The Sun. — London, England, 1837-04-20 00:00:00

11 otval officer only, employ them where you may, they are, in the strict sense of the word, a naval force.—( Hear, hear. ) Lord J. Hay, in giving an account of the action of Hernani, at which he was present with his marines—( Hear, hear) — states, " As I considered the force belonging to his Majesty's squadron employed on this occasion had rendered all the as sistance they were ca l cu l ated to afford, I directed the different detachments to return to their ships, and the marine battalion d artillery to the positions they occupy for the protection of his Majesty's ships in the ports of San Sebastian and Passages." So that we have it under the hand of the commander himself, that though these men were employed almost three miles from the sea, yet, as they were never out of the command of their naval superior, they were strictly and literally a naval force.— ( Hear.) The distinction, I may observe, is clear between the circumstance of an independent and responsible officer acceding to a request which implies that in assenting he exercises his own discretion, and that of an officer acting under the orders of a superior whom it is impossible to dis. obey..—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I say, that, looking at the man ner in which this treaty has been executed on our parts, we have not done more for Spain than Spain was entitled to demand at our hands ; and I say, further, that if we had done less, we should have been guilty of a great breach of faith.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I am glad that the charge now brought against us is of this nature. I rejoice that Ido not stand here to defend the Government of which I am a member from a charge so overwhelming as the violation of our plighted faith with a deceived and a deluded ally— (Cheers)—that I am not standing here to vindicate us for having meanly evaded an engagement—for having basely abandoned a friond in the moment of difficulty.—( Cheers. ) The charge that I am repelling is, that we have acted with too much good faith—that we have executed our engagements too completely—(Cheers)—that we have, in the opinion of persons, not indeed our friends, and therefore persons who may not be altogether inclined to see our m er it s , b u t more likely to look at and remark upon our faults—that we have gon e a little—arid how little it is they say—that we have even Sane something beyond the point which we were strictly, and by th e i r own acnowledgment, bound to go to.—( Cheering.) Really I hardly like to notice the objection, it is so extraor dinary one, taken by an Hon. Gentleman opposite, to the ef fect that all this might have been very well if there had not been some supernumerary force employed—if only the regular c, , er nplemeengaged.—(t of the ships had been engaged.—( Hear, hear. ) W hy did my Right Hon. Friend, with whom I had the hap. Pneas and pleasure of acting, when he was First Lord of the A dmiralty —why did he utter such an argument as that ? (Cheers.) Did it not occur to him that if we had been really disposed to act with bad faith, it would have been exceedingly easy to have legalised the affair according to his views, by sending another ship or two of the line, with the necessary numbe r of marines in their holds.—( Cheers.) If that had been the only difficulty, we might have got rid of it after the manner of the Judge of whom we read in history, that W hen a document was held up to him, and he was told by counsel that it was not a complete indenture, for the top of it was not cut, he asked to look at it, and hav ing rec e i ve d i t , too k ou t hi s sc issars and cut it.--( Gre a t laughter and cheers.) So, sir, I say that to overcome the objection to which I have referred, it was only necessary for 1 4 to send out a few more ships, and in their holds a few more Marines. But is the practice of employing supernumerary Marines a novelty ? And if it be not a novelty, is it unsuited to this occasion ? lam sure that the naval officers in this House will bear me out in saying that it is a constant practice to send on particular services a number of supernumerary ma rines.—( Hear.) I don't know whether it was when my Right Hon. Friend had the management of the Admiralty that it was done—l rather think it was.—( Laughter and cheers.) The Mediterranean fleet has had—had what? why, a number of supernumerary marines and a train of field artil -1"7.—( Hear.) A field train of the marine artillery I Sir, basing come across this argument I could not help noticing it ; but in doing so I must declare I think it is an argument which r s,Y Right Hon. Friend on explanation would not insist upon. say, then, that what we are charged with is that to which We plead guilty—namely, an honest, honourable, and straight forward fulfilment of our engagements—a resolute determi nation not to quibble with an ally, and not to shuffle out of the fulfilment of a treaty into which we had advisedly and freely entered.--( Much cheering.) And I say further, holding as I do a responsible situation under the Crown, Which is a position in which men must lay it to their account to be attacked by the party opposed to them--I only pray to Heaven that so long as I have the honour to hold office to the Government I have the good fortune to act with, I may never be exposed to any more serious attack than this—that in the execution of our engagements we have gone not only to the full extent, not only that we have here fulfilled an engagement to the letter, but that out of a sense of delicacy towards our ally see have, if possible, gone beyond it. I trust that such a charge will be the heaviest charge that it will be my lot to meet.— ( Cheers. ) I will now proceed to the next point—( Some Hon. Members on the Opposition side exclaimed" Oh")—lion. Gen tlemen must feel that I am here discharging a duty.—( Cheers. ) feel that this is at, important subject, but I shall endeavour to avoid detaining the House longer than is necessary. The next point then to which I would address myself is the Order in Coun cil; and here I mtot repeat what I have said, that it is somewhat singular, if Hon. Gentlemen entertain such objections to this Order in Council, that they did not venture to come to Parlia- , Ment and ask its opinion on the subject at a time when it would have led to a more practical result to have done so. The first objection taken is, that the order:in Council giving permission to enlist is disgraceful and dishonourable to the country. No Hon. Gentleman here said that it was illegal.—( Hear.) But why is it not illegal ? What makes it strictly legal ? Why, Sir, it is provided for by Act of Parliament. The very issu ing of such an order in Council is provided for in the Foreign Enlistment Act.---( Cheers.) A power is reserved by that Act to the Crown to give permission, either by an order in Council, or by a license, to British subjects to engage in fo reign service. Now, if for British subjects to engage in a foreign service is that disgraceful thing—it it is dishonoura ble t o th e country, as h as b een a ll ege d, h ow came it that Par liament gave the Crown the power to disgrace itself, and to Permit its subjects to dishonour their country?—(Cheers.) Why what a slur this is on the memories of Lord Liver pool and the Marquis of Londonderry, who proposed this measure to Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) Is it to be ima gined that they would have deliberately proposed a provision in the Act, in its nature one which it would be impossible, be cause disgraceful, to execute? I say, Sir, that the Hon. Gentle men who utter that argument are pronouncing most serious and unfounded calumnies on the memories of their departed friends. Let us see what was the argument used by those who brought in the Foreign Enlistment Bill. Did they think that the per missive power was in no case to be exercise s What was thzsir argument ? They said, " We object to allow British subjects to enlist at their will, when and where and for what purpose they please, because their doing so might bring the country into qoarrels which the Government did not mean to engage in. We say, therefore, that they ought never to be allowed to enlist into a foreign service except in accordance with the avowed policy of their own Government." I say that the enlistment in the case which is now the subject of debate was in accordance with the policy of the Government.— (Much cheering.) I say that the Order in Council which was,. ‘ issued was in strict accordance with th e po li cy o f t h e G overnment ; and inasmuch as it cannot be supposed that Parliament would make an enactment contemplating that it Would never come into operation, the issuing of the order was also in accordance with the intentions of Parliament when it Passed the Act. Could it be imagined that this permissive Power would be given in a case in which the country meant to act a neutral part ? That the King should give per mission to his subjects to enlist in a foreign service when he had declared himself neutral was impossible.—( Hear, hear.) grant thi s perm i ss i on in the cases in whi c h t h e "un trY was at war would be obviously unnecessary ; I tontend, then, that the case contemplated was one in W hich the country would neither act on the principle of neutrality nor take a part as a principal in this war, but in W hich it had bou n d it se lf by treaty, or in which it was thought he its p o li cy, to favour one side. Under such circum ttances it w as i ntended that t h e Ki ng m i g ht g ive permission t° his subjects to embark in the war, instead of sending troops of his ewn with that view.