The Sun. — London, England, 1828-07-01 00:00:00

IMPtRIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, .MONDAY, JUNE 30. Sir A. GRANT and others brought up the Sea Insurance Amendment and Plate Glass Repeal Bills ; also the and Borough Parliamentary Bill, and the Sieoteli Promissory Note Bill. (The Lord Chancellor observed to Sir A. Grant, that he , regretted t o h ear th at M r . V esey Fi tzgera ld had l jeen nearly killed. Sir A. Grant observed that he had heard a similar account.] Col. CAMPBELL and others brought up two 'private Bills. Mr. Morrison presented accounts from the Mint, 1 - elat int: to Coin and Bullion, agreeably to the order of the House. The Duke of GORDON presented petitions from the Landowners and Farmers in the counties of In verness, Ross, and Cremartie, against the importation of Foreign Wool. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented 4 peti tiven from Cheltenham against Slavery. Sir A. GRANT and others brought up a copy of the second report of the Select Committee on Scotch Entails. Mr. HEATHCOTE and others brought up a mes sage, requesting their Lordships to furnish the House of Commons with a copy of the Report, to gether with the evidence taken by the Committee appointed by their Lordships to take into considera tion the state of the wool trade. Mr. ASTELL and others brought up the India Prize Money Regulation Bill. The Church Brief Bill was read a third time. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a pe tition from the Minister and Protestant Dissenters of Crown-street Chapel, Soho, against further con cessioli to the Catholics. Lord BEAUCHAMP presented a petition from the Mayor and Corporation of Worcester, againg the importation of Foreign Gloves. The Dake of WELLINGTON presented a pe tition from the glove makers of the same town, to the same effect. IRISH COAL DUTY. The Duke of WELLINGTON in presenting the above petition observed, that in consequence of the statement made a few nights ago by a Noble Lord op posite (the Marquis of llownshire) respecting the duty on coals in Ireland, he had caused search to be made, and found in 1801 a duty was certainly imposed upon coals consumed in Ireland, but at the same time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon whose motion it was brought forward, explained to the House that the export duty to the same amount on coals from thiA country to Ireland was repealed, and that consequently by this imposition no breach of the Act of Union had been committed. It was only a duty payable on the consumption of coals in Ireland, which had before been payable on the exported coals of this country, and the amount carried to the account of the Irish Revenue, thereby benefiting that country. The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE was sure that this explanation would be considered satisfactory, and assured the House that the petition was only presented for the purpose of having the matter dis tinctly understood. SCOTCH WHISKEY DUTY. The Marquis of SALlSBURYpresented a petition from the distillers, praying their Lordships to adept measures for putting the Scotch distillers on the same footing with the petitioners. By some defect in the late Act of Parliament, permitting the intro duction of Scotch whiskey into this country on payMent of a certain duty, the exporters found means to evade that duty, and were enabled to sell their whiskey here lower than the London distillers could manufacture it for. Before a Noble Lord, whom he saw in the House (Lord Goderich), and who had introduced into the House this Act, had retired from office, the defect in the Act was ob-. served. He had promised to correct it : however, having retired from office so soon afterwards, and his predecessors having been extremely numerous in such an unusually short time, the subject -had hitherto passed unnoticed. The Duke of WELLINGTON had had this Act already under his consideration. The defect seemed to arise owing to somd slip, but he believed that measures were under consideration for its correction. Lord GODERM3H had not bees able to collect from the Noble Marquis who presented this peti tion, what the particular grievance here was. If it was the admission of Scotch and Irish whiskey into England on the same terms on which the Lon don distiller was permitted to go to market, the complaint was unfounded and unworthy of notice, because he knew not why the Scotch and Irish should not have as much right to come into this Market as any Englishman in it. When this Act passed, it was proved that the introduction of Scotch whiskey into England was illegal, but it was as notoriously well known that that article was brought here in large quantities, and conNequently, the mea sure was only to legalize the traffic carried on. The petition was then read and laid upon the table. The Duke of WELLINGTON gave notice that he should move the second reading of the Scotch Promissory Note Bill on Thursday next; and the House was ordered to be summoned for that purpose. