its horrors and half its criminality. But in this case, to join gratuitously in a contest characterised as this had been from its outset, was to incur a sin against him who "had made war to cease to the uttermost ends of the earth." He would recommend the noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government to satisfy his conscience by restoring things to the state in which they were when his noble Friend near him (the Duke of Wellington) abandoned the Government. The noble Viscount was himself a frank speaker, and liked, he believed, those who spoke out frankly to him. He would therefore speak to the noble Viscount in the strains which he loved to hear. He would ask the noble Viscount frankly, what he believed the state of public opinion to be upon this subject? He did not allude to what had occurred a night at two ago in another place, where the noble Viscount's policy had been sanctioned by a majority of thirty-six voices, but he asked the noble Viscount whether in the country among all classes there was not a feeling of disgust arising from our having taken a share in a contest Utterly unconnected with British interests, and carried on in a manner utterly incompatible with the honour of the British character? So much was that the case, that to his humble comprehension it appeared throughout the whole extent of the British Empire the only real approbation of this contest was to be found in Downing-street. He would go further and say, that murmurs as to its expediency and propriety were even heard there, and that the only real smile of satisfaction at its continuance was to be found in the secret recesses of the Foreign-office. The noble Earl concluded by stating, that he had expressed his feelings strongly upon this subject, but he felt strongly upon it, and he therefore trusted that he should meet the indulgence of their Lordships, if in the
166
heat of debate he had trespassed longer than he ought to have done upon their time and attention.
The Earl of Mintorose, in consequence of the appeal which had been made to him by a member of his Majesty's Government, to answer the question which had been pot by the noble Duke opposite, and also by the noble Baron who had opened the discussion. He would commence with the last first. The noble Baron had spoken of the British force under Lord John Hay, which he said was nominally under the command of that gallant Officer, but virtually under that of General Evans. He had asked whether the seamen and marines in the King's service might not be exposed to some fatal calamity, owing to their being in connexion with General Evans and the Spanish army? To that question he would reply, by stating distinctly that the King's forces intrusted to the command of Lord J. Hay had never been directly or indirectly, nominally or really, under the command of General Evans, or of any other officer in the employment of the Spanish Government. The instructions given by the Admiralty to Lord J. Hay were to act under their orders upon his own responsibility, and the assurances which they had received from that gallant Officer were to the effect that he had constantly dome so. As to the risk to which it was said that his Majesty's forces were exposed in co-operating with the troops under General Evans, he had only to reply, that the assurance which he had for their safety was, that they were acting under the command of one of the best officers in the British navy, on whose prudence and gallantry the country might safely rely. With regard to the question of the noble Duke, his reply was short. The noble Duke had read an extract from the letter of a noble Lord, in which it was intimated that an armed British squadron had appeared in the Bilboa river, under the pretext of neutrality, and that under that pretext it had secured to itself protection from annoyance, whilst acting in the service of the Queen of Spain. He thanked the noble Duke for having given him an opportunity of setting him right upon this subject, and of telling him that there was not the slightest foundation for the intimation to which he had alluded. His Majesty's forces, seamen as well as marines, were acting openly in the Bilboa river as belligerents. [The Duke of Wellinglon—" As belligerents?"]—co-operating with the troops of the Queen of Spain.

167
The convent of Desierto was garrisoned by British troops, as was well known to the Carlists, on whom they were daily firing as often as they came within range of their guns. Moreover, our vessels and our boats, when sailing under British colours, and carrying communications between Bilboa and the sea, were fired on perpetually by the Carlists. There was no ground, therefore, for supposing that the officers and men of his Britannic Majesty's squadron sought protection from Carlist shots under the pretext of neutrality: for they appeared, he repeated it, openly as belligerents. The noble Earl who had spoken last, had spoken of the great number of marines attached to our small squadron. Now, he would beg leave to inform the noble Earl, that the number of marines embarked on board a squadron was always in proportion to the service for which, and not to the ships in which they were embarked. He had searched the records of the Admiralty, and he was not aware of any instance where a naval force was sent to act upon an enemy's coast in which a large number of marines had not been embarked. For instance, when the gallant father of a noble Lord on the opposite benches was sent with a fleet to Algiers, there was a larger force of marines than was usual embarked in his ships, under the command of a gallant Officer who now held a distinguished place in the House of Commons. Moreover, the force under the command of Lord J. Hay was much larger than the noble Lord supposed. There were two frigates on that station beside the brigs. The number of marines was, therefore, not so much out of proportion to the magnitude of the vessels employed as the noble Lord wished their Lordships to believe. Where military operations were projected on land, it was customary to attach to the ships of the fleets, not only a large force of marines, but also a considerable force of sappers and miners.