[Now, really when I am told that it is thing in itself disgraceful that the subjects of one country a should enlist in the service of another to take part in war i rk w hich thei r own country i s not engag ed, I stand amazed, or I fe e l that I am asked to imagine that the whole history t o il ' wa r is nothitg but a fanciful dream—( Hear , hear) — that e practi ce of the distinguished men of all ages and of all Countries h as not been reality, but that the records of their Vactions which history has handed down- to us are mere creations I the imagination, mere fiction, and never had existence as E l 9 actual t ransactions of mankind. There i s no country i n urop e w h ose subjects have not at some time engaged in the hi vice of a f oreign power. Many of those who have taken a part all wars of foreign nations have excited the admiration of heir,„„_ages- Many of the names dearest to our recoll a e y c e tio h n a ) , of those whose characters we most admire,. to feats recorded in the annals of other countries, ' where arc 7 be found proud testimonials of their achievements, handing Ho r n their memories to immortal fame.—( Hear, hear.) The and Gallant Officer who began this debate, mentioned a „ a ll. Vversation which occurred to him as having taken place be eyeen him and hi s friend and my friend, General Alava, with Hon, to the exploits o f th e Black Prince. Does not the guilt and Gallant Offi cer k now that the Blac k P r i nce was 11 .11 ?: of this disgraceful and dishonourable practice ?—( A b_g" ) And, by-the -bye, as the Hon. and Gallant Officer I;is mentioned the name of General Alava, I think it due to t i k : g a b o c , l , to myself to remind him who it was who applied to ernment of England for this disgraceful arid dishonour a(heleh'ePermission ? It was the Spanish Nlinister in London— W i tho era) —who of his own authority, on his own responsibility, i _ cut waiting the instructions of his Government, but know a heir feelings and their intentions generally, made the de ,,,h_bcl It was General Alava himself who was the men, who tha e t t that force was raised accompanied it to Spain, thinking in his double capacity of a gallant, brave, and patriotic Spaniard, and I may almost say of an adopted Englishman "(He ar admire he had served our armies till lie taught us to tha t in his valour and his general character—thinking, I say, ari a t t in his double capacity he might somewhat facilitate the apainnpie3rations of the British corps, who were strangers in y establishing friendly relations between them and the to:Ti t ; of his own country—who was it did this ? Why, it Z'lea_erhe friend of the Hon. and Gallant Officer opposite, lie _al Alaya.—(Cheers.) And who was it who accompa , ki.eneral Evans on that Sunday reconnoisance of which we Li, We e heard ? It was General Alava.—( Renewed cheers.) are told that it is a work of supererogatio n on our part t rs ll . s e t ° put oursel ves i mproperly forward in defence of the ' L eue : l t •When_ appli cat i on was made to the Government of 7 asngta.ll. for assistance, a similar and s i mu l taneous application made to th e G overnment of France. Franco acceded to just as En gland had d one , w i t h only this difference—our 'eo Age ee tt nt was g i ven that men should be raised by the Spanish having nothin g t o d o w i th it ; and it was stipu • ilat ed s tl w ia c t Ole Spreo should not be organised or disciplined in this country. The men enlisted in France were raised, organised, and disciplined at the expense of the French Go vernment ; and they were commanded by officers holding rank in the French service, who were allowed to join the corps under the condition that when it had performed its engage ments it should return into the service of France, and re sume its place in the military establishment of that coun try.—( Hear, hear, hear.) And is that corps no longer in the service of France ? Have the French Carlists in the French Chambers urged their Government to recal their corps ? No, it is still in the service of the Queen of Spain, doing good service, and greatly distinguishing itself when called into action. Nay, more, the French Government contemplated a large increase of that force before the events of La Granja ; at that period the Legion was to be in creased to 10,000, Why was that proposition not carried into execution ? The French Government took a view some what different from others of the affair of La Granja. They thought it a reason for not giving that succour. We, on the other hand, did not think those events a reason for withholding succour from Spain. We did not think, see ing she was involved in unexpected difficulties, that that was a proper time to withdraw our assistance.—( Hear, hear, hear.) I have mentioned the case of the Black Prince, and some other Honourable Gentlemen have ad verted to cases in the reign of Elizabeth. I do not propose to mention all the cases bearing on this subject in that reign, because it is full of them ; but there are one or two which I think so peculiarly applicable that I must be permitted to allude to them. One of the first acts of Elizabeth was to do precisely the thing which we are found so much fault with for having done. It is well know that peace having been con cluded at the commencement of the reign between England on the one hand and France and Scotland on the other, a dis turbance broke out, and the Scotch congregation applied to Elizabeth for succour, in consequence of the arrival of troops from France. Elizabeth, after much consideration, deter mined io afford the assistance required, and did so. She sup plied not only troops, but a naval co-operation, with arms and ammunition, and the assistance was attended with success. The Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, put that case aside, for we do not approve of it, and do not think it deserving of mention. Now, what was the opinion given of that case, not by a contemporary nor by any mean authority, but by a man whose opinions hare certainly not been found fault with by gentlemen on the other side of the House—by a man whom li beral politicians and high philosophers have thought too little liberal ? What says Hume on this subject ? We read as fol lows :—" Thus Europe saw, in the first transaction of this reign, the genius and capacity of the Queen and her Ministers. She discovered, at a distance, the danger which threatened her, and instantly took measures to prevent it. Making all pos sible advantages of her situation, she proceeded with celerity to a decision, and was not diverted by any offers, negotiations, or remonstrances of the French court. She stopped not till she had brought the matter to a final issue, and converted that very power to which her enemies trusted for her destruction into her firmest support and security." I beg to call the par ticular attention to the following passage of those who re proach us with not having made sufficient use of the assistance we have given to Spain—with not having made it the means of exacting from the Spanish Government commercial and other advantages for the promotion of our particular in terests :—" By exacting no improper conditions from the Scottish malcontents, even during their greatest distresses, she established an entire confidence with them ; and having cemented the union by all the tics of gratitude, interest, and religion, she now possessed an influence over them above what remained even with their native sovereign. The re gard which she acquired by this dexterous and spirited con duct gave her everywhere, abroad as well as at home, more authority than had attended her sister, though supported by all the powers of the Spanish monarchy." Now that is one very remarkable instance. There is another instance which I beg to give. In 1562 the French Huguenots applied to Elizabeth for assistance, and she gave them troops and money. But most remarkable are the reasons which as stated by Camden, the historian of her life. He says, " She sent an army into Normandy, not to recover that coun try, though it were the ancient heritance of the Kings of Eng land, and forcibly taken from them against all right and rea son, but to preserve it for the French King, being not yet of age, and to deliver it from the tyranny of the Guises, who had begun to practise barbarous cruelty against the professors of the purer religion." The French King not being of age was the case of the Queen of Spain. In place of the words " to deliver it from the tyranny of the Guises," we might read " to deliver it from the tyranny of Don Carlos "—( Hear)—and for the conclusion of the sentence, " who had begun to prac tise barbarous cruelty against the professors of the purer re ligion," we might read, " who had begun to practise barba rous cruelty against the professors of constitutional prin ciples.".—( Cheers.) There are variaus other cases in the same reign. Nations were not divided then, as now. by a dif ference of political opinion ; the question at issue at that pe riod was that of religious faith. There was a case in 1589 which I think is also worthy of being selected. The circum stance took place on the assassination of Henry 111. by James Clement, the monk, and the account is to be found in Cam den's life of Elizabeth. He observes as follows :—" The King of Navarre, whom the King at his death had declared his successor"—read " the Queen of Spain, whom the King at his death had declared his successor"—(Cheers)—" ac cording to the law and right they (the league) excluded from the crown, by proclamation, as an apparent heretic, and one that had brought in foreign enemies armed into the country." Was that the force by which the decree of Durango was issued ? There is one more case I will advert to. The Car dinal of Bourbon was proclaimed King by the title of (Marie's the Tenth. The Duke of Maine advanced against the King of Navarre, now also proclaimed King of France, and then at Dieppe. The King of Navarre sent to Elizabeth for aid. " The Queen supplied him personally with 22,0001. English money in gold, sent him arms, and 4,000 men under Pe regrine Lord Willoughby, who had commanded in the Low Countries after Leicester's departure. She appointed for Colonels, Sir Thomas Wilford, who was made Mar shal, Sir John Borough, Sir William Doury, &c." Eli zabeth, on that occasion, sent money and men, and I really that it will be agreed on all hands that the cir cuinstances under which this assistance was given were won derfully similar to those of the present case. To mention all the cases in which British subjects bad joined foreign armies would be but to remind gentlemen of all the pages of history with which they must already be familiar. I will simply re mind the House of the cases of Gustavus Adolphus, of James the First, of the Scotch Brigade in Holland, of the Irish Bri gade in Spain, of the Irish Brigade in France—to the glorious instance of Marlborough, who obtained his first experience in the art of war at the sieges of Nimeguen and Maestricht. In addition to these cases, what do Hon. Gentlemen think of the numberless British officers who have held and still hold com missions in the Austrian service, not to mention the thousands of persons who have gone into the service of Portugal during the late civil war.—( Hear, hear.) There are instances without number of a similar kind; and if the name of Marl borough be held in respect, if that of Sydney be entitled to our enthusiastic admiration, then may we be brought to doubt but that the reflections cast upon the honour of our country in the present case are unfounded. But has this country only been giving in this way? has she not received in return? On the contrary, our history is full of cases in which foreign troops—l will not call them mercenaries, be cause that term has through a mistaken notion altogether been construed into a term of opprobrium—but have not fo reign troops engaged in the service of England in numberless cases beyond the power of tongue to mention 2—( Hear. ) Look at our navy—during the last war it was full of Danes and Swedes, at a time too when neither Denmark nor Sweden were themselves at war with our enemies ; but when, never theless, they did service honourable to themselves and to their country.—( Hear, hear.) Then look at our army. Does not the Hon. and Gallant Officer know that during the late war, our army was constantly supplied with foreign corps—Swiss, Germans, Italians, Greeks, were fighting in common cause with our men ?—( Hear, hear.) And I beg leave to ask whether it ever came to the knowledge of the Hon. and Gal lant Officer, that, on the eve of a battle, the General said to them, " Retire from our ranks, and do not continue to dis. grace our troops with your contaminating presence ;" or that at the close of the day's triumphs and toils, they were told that the stamp of infamy was on their brow, that they were murderers, and that, instead of having earned honour, they had ensured unto themselves disgrace by their day's labour ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) I wonder that the Hon. and Gallant Officer himself, when fighting side by side with these very men, did not say unto them, that in so going to war they were acting a part disgraceful in the eye of man, and infamous before heaven.—( Loud cheers.) But if this be really the case, that a man who fights in such a cause de serves such censure, then, I say, what must be the offence of the Government of that country which shall enlist into its ranks whole regiments, and subsidize whole armies for its service, and urge great empires to continue the prosecution of a war, not on account of their own interest in it, and which, if they consulted but those interests and their own policy, those States would have terminated long ago ? ( Laud cheers.) During the last was, how long was Austria driven by these measures to continue at war with her neigh bours, when, but for the subsidies which she received from us, she would have been glad to sign a peace with all the world ? Now, between these two cases, there is this mate rial distinction, that whilst in the one case we have officers engaging in the war at the risk of their own lives, in the other we have a Government, who, with a view to its own permanence or advantage, engages not a regiment, but whole nations, in the continuance of a war in which they had no sympathies.—( Cheers.) I say, then, let us hear no more of arguments, which, if I wore to enter upon further, I could not speak of them without departing from that consistency of language, which, on all occasions of this sort, I wish to observe. However skilfully the question may be disguised, it is nothing more nor less than this : in the first place, whether England shall continue to observe her engagements with the Queen of Spain, or whether she would disgracefully recede from the part she has taken up, and abandon an ally to whom she has pledged her succour. This is the question actually before the House to-night; but even this is far from the real and ultimate tendency of this question. The question is not simply what has happened, or may happen, in the Basque provinces; it is of wider range, and more extensive effect—the contest now waging in Spain is but a portion of that great con test which is going on elsewhere throughout the world. The question for the House to decide is a question between two op posite systems of foreign policy which are now striving for the mastery. These opposite systems of foreign policy arc not of an isolated nature, which we may take or reject for ourselves without regard to the rest of the world, but they are systems intimately connected with, and infinitely affecting every feature in our foreign and domestic interests.—( Ministerial cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they are most anxious to reform all proved abuses at home, and that they hate tyrants and despots abroad. Upon this I would remark, that either they or we are so unlucky that we have never had the good fortune to point out a single abuse at home which they were ready to recognise as a fit subject for reform, and that if we are to judge by the way they have clung to Don Miguel and Don Carlos, it is pretty clear that in their opinion foreign despots and tyrants are something like the extinguished traces of animal existence in geological discovery.—(Laugh ter and cheers.) You say you do not support Don Carlos ; but you certainly support his opinion ; and the result of your motion, if carried here to-night, will be to give a wonderful assistance to his projects. No other can be the result of pro claiming to the world that England has no interest in the suc csss of the existing Government in Spain. Again, Don Mi guel was in like manner supported by Hon. Gentlemen op posite. When in office they truckled to him, and submitted to entreaties on his part which nothing would have induced them to listen to but their respect for the principles of Go: vernment of which he was the type ; for I will not believe that any English Government could have borne the in. dignities inflicted upon them by Don Miguel, but from the fear that in resenting them they would have shaken that system of power in Europe to which he be longed.—( Hear.) Out of office there was no sort of assistance which you could give him, and by which you could embarrass his Majesty's Government, but was given to him with alacrity by Hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon; Gentle men, in fact, have throughout done all they could to support Don Miguel and Don Carlos, and as it could not be from any regard for the individuals themselves that they were induced to do so, I can only attribute it to their approval of the prin ciples of government with which these individuals were con nected. This, then, is the question before us. In the first instance a choice between certain opposite principles of ad ministration at home, and, secondly, the success or defeat of certain general principles of policy as applied to the whole world. The Hon. Baronet the other night was pleased to taunt us with the state of our Government at home, and of our relations abroad.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Ba ronet was pleased to state that within and without our cir cumstances were at such desperate straits, that for our own sakes we were very desirous of being released from the ar duous responsibility and labours of our functions. And then, with all that courtesy and considerate kindness which was hardly to be expected from a political opponent, lie ad ded, that he was ready to relieve us from our posts. Bad as is our position, desperate as is our game, the right honour able Baronet is ready to take up our tables, and win the game by his own superior skill._(Loud laughter and ministerial cheers.) The right honourable Baronet deplores, that in consequence of our unfortunate forei g n policy, and our total want of influence amongst ou r foreign neighbours, we have not been able to make—what ?