Viscount Melbournebelieved that a misapprehension existed as to the doctrine laid down by the Duke of Wellington concerning the interposition of the French in the affairs of Spain in 1822. He denied that we had recently urged the French government to interfere in the concerns of that country. That was an erroneous notion. We had never urged the French government to any occupation of that country. He would candidly confess that he himself did not perceive any thing so very dangerous in such an occupation. It did not
168
give the influence which was generally supposed. During the last war, the sovereigns of almost every country in Europe owed their crowns to our interference, and he should like to know what influence that had given to the British Government since the peace, or indeed what influence the British Government had at present. In saying that, he did not mean to admit—for he was not aware—that the influence of the British Government was less now than it had been since the termination of the war. He had been surprised to hear many of the noble Duke's observations on the constructions which ought to be put on the Quadruple Treaty, and he particularly referred to what the noble Duke had said respecting the second article of that treaty being inexplicable. He contended that the co-operation which we had recently given to the troops of the Queen of Spain was that sort of co-operation which was contemplated by the treaty. What was the meaning of the words "to assist and cooperate?" Was it not to further, by every means in our power, the objects of those with whom we were co-operating? He maintained, that had the noble Duke at this day been in command of the Spanish army, he would from that treaty have expected from the British fleet the same assistance which he had himself received from Admiral Penrose, when he was on the Bidassoa. With respect to what had been said respecting the safety of the seamen and royal marines under the command of Lord John Hay, he had only to observe, that he felt that they could not be placed in safer hands than those in which they now were, under the guidance of their present able, gallant, and discreet commander. He was sure that, under his command, their safety would not be unduly hazarded, or their honour in any respect compromised. The noble Duke had made an observation which had given him great pain, and on which he requested the noble Duke, who he did not imagine intended to cause him pain, to give him a distinct answer. The noble Duke had said, that the whole of these proceedings had originated in stock-jobbing; he hoped the noble Duke did not attribute such proceedings to the British Government. He hoped the noble Duke did not think that his Majesty's Ministers had any privity with those who had contrived those proceedings. The noble Duke, however, had expressed himself so strongly on the subject, as to leave an impression of that kind on the minds of those who heard him. If the

169
noble Duke supposed that any stock-jobbers had had any influence with the Government in the measures they had adopted, then he (Lord Melbourne) had only to declare most solemnly, on the part of himself and of all his colleagues, that they had not been influenced by any motives of the kind which had been alluded to.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas understood to repeat that we had no right to interfere in this contest in the way we had done. If the noble Viscount referred to what he had said, he would find that he (the Duke of Wellington) had stated the object of the treaty was a blockade. This was intended even after the month of August. He had not, and never could have, the least wish or intention to impute to the Government such motives as those to which the noble Viscount had referred.
The Earl of Mintobegged to say, in answer to Lord Alvanley, that Lord John Hay was with the whole division of the marines when they covered the retreat of the British Legion and Spanish troops from Hernani. He was upon the ground, and present at every movement made by the marines; and every step was taken upon his judgment. He believed, in point of fact, that if it were necessary, Lord John Hay was, and always would be, present. Of course, his Lordship was the responsible commander, and the officers under him were responsible to him. He believed that the battalion of marines were never engaged but in his presence. With regard to another question which had been put by the noble Lord, there must, of course, in certain instances, be a communication between the two generals, General Evans was perfectly independent of the marines, and the marine battalion and King's troops were under the sole command of Lord John Hay. They were a separate force, under the sole command of Lord John Hay. He did not think this the most convenient course for adoption, but it was the only shape in which the King's troops could co-operate. He took it for granted that the general outlines of the operations were matters of arrangement amongst the different officers.
Lord Ashburtonadverted to a charge which had been made against him of having said that peace could not be maintained for six months when the present Ministry came into office. He denied that he had ever said any thing of the kind. What he had said upon a question which had reference to Belgium in stating his
170
opinion was, that the affairs of that country were not in such a state as to secure the peace of Europe. But nominally the government of Belgium was established. This was the substance of what he had said, and the prediction which he had made was one which he was proud of having made. He did not now think it necessary to waste their Lordships' time on this part of the subject, but he would advert to the majority on this question, of thirty-six, in another House. He believed that nearly two-thirds of the other House also entertained the opinion which was the unanimous opinion of the country in reference to this question. In the course of his recollection of Parliamentary proceedings (and he would appeal to the noble Viscount,) he never recollected a great debate like that which had just been concluded elsewhere, to pass over in the other House of Parliament, where the conduct of a government was arraigned, and a direct motion to arraign the conduct of his Majesty's Government.
Lord Hollandrose to order. The noble Lord was out of order in alluding to what had occurred in another House of Parliament. But not only did the noble Lord allude to the debates in the House of Commons, but he was about to enter into a disquisition on the conduct of its Members.
Motion agreed to.