—a government for France.—( Laughter and cheers.) " Where, too, was our in fluence in Spain ?" exclaimed the right honourable baronet, " Hav'nt they changed their Constitution, hav'nt they had the estatuto real, then the Constitution of 1812, and then this again discarded ; hav'nt they bad Martinez de la Rosa, fol lowed by Torreno, and then by Mendizabal ; hav'nt they, in fact, had one change after another, without rest or inter mission, and where then was all your influence, to allow of such proceedings?"—( Cheers.) Then, besides all this, we have a frigate and three brigs at Passages, and four hundred ma rines.— !(A laugh) And it is asked, is it not disgraceful that we should permit such things to go on ? Now, as the right hon. Baronet has been pleased to taunt us with the extremi ties to which we have reduced ourselves and our foreign re lations, I should wish very much to compare the position of affairs now, with the state of them when lie was in power —( Loud ministerial cheers.) I wish for no other ground on which to call for a vote to night, or upon which to go to my constituents at the hustings, than a comparison between the state of our foreign relations at the present moment, and what they were in 1830.—( Renewed cheering.) In 1830, when, I will not say, that the Ministers of the day fled from the helm and left the ship to the mercy of the waves and winds, but when most assuredly they were not sorry to see the vessel boarded and themselves compelled to surrender their charge--(lronicel cheers)—l do got wish to dwell upon the internal state of the country at that time. I will not compare the state of discontent and irritation which prevailed through out the United Kingdom at that period, with the tranquillity and content which are now everywhere seen. I will not com pare the lawless and unruly conduct of the agricultural popu lation at that time, when bonfires blazed in the farm-yard and in the corn-field, with the industrious toil which distinguishes the agricultural population at the present period, and the peaceful fires which warm the hearth of the peasant on his re turn at night to the bosom of his family.—( Cheers, and oh, oh, from the Opposition.) I will not go into all these topics; but I will ask the Right Hon. Baronet what was the general opinion of the state of our foreign relations at that period, and what they were now ? In 1830, was there one man be longing to the present opposition who believed that peace could be maintained for three months ?—( Hear, hear.) Was there one man amongst them who expressed his opinion in public who did not boldly state that war within six months was unavoidable. This declaration was made not only in the conversation across the table of this House, but when sitting beside an Hon. Member on the same bench I was warned in these deliberate and prophetic words If an angel were to come down from Heaven to write your dispatches, even that would not prevent a war within the next six months." Now, no angel has come down from Heaven to write our despatches, and yet we have succeeded in maintaining peace, not for six months, but for six years.—(Cheers.) Do I mean to infer that these Hon. Gentlemen were not sincere when they an nounced these direful forebodings? On the contrary, I be lieve that they were sincere, and that there was good reason why they should have been so. Holding the opinions and the political tendencies which they did, and knowing the opinion of Europe at large in regard to their policy, they were right in the opinion that they could not hope at that juncture to escape from war for the ensuing six months. I do not mean to say that if they had remained in office for six months longer than they did, war would have inevi tably occurred ; but that, on a general consideration of their principles and of the position of affairs, to escape from war for that period would have been neither a justifiable nor a rational expectation.—( Hear, hear.) But did we, even at that period, ever express a thought of this kind? Did we ever proclaim that war was inevitable ? We said the exact reverse, and pledged ourselves to maintain peace. That pledge we have redeemed —( Loud cheers)—and I do say, that when we consider the calamities which war brings in its train, destroy ing the fruits of industry, retarding improvement, and rolling back as it were the tide of civilization, those have materially contributed to the happiness of the world who have averted such a disastrous state of things—that their labour has not been fruitle.s who have toiled in so good a cause.—( Cheers. ) So much for a general comparison between the state of Europe now and in 1830. Not to go into the details of every country, there are still one or two which I feel it necessary to particu la'rise. Now, what was the state of Belgium in 1830 ? A state of as complete anarchy and confusion, as ever any country in this world was reduced to. (Hear, hear.) What is her condition now ? She is the most tranquil, pro sperous, and happy in Europe.—(Hear, hear.) Yet if there has been any one topic upon which I have been made the vic tim of bad jokes and pointless arrows—( Laughter. and ironical cheering from the Opposition)—the affairs of Belgium was that fuitful theme. When a laughs was wanted to be raised at my expense, an Honourable Member on a back bench would utter the word " protocol," and would excite the laughter of those who perhaps never troubled their heads in their lives before to know what a protocol was. Why, sir, if not our seventy protocols only, but seventy times seventy had been written and had succeeded in tranquillizing Belgium and avoiding a general war throughout Europe, I really think that they would after all have done no inconsiderable service._ (Cheers.) Then, as to Portugal, I will not expatiate upon the indignities which England had experienced in 1830 from the Government of this country ; but I will simply state my conviction, that Don Miguel, who was at the moment de nounced as an usurper, would, in six months, had the opposi tion continued in power, have been acknowledged King of Portugal ; and in six years Don Carlos would have been re cognised as King of Spain.—( Cheers.) Then I come to Spain. How do we stand there ? Our relations with Spain are undoubtedly greatly improved ; and if lam asked whether we have gained any influence there, I answer yes ; and to give proof of it, I will point to the treaty which have have completed with that power for the suppression of the slave trade, an act of humanity and justice which ought to have been accomplished long since, but which no power of diplomacy on the part of England had hitherto been able to extract from the Spanish Government.--( Loud cheering.) With respect to the ascendancy of Russia I am not ealled,upon to speak on the present question further than this—that I be lieve the respect and good wishes of that power, as well as Spain, can be obtained only by good faith and a strict adhe rence to treaties and engagements. And lam bound to say, that the respect which Spain has for this country is very much owing to the able, judicious, and wise conduct of the repre sentative of the British Government at Madrid. And I may add, that owing to the measures pursued by that gentleman, and the good faith which the Government has all along ob served, the English name was never more esteemed by the Spanish nation, and that Englishmen travelling through Spain never were more respected than at the present mo ment. I say, therefore, that whether we look at the general question or its details, I find we cannot put it in its true and real character for the consideration and decision of the House without affirming that the object of one party is to sup port Carlism in Spain, and the object of the other to sup port Isabella and the Constitution.—(Cheers.) I say the former is an unnatural and unnational alliance, because the principle of it is to combine Orangeism and the mainte nance of the Protestant Church at home with all that is corrupt and bigoted in Catholicism abroad ; and while the party who adopt such a principle avow their determina tion to support Reform here, they at the same time show, by their policy, that they detest Constitutional Government in Spain. In the days of the Reformation, when religion divided the different States of Europe, the parties ranged themselves on their respective sides, but such was not the case at pre sent ; and I am, therefore, justified in saying that this is an unnatural alliance, which binds together men of different reli gions and different feelings in a confederacy to retard general improvement. I say that is the real question, divesting it of all party feeling, for the House to decide. It is a question of great importance, not only to England, but to all Europe, and the House may rest assured that the effect of their vote that night will not be to decide whether General Evans is to come back, or Lord John Hay is to allow the Marines to march half a mile further inland, but the decision will have its effect on the whole world. The deliberate opinion of the House of Commons this night is not to decide between the principles of opposite parties in England, but between the principles of parties in every country in Europe ; and on that decision will depend more or less the peace, the welfare, and the happiness of mankind.--( Loud and continued cheering.) Sir R. PEE L—Before I proceed to state my opinions on the real question at issue this night I trust I shall be per mitted to advert to that part of the Noble Lord's speech ii, which lie made a reply to one of mine delivered ten days ago. —( Cheers.) All the ponderous levities of the Noble Lord might have beets discharged at that tirae.—c Hear ; hear.) The THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 183?. Noble Lord was in the House when I spoke. He was in his place when I arraigned the Ministry, and then it was not half past one.—(Loud cheers.) He had no excuse on account of the lateness of the hour, for I concluded my speech at twelve o'clock ; and the Noble Lord, after ten day's delay, thought proper to reply to it at an hour and a quarter after the hour I spoke. As the Noble Lord declined replying to any observa tions at the time, I will now repeat in his presence what I said, and also tell him why I made such statements. And why did I make.them ? The town was full of reports—(Laughter)_ said to be received from the highest authority, that it was the intention of Government to resign. That was told every day, and I did then say, and I now believe, that the Govern ment, seeing the embarrassments in which they were in volved „by both their foreign and domestic policy, would be but - too glad to find a pretext for going out.—(Laughter and cheers.) And I did that with a friendly warning ; I said, beware on what grounds you rest your policy—the re signation may not be a sham or a fallacious resignation ; and, depend upon it, if you go out under any pretext to escape the difficulties with which you are surrounded, the spirit and energy of the people of England would find men to supply your place.—( Cheers.) The Noble Lord said I taunted him because there was no government in France. I did nothing of the kind—l stated the simple fact. I stated that it was uncer tain whether there was any Government in three great countries in Europe. It was my own declaration that there was no go vernment in England, and it was a well-known fact that there were no governments in France and Spain ; but I did not sur mise that the Noble Lord had influence enough to establish a government in France, or that it was owing to him that a go vernment did not exist in that country ; but what I said was, that the quadruple treaty had not had the effect of cementing a union between England and France. I said the quad ruple treaty had not had that effect. I referred also to the Northern Powers, and I was justified in doing so after what the Noble Lord had said about the Vixen. The Noble Lord said he would give no answer on that subject because it was under negotiation, and the question of international law was referred to the legal advisers of the Crown ; but when the report of that advice would be given to the public no body could say, and on that ground I was justified in presuming that our relations with Russia were not the most satisfactory. I also adverted to the relations in which we stood with the three great Northern Courts, and the Noble Lord must remember that last Session it was his intention to send a representa tive of the British Government to Cracow—( Hear, bear, hear)—but when the Noble Lord was questioned in Parlia ment on the point this Session, his reply was that greater diffi culties than he had anticipated had occurred, which, in other words, meant that the three Northern Powers had refused to sanation a step which the Noble Lord had announced in Par liament ; I did refer also to the embarrassment in the internal state of the country. I referred also to the business before the [louse, and did state that day after day new measures were in troduced, but no progress made; that you touched everything with palsied hands, but settled nothing.—(Cheers.) And the Noble Lord next proceeded to draw a comparison between , the affairs of the country now and in 1830 ; and also to a re mark made, that peace could not be preserved for six months but by a miracle. It appeared that one-half of the Noble Lord's reputation as foreign Minister rested on an imprudent speech made by a Noble Friend of mine, Lord Ashburton. Now, I never participated in that part of my Noble Friend's speech, or concurred in the sentiment that if an angel came down from heaven to write protocols peace could not be pre served : yet the Noble Lord constantly dwells on that as if it was his sole title to diplomacy.—(Hear, hear.) But the Noble Lord says, compare the state of Belgium now with what it was in 1830, when a great revolution had broken out in that country in consequence of the revolution of July in France ; and only three months before we were deprived of office by an adverse vote of that House. If that was the sole ground on which the Noble Lord rested his claims for merit in settling the affairs of Belgium, he would only ask, was it won. derful that the country should be more settled after a period of six years than three months after a great revolution ? If Bel gium, therefore, was his only grounds of congratulation, his topic must be narrow in the extreme. But what did the Noble Lord mean by making an attack on the Duke of Wellington for intimating an intention to recognise Don Miguel as King of Portugal, when he ought to remember the opinion deli vered by Lord Althorp on that subject—by the Noble Lord who was the leader of the House of Commons, and a colleague with the Noble Lord in the Government? Lord Althorp on that occasion displayed more wisdom when he stated that the personal characters of sovereigns, whether they claimed their right to the throne from legitimacy or the choice of the people, was not a material point for considera tion, and that it was not wise in Governments to refer to the personal qualities of a prince when he was a king de facto, mid had sway ; and he further declared, that most probably a time would come when Don Miguel ought to be recognised. The Noble Lord, by replying to the speech which I made ten days ago, has endeavoured to divert the attention of the House from the main question, and I shall, therefore, now ad dress myself to the prominent subject of the night, which has made on the mind of every man of common sense, both in the House and out of it, a deep impression. The question was, not whether we were to fulfil the treaty with Spain, but whether we were to put a forced construction on that treaty, and impose on England the onerous duty of forcing on that country_ a Government which, for any thing you know, may he against the wishes of the people. The Noble Lord com plains of the time at which the question is brought forward. But surely it is no very extraordinary thing to call the atten tion of the House to the policy of renewing the Order in Council when it is so soon to expire. The Noble Lord says we might have called attention to the subject before. Now, I have at various times remonstrated against the Order in Council, by which British subjects were allowed to enlist in the service of a foreign country. But if the House of Com mons doubted the policy of guaranteeing the employment of an armed force, either directly or indirectly, in the affairs of Spain, the present is the proper time to take the subject into consideration. The Noble Lord says we have some secret ob ject in view, and that object is to evade the treaty. Now, the Noble Lord has had some experience on that head, because he knows that my Noble Friend the Duke of Wellington, when in office in 1934, acted fully up to the treaty ; and what right, then, has he to say that we wish to evade it? I call the No ble Lord as a witness whether or not our policy has been con sistent with the treaty—l do not mean the policy of employing Marines in a strictly military expedition, or the revoking of an Act of Parliament by an Order of Council, and permitt'ng a British corps to operate in Spain, but I mean the treaty it self, and contend that we have adhered to it, not only in the letter, but the spirit. The Noble Lord, speaking of the Duke of Wellington's policy on the occasion when he was Secretary for Foreign Affairs, made use of the following words on the 24th of June, 1835 :—" What he had seen of the records of the office over which he had the honour to preside, relative to the manner in which the Duke of Wellington had acted, in the execution of the engagements of the treaty of the Quadruple Alliance, had only tended to convince him the more that the Duke of Wellington had the interest of Spain at heart. Those records had shown him that that Noble Duke had acted with the strictest good faith, sincerity and honour in the execution of that treaty, whatever might have been his opinion on the policy of originally framing it." Now, though the Duke of Wellington did not advise the Order in Council, or direct a military corps to be sent to Spain, the Noble Lord admitted that his Noble Friend had acted with sincerity and good faith ; and it was, therefore, going too far to assume that we are now inclined to evade the stipulations of the treaty. If the maintenance of the Order in Council was essential to the treaty, than how came it that General Evans had declared his intention to return on the 10th June, because the period for which the British Legion was enlisted would expire before that time ? I doubted the original policy of the expedition. I believe the same still, because I consider we ought not to inter fere in the civil contests arising out of the internal affairs of other countries unless some great and urgent necessity esta blishes an exception and justifies interference. But when that Treaty was signed the House and the country had no doubt that the Government would stand by it ; and I trust the House will pause before they sanction an indefinite exten sion of it, and destroy the very principle of it, by sending over a military force in the pay of England, and under English colours, who, instead of settling the contest might foment and encourage the quarrel by their interference. The Noble Lord says, that by the Treaty we are bound to supply military stores, and assist Spain with British ships, and that by so doing we assume a belligerent character, as much as by sending men. admit that by sending stores and ammunition, or by ope rating in the contest with a British fleet, is tantamount to assuming a belligerent character, but the result is very differ ent. By sending naval stores we do not directly mix in the civil contest with one party or the other, and that, in my opi nion, formed the great objection to direct military interference. If, continued the Right Hon. Baronet, interference was con fined to naval operations, there would be no chance of Eng land being mixed up in the contest. But, said the Noble Lord, England has engaged to furnish a naval force, and, as a consequence, to employ a marine force on shore. The Noble Lord had endeavoured to ascertain how far marines had ever been marched into the interior of a country, and conceived that we were bound to give the Queen of Spain equal co operation. H e h a d gone back to the examples of Washington and other expeditions for that purpose. If it were true that the employment of marines in this manner was to be consi dered naval co-operation, the extent of that co-operation might be rendered almost indefinite. And in fact the Noble Lord began by taking the marines from Woolwich and other depots, and supplying their places with troops of the line, and that he called naval co-operation. If that were really .a. fulfilment of the Quadruple Treaty, he (Sir Robert Peel) could see no limits to the operation of that treaty. On former occa sions the Noble Lord had marked the distinction between a Bill to permit foreign enlistment and the embarkation of regular troops in the same cause. In June, 1835, the Noble Lord said, " The Noble Lord had quoted also his ( Lord Palinerston's) opinion in the case of 1823, that it would be inexpedient, if we sent troops, not to send a large army. But in that war was it merely 180,030 os 200,000 Frenchmen that we should have had to encounter ? Did not the Noble Lord recollect that the French army on that occasion was merely the advanced guard of Eurpoe ; that the other Euro pean powers supported France on that occasion ; and that the contest into which we should have been led would have been a contest not with France alone, but with the other powers of Europe ? The objection which he ( Lord Palmerston) had taken, too, was to the sending of a British army into Spain which should act under the orders of the King of England, and not be subject to the orders of the King of Spain. No such course had been pursued on the present occasion ; no English army had been sent as an English army ; permission had been simply given to British subjects to enrol them selves in the service of the Queen of Spain ; and the dig nity of the Crown of Spain was in nowise wounded by a mea sure such as that, because the levies so enrolled under that permi'ssion were, for the time being, the troops of the power whose pay they received, and whose colours they wore." Ile (Sir R. Peel) should like to bear any one show him the real distinction, with reference to this subject, between bat talions of marines and battalions of infantry. If we could employ a battalion of 400 marines to defend, not forts or posts, but the right wing of a Spanish army of 14,000 men— if the employment of marines on such a service could be vindicated, simply by the presence of a naval officer, not him who had left his vessel for the express purpose —was not the dignity of the sereign of Spain as m uc h o ff en d e d as if as many infantry Y p ad been employed in the same manner? If it were justifiable and politic so to employ the royal marines, why limit the number to 400? Why not increase it to 1,200 ? Why, when they once violated principle, shrink from the best means of rendering that violation advantageous ? Why hesitate in applying the description and amount of force best calculated to answer the purpose in view ? Having said thus much of the marines, he now cams to the question of the Legion. No one could say that the employment of the Legion was sanctioned by the treaty. The question, indeed, was simply this : after an experience of two years did it appear to be wise to sanction the continuance of the Legion in Spain, or did it appear that the time had arrived when it ought to be withdrawn ? In the course of his speech the Noble Lord had made some observatioos which seemed to lead to the inference that be thought the Legion ought to be withdrawn. The Noble Lord's words were—" You blame General Evans without having the means of estimating the difficulties under which he laboured." Now, neither on that, nor ,on any former occasion, did he (Sir Robert Peel) say one word about General Evans. He estimated his talents, lie admired his bravery; and if he had failed, there could be no doubt that that failure was attributable to the difficulties in herent in the service in which he was employed. No reflec tion, therefore, could be cast on General Evans. But the Noble Lord said, " You underrate, the difficulties with which General Evans has been surrounded." Why, the greater the difficulties the more cogent the reason for not exposing him longer to them. Th e Noble Lord talked of the embarrassment which must attend the command of nine or ten thousand men, strangers to one another, and imperfectly dis ciplined. Certainly, nothing could be expected from such troops but that which has occurred. "Of all the people on earth," said the Noble Lord, " there are none so cruel and bloodthirsty as the Spaniards, and we have no alternative but retaliation." If this were so—if the Spaniards were the blood thirsty people described by the Noble Lord, was not that a reason for withdrawing the English from all contact with so sanguinary a race, that they might not fall into the habit of similar atrocities, almost rendered necessary in self-defence ? They had been told of retaliation, and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite had said that we could not permit our men to be murdered in cold blood without retaliation. All these dreadful things were, no doubt, true ; but they were all strong arguments against the continuance of a contest which rendered it necessary to justify and palliate such crimes. The Learned Gentleman, admitting that the Spanish Government had shown the utmost neglect of the British troops—that they had provided for them no hospital, and no convenience or com fort—had gone on to say, that from the nature of the case no stipulation for such a provision could be made; so that there was no difficulty to let 10,000 men go to Spain, but the doctrines of Puffendorff did not justify any attempt to insist on their being provided for there.—(Cheers and laughter.) This was a degree of fastidious delicacy which could exist only in the civil law. There was one important topic which the Noble Lord had altogether omitted, and that was, the result of the policy which he had pursued. He ( Sir Robert Peel) doubted the policy of the original treaty; but he had the No ble Lord's own admission that he had faithfully executed it; what was strictly naval co-operation he had provided. In that respect it was too late to recede from the engagements into which he had entered. The distinction which he (Sir Robert Peel) drew was, between furnishing stores and affording naval co-operation, and marching a battalion of Marines seven miles into the country, who, on the same principle, might proceed to the centre of Spain, and end their la bours by establishing one dynasty instead of another. He deprecated extending intervention so far. At the com mencement of the French war what were the principles which Mr. Fox professed ? He declared that no country was justified in interfering will' the national dissensions of another —he declared that it was not to the honour of Great Britain to make war on any such ground, or for the purpose of establishing in France any particular form of Government. It might be said that Mr. Fox was jealous of any interfer ence with a Government of liberty, and that he would have connived at that interference if the object had been the destruction of despotism. But it was no such thing. Mr. Fox's principle was universal in its application. It had re ference to popular as well as to despotic Governments. He maintained as a principle, that the government of every State ought to be settled by those who lived under it, and who ought not to be subjected to foreign interference. The same principle of non-interference was maintained by his lamented friend the late Lord Londonderry. When the high powers met at Verona, it was proposed that intervention should take place with respect to Spain. This was remonstrated against by Lord Londonderry, who expressed his apprehension that any such measure would be attended with injurious conse quences. But the Noble Lord opposite seemed to be of opi nion that despotic principles were identified with Don Carlos, and, therefore, that we were juttified in our interference with Spain on the ground that despotic principles ought to he opposed. That was the plea by which it had been attempted at all times to justify intervention, but it was a plea which had been repudiated by all the leading men in the councils of this country. Unless some paramount necessity justified such in terference, it had invariably been deprecated. The instruc tions of the late Lord Londonderry to the Duke of Welling ton were rigidly to abstain from such interference. In 1833 France determined to interfere in Spain. She used the same arguments which the Noble Lord now used. Indeed, the Noble Lord seemed to have been searching the dispatches of Chateaubriand for the reasons by which interference could be justified. What said Mr. Canning on the subject? He re monstrated against the unprovoked intervention of France; he contended that as long as Spain confined dissensions with in her own territories there was no plea for fereign inter ference. But supposing that the apprehensions of the Noble Lord with respect to the proceedings in Spain were , such as to justify the measures Le had taken. What had been the effect of those measures ? The Noble Lord was fond of comparing positions : what was the position of Don Carlos now compared with his position when the Noble Lord began his operations? For the argument's sake be ( Sir R. Peel) would admit that there were grounds for apprehension ; but if the Noble Lord had done no good, if he had encum bered his friends with help, if he had aided those whom it was his intention to demolish, that alone was sufficient to show the , expediency of terminating the present course of- policy. The Noble Lord professed to be the greatest enemy to Don Car- , los. He ( Sir R. Peel) however, doubted, notwithstanding all the Noble Lord's avowals, whether Don Carlos's greatest friend was not the Foreign Minister of England.—(Hear.) He doubted whether the Noble Lord did not " Do good by stealth, and blush to find it fame." What was the situation of Don Carlos in 1834, when the English Government succeeded in expelling him from Portu gal? They had brought him to this country, and could hardly believe their senses when they found he had got to Spain. There he had ever since maintained himself. But, accor ding to the Noble Lord, his case was now entirely hopeless ; all the great towns of Spain were formally against him, but now the Noble Lord asserted that the Bascine Provinces we-e against him. Here, then, was a person unppular in all the great towns of Spain, unpopular even in his own peculiar district, and yet it was necessary to continue a Legion and a battalion of marines in Spain to oppose him. Had our inter vention been so fruitless as to increase his power ? Was that attributable to the jealousy excited in Spain by the interven tion of foreign armies ? The Duke of Wellington, at a time when he could not foresee the present state of affairs, had advised the French Government not to attempt to support principles in Spain by foreign force. The Noble Duke did not hesitate, from his experience in Spanish affairs, to declare that the Spanish nation, of all the nations upon the face of the earth, was the least disposed to brook the interference of foreign troops, and that any such interference was calculated to produce dangerous and injurious cosnequences. The Noble Lord had said that if the Spanish Generals had mani fested half the activity 'of Gsneral Evans, the dispute would long since have been settled. What was the cause of their apathy? It might arise from two causes ; from reliance on the aid which they received, or from jealousy of that interfer ence, which would deprive them of the fame of triumphing over their enemies, and of the credit of establishing their own Constitution. If the latter were the real cause, his Ma jesty's Government, by their interference, had obstructed the attainment of the object which they had in view. On these grounds he supported the motion of his Right Honourable • Friend, and he trusted that those who were adverse to any extension of the ravages of war would consider what might be the effect of sanctioning the course which his Majesty's Go vernment were at present pursuing. Men who differed in opinion on the main question might, nevertheless, combine in supporting his Right Hon. Friend's resolution. Those who thought that when a great country like England interfered in the affairs of another country, it ought to be by a military farce, under the command of regular officers, and directed in its operations by its own Government, might protest against the Noble Lord's doBtrines. These who thougrlit with the • highest authorities in Europe, that the cause of Liberal Go vernment could never be advanced in Spain by foreign mi litary interference, might protest against the Noble Lord's policy. Those who agreed with the highest military au thority in France, Marshal Sot.tt, who deprecated the employment of undisciplined armies might equally deprecate the Noble Lord's proceedings. Those who entertained still higher views, who thought that the subjects of no nation were justified in wantonly destroying the lives of the subjects of another nation—who thought that " Reason frowned on wa?'s unequal game, Where thousands bled to raise a single name," might condemn our interference in the Spanish contest. Those who thought it unjust to send to Spain a military force for the purpose of punishing the Basques for their fidelity to the Sovereign—those who thought that we Englishmen had no right to interfere in such a matter, and that our interference was contrary to all sound principle—all these parties might combine to deprecate the continuance of any armed inter ference in Spain, and the extension of the meaning of the Quadruple Treaty, There were powerful reasons for ter minating the present course. It violated the principle that no country was justified in dictating to another country with reference to its internal aifair,, or in declaring who was its legal Sovereign, or w h a t s h ou ld b e it form o' Go vernment. There was the signal proof afforded of the absence of wisdom in the policy of its utter failure. There was the jealousy naturally excited among the inhabitants of - Spain, and which led to the suspicion at them that no Constitution could be stable, the foundations of which were not laid by native hands.—( Hear.) There was the incontro vertible fact, that the public gorge in England was rising at the continuance of the system. The people of this country had recently had visible appeals made to their sympathy fo r their unfortunate countrymen. It was painful to see the mill_ tar' uniform of English troops exhibited in such circumstance N (----- ..,,.... T...., f.._. ,t„,;: v .t.; . mai ~.7..,.....,....,0 4 „, 1,„. ...„. 7„, .........„...,. .z..,,„<„,___,,,.„.,1:,p._ c ... . ~.~ a; had lately been witnessed. Agai t us li . 4 \ 2e,...... sind:;a:)tlaff_aaii . " - ...•- .. 4, esful arguments the only oppeal was o isist 4- • o iti ,, clination to discontinue a system which m ' tHiecAiseredit ht and disgrace. The House was told that if liaoeibist'coUrse were abandoned there might be a bonfire at St. Petersborg, or rejoicings in the camp of Don Carlos. Much better would it be that they should see the light of that bonfire—much betttir • would it be that they shoell hear those acclamations, than that they should feel the remorse of conscience which must re sult from persevering in is system of warfare, the justice of which there was every reason to doubt, and the erroneous po licy of which experience had completely established. ' Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, at this late hour of the morning I shall not detain the House for more than a very few minutes ; but I cat not omit adverting to an explanation which the Right Hon. Gentleman has attempted to give upon one part of the question under discussion_a part of it which, though much pressed, has not been yet answered. The question, sir, has been asked, but it has not, I repeat, been answered, why is it that this particular time should have been selected ?—( Oh ! oh ! from the Opposi tion.) Yes, Sir, I repeat, Why is it that this particular time should have been selected for this discussion ?—( Hear.) Why was it not bro ug ht f orwar d at an ear li er per i o d o f t h e session.? It was known that the night before Christmas an action had been fought at Bilboa, and that that action furnished Hon. Nlember a opposite with precisely the same arguments, because it was at tended with the same circumstances as the cases which they had relied upon in this debate. The English Marines took a part is that action, and the part they took was against the BasquesL fighting-, as the Right Hon. Baronet contended, for their liber ties. Our seamen were engaged, assisting with our boats, man ning batteries, working guns, and performing all the necessary operations of a war. The Parliament assembled on tile 31st of January, and the speech from the Throne with which it was opened, after expressing a regret at the continuance Of the civil war in Spain, spoke of the events at Bilboa. Sir, there was scarcely a debate upon these words, although we conceived they were the very strongest words we could have introduced into the speech ; and we - introduced them for the purpose of eliciting a discussion upon this very subject. Yet no discussion took place.—(Cheers.) The House adjou:ned before eight o'clock, and we did not then hear any thing of those tremendous evils ; and it was not, I am sorry to say, until a failure, until this reverse in the arms of the Legion afforded the proper opportunity that the Right Honourable Gentleman thought fit to bring forward the question. Ido confess, Sir, that I very much lament the course that the Right Hon. Gentleman has deemed it proper tp pursue. I think the Right lion. Gentleman would have acfed with more fairness, not to say generosity, had he brought forward his ques tion at a moment, as he might have done, when these troops had won honour, and not suffered a disaster. But, Sir, n - e shall decide this ques:ion upon its general policy, and I am sure that even from the details that have been offered to the House they will not be disposed to think that English pride has been in any degree hurt, or that a brand has been put on the forehead of our national character.--( Cheers.) But the question is now brought forward because the Right Hon. Gentleman says that there may be a new combination of par ties to support it ; that some may support it through dislike of Don Caries, some through a hatred of despotism, some through a love of Basque privileges, and others because this case may not be successful. lam sorry, Sir, that for the purpose of taking advantage of this imaginary com bination the disaster of the British Legion should be laid as the foundation of a party triumph.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. and Gallant Officer who brought forward this motion laid the ground of it, and dwelt chiefly upon the facts discreditable to the character of the Legion. But he afterwards, when the question was argued by those who thought there was a want of generosity in making this reflection, entered into five or six different explanations. He said he respected, and he bore tes timony to the character of Gen. Evans,to him he did not attribute blame ; in fact, Sir, the Gallant and Right Honourable Gentleman altogether deprived himself of those grounds upon which he originally rested respectne- the misconduct of the Legion—a misconduct which he had' originally repre sented as so flagrant that it was necessary for this House to interpose, in order that an eternal stigma might not be fixed on the character of British soldiers.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Right Honourable and Gallant Member has been exceedingly unfortunate; for he was, after all, driven to rest upon the sole testimony of Major Richardson, whose authority an Honourable Member had last night been cruel enough utterly to demolish.— ( Cheers.) Allow me, Sir, to say one word with respect to what has been dwelt upon at so much length—the impolicy and the injustice of imposing a Constitution, or a particular form of government, upon any foreign nation. I fully agree, Sir, with the maxim that has been laid down. But I think, after all that has been said of the efficiency of the Legion and of our naval co-operation, it is rather too much to talk of forcing a Constitution upon such a country as Spain by the aid of a handful of marisies and a body of raw recruits.--(Cheers.) Amongst the cases adverted to by my Noble Friend in his very powerful speech to justify the giving aid and assistance as it is given under the quadruple treaty, let me refer to the conduct of our own Whig ancestors in 1688. An Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite says, the Revolution was effected by the people of England. In that general propo sition I fully agree ; but I ask that Honourable and Learned Member—l ask any Member of this House—to real the invi tation to the Prince of Orange, signed by Rosebery and De vonshire, and Russell and Sydney, and see if he were not invited to come at the head of a foreign force, with guns and artillery, and munitions of war? (The noble Lord then read this invitation, in which they declared their confidence that the Prince would come with sufficient artillery, munitions, and engineer sand continued : ) Were these English engineers ? No ; but they were Dutch. —( Loud cries of" Hear!") And afters wards, when the rebellion broke out, 6,000 Dutch troops were marched to Edinburgh, for the purpose of opposing the Scotch rebels. Now, I ask, Sir, is it so clear that the princi ples of our ancestors have been that no foreign assistance should be allowed in the internal disputes of a ccuntry...— Hear, hear.) But there is, Sir, a great difference between allowing assistance—that is, to occupy the capital and the country—and that secondary assistance given by a foreign 'teflon that has itself a great interest in the establishment of the Government it so assists. I say, therefore, that his Majesty's Government has been fully justified in giving as sistance of this kind.--( Loud cheering.) I shall not go into this question in its details, which have been so fully and so ably treated by my Noble Friend. (Loud cheers.) But I cannot help, Sir, adverting to some obser vations of the Right Honourable Baronet opposite, with reference to a speech which he himself delivered the other night. Upon that occasion he spoke of the difficulties of our foreign policy, and he said that so impressed must Mi nisters be with the difficulties and embarrassments by which they were surrounded, that they only sought a pretext for abandoning the vessel. Whatever, Sir, may be the course which his Majesty's Government may think fit to adopt, whether they remain in office or go out of office, they will, at all events, in either position, have the satisfaction - of thinking that the present state of affairs is greatly mote advantageous to the country than when they assumed the reins of Government.—( Loud cheering.) To advert to merely one point of our foreign affairs: the Right Hum Baronet says that it was only three weeks before his resig nation that the Belgian revolution broke out ; but does the Right Hon. Baronet forget that his Government advised his Majesty to put into the speech a sentiment approving of the conduct of the King of Holland, whom it styled " the enlightened King of the Netherlands," thus pointing him out as some one that ought to be supported, and indicating that, if not the physical, at least all the moral support of our Go vernment was given to that sovereign ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) I do not mean to adopt the observation of Lord Ashburton, though I have considerable respect for the sagacity of that Noble Lord, and cannot think it can so easily be put aside as the Right Honourable Baronet seems to suppose ; but I do think, Sir, that if that course had been adipted, it would have had the most unwise and unfortunate result of eventually leading to a general war.—( Hear, hear. hear.) We had before our eyes the recent revolution of France. We knew that there existed in that country old associa tions of conquest connected with Belgium—old prejudices for the extension to the boundary of the Rhine—and had you suc ceeded in establishing the King of Holland, you would have seen a war in Europe, without even the termination of esta blishin,; the kingdom of Belgium in the end.--( Cheers.) I need not, Sir, go into our domestic affairs. The Right Hon. Baronet has reminded me of one fact. He mentions that a battalion of Foot Guards went down to Woolwich—that they were obliged to be sent down—in order to replace the Marines. Nest, allow me, Sir, to explain. My Noble Friend having mentioned to me that there might he a deficiency of soldiers in England, I wrote to the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland, desiring that he should consult with the Commander of the Forces in that country to know if any soldiers could be spared. I received a reply, that the Lord Lieutenant did consult the Commander of the. Forces, who informed trim that two regiments of infantry aid one of cavalry might very well be spared.—( Great cheer hlg. ) That I believe was not the case in 1330.—( Laughter, and renewed cheering.) I leave it to the future Ministers, of whom the Right Honourable Baronet seems to he the re presentative, to try if they can remove troops from Ireland, relying, as I doubt not they will, upon the increaaed colifi -1 deuce and attachment of the people of that country.—( Very great cheering.) NN id: respect to other matt er s o f (lA ' culty adverted to by the Right. lion. Baronet, the Govern ment has about as much to do with them as they have to do with the nonformation of the French Ministry, of which they were also accused. There is some commercial embarrass ment ; one of those revolutions in trade which a Government can neither produce nor alter. But there is not, thank Gol ! prevailing that species of discontent that every mail brought accounts of fresh fires and burnings. There is not that dis content in the Metropolis that would prevent his Majesty, if it pleased him to go to Guildhall, to do so with the most per fect safety. [The Noble Lord sat down amid loud and long continued cheering.] The House then divided, when the numbers were -242 278 Majority —36 The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers. Upon our return to the gallery we found lien. Members engaged in a conversation respecting the production of Dr. Lee's evidence before the Church Commissioners in Scotland. Ayes Noes The [louse was counted out at Four o'Clock, having pre viously agreed to adjourn until Friday. Lord Lyndhurst is detained in Paris by thy,: con tinued indisposition of his daughter, Miss Copley. NEW NAVAL NOVEL, BY THE AUVItOR OF " Cavendish." We are requested to state that the new naval story, entitled " Gentleman Jack," by the author of " Caven dish," is published this day by Mr. Colburn, r;i . Groat Marl borough -street, and may now be procured of all la' ) ol:sellcrs. Agents for Scotland, Bell and Bradfute, Edi a va T h ; for Ireland, John Cumming,. Dublin.