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 30. Mr. Wright presented returns from the parish of St. James's, Westminster, pursuant to an order of the House. SLAVERY. Load MANDEVILLE presented a petition from Neot's, Huntingdonsh;re, for the Abolition of Slavery. Sir J. LOWTHER presented a similar petition from Harrington ; similar petitions were presented by Mr. Seymour, from Taunton; by the Marquis of Tavistock, from a parish in the county of Oxford ; by Mr. Heathcote, from Boston ; by Sir Robert Clive from Ludlow; by Mr. Spring Rice from the South of Ireland. Col. SIBT II ORPE moved for returns of the num ber of post-horses and of innkeepers letting post horses, in the United Kingdom. Sir J. GRAHAM presented a petition from Pomfret, in favour of the circulation of 1/. notes. Sir J. MACKENZIE presented a petition from Ross against the importation of foreign wool, and a similar petition from the county of Carmarthen. Sir E. LLOYD moved for returns of the quan tity of lead and lc.td ore imported during the last year. ADDITIONAL CHURCHES BILL. Mr. DENISON presented a petition from St. Matthew's, Dixton, against the additional Churoh Bill. The Bill had been brought in at a late hour, and under very suspicious circumstances, which led to the supposition that it was intended to be smug- gled through the House. He thought the Bill ought to be allowed to stand over until next Session. Mr. J.`WOOD said the measure waslooked upon with execration in the country, and he hoped the Chancellor would postpone it until next Session. Lord LOWTITIER said the Bill was introduced a fortnight ago, and only stood for a second reading to-night, so that it was not pressed on with any great haste. Mr. HUME thought the Chancellor of the Ex chequer blameable in not having stated the object of the Bill on introducing it. Sir J. WROTTESLEY and Mr. Alderman WAITfi MAN expressed their determination to oppose the Bill in every stage.—The petition was then ordered to be printed. Mr. HARVEY presented a petition from John Henry Gamsby, confined in Horsham gaol for tithes, praying to be liberated. Mr.UME presented a petition from persons living in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's, for a Re form in various Branches of the State. Col. TRENCH presented a petition from Cherry hinton, praying for the abolition of Slavery. On the motion of Mr. C. W. WYNNE the con. sideration of the Indian Insolvent Debtors and Cri minal Justice Bills was postponed till Wednesday 112Xt. Mr. DAW,SON brought up a clause by way of rider, to the effect that persons on board passage boats selling wine, spirits, or other exciseable articles, should be obliged to have a license for so doing, for which 11. to be paid; or in the event of selling without such licence to be subject to the usual penalties. Sir J. YORKlniaid that thie-Wavan itterept. to support the revenues bylveansiifi a lighklartillery : but as applied to steam-boats, beAtought the attempt ought to be resisted. Mr. BRIGHT also objected to the clause, us be ing oppressive in its nature. Mr. DAWSQN said that the Bill was one of re lief, and not Of oppression, because at present they were liable to the penalties, whereas now a means was given to: them of avoiding them by paying 1/. for a licence... EAST INDIA PRIZE MONEY BILL. Mr..ASTELL moved the third reading of the East India Army Prize Money Bill. The Bill was then read a third time and pissed. On the motion of Mr. DAWSON the Hotel Keepers'. Bill was read a third time and passed. On the motion of Mr. DAWSON the Passage Vessels License Bill was read a third time and passed. _ _ - After a few words from Mr. BERNAL, Mr. WAR BURTON, and Mr. DAWSON, the clause was agreed to and the Bill was passed, the penalty of 101. being substituted instead of the former penalties. Mr. JOHN WOOD suggested that as the object of the Bill was not to raise the revenue, the easiest way would be to do away with the licenses alto. gether. At all events one pound or ten shillings would be quite sufficient for the license money. Mr. DA:WSON said it was not advisable to do away with the licensing of passage vessels altogether, or else they would become floating public houses. He meant, however, to reduce the license money for all vessels to U., by which this Bill would become as innoxious as any that could pass. Mr. HUME suggested that the measure should be made only applicable to vessels in harbour. Mr. P. THOMSON presented a petition from the importers of unmanufactured tobacco into the port of London, praying for an additional duty upon tobacco. He could not give his support to the prayer of the petitioners, but he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should state expressly his intentions with respect to this trade, in order that the persons engaged may know how to proceed in future. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the persons in this trade had had a promise of sufficient notice before any alteration would be made in the duty : he bad no hesitation in renew ing that promise, but he could not pledge himself as to any future course which he might adopt. FOREIGN POLICY-PORTUGAL. Sir J. MACKINTOSH, on the motion of Mr. Dawson that the House resolve itself into a Com mittee of Supply, rose and spoke to the following effect :—" Sir, I am anxious to avail myself of the Constitutional opportunity which the present motion affords, to direct the attention of Government to some points of great importance and indispensable neces sity, connected with our foreign policy. It is not my intention now to enter upon so open a field as the-discussion of the general questions involved in so great a subject presents, although I hope that a Ses sion so eventful as the present will not close leaving Europe—l will not say in a most dangerous situation, but certainly in a most intricate one—without some occasion for such a discussion being afforded. I cannot but regret that an opportunity did not hi therto present itself of enabling me to vindicate, as, according to my humble powers, I think I could vin dicate, the Treaty of the Gt h of July, on the grounds as well of sound policy and international law as of justice and humanity. (Hear, hear.) I have felt anxious for an occasion of performing this duty to my country, in justice, too, to the Treaty itself, and to the memory of its much-injured author, Mr. Can ning. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") For the pre sent, I wish to address the House on a measure which I propose to contemplate, as it affects our an cient friends engaged in a most arduous struggle for the maintenance of the Charter conferred upon them by their lawful Sovereign. Had I been present in the House when this subject was introduced, I would have found it difficult to bring within the coin pass of ordinary debate a statement of the doubts, ' difficulties, regrets, and apprehensions—l do not wish to express myself in stronger terms than these—respecting the nature of the blockade of Oporto, and of the circumstances growing out of it. I am well aware that if ships had been sent by the Junta to Oporto to blockade that port, our Govern meut would have spoken in the same tone of the authority acting in behalf of their lawful Sovereign; and would have allowed the same belligerent rights to the great body of the - Portuguese people obeying the commands of their legitimate Monarch as they appear to have considered themselves bound to allow to the actual existence of authority, althoegh in the hands of a rebel and an usurper. Sir, I am quite sure that although this has riot been already said, it will be said on the present oecasion, and that it will be said so fully and distinctly as to leave no donbt whatever on the subject. Sir, I think that even that circumstance will, 1 n the extremely critical situation of affairs in Portugal at the present moment, be a suffi cient justification for my having called the attention of the House and of his .Majesty's Government to the question. Sir, for the sake of the present argu ment, I am willing to lay aside all those moral con siderations which crowd upon my mind when I con template this occurrence. I will lay aside the con viction that the success of this most ungrateful, un natural, and impious rebellion would lay the founda tions of the establishment of a civil and religious tyranny in Portugal of which the present state of the prisons of Lisbon gives us a foretaste, and of which there has been no precedent or example, except ill the miserable condition of Paris in the horrible years 1793 and 1791. Nor will I found any observations on the fact that this re bellion in Portugal is against Don Pedro, his Mu jesty's ally, and in defence of whose rights and in dependence his Majesty has but recently employed his troops. I will abstain from taking into consi deration that Don Pedro's subjects having received the lawful commands of their Sovereign are now en gaged, in obedience to those commands, in maintain ing that Sovereign's authority, and their own rights and liberties, equally involved in the struggle in which they are engaged. I will waive. alI-the ad vantage vebich I might derive from contrasting' on the one side loyalty and liberty, with, on the' other, slavery and rebellion—the most unnatural combiea - - . tion of opposite evils on the one side with thep- . ha piest union of concurrent blessings on the other:— Still, however, I trust, that what I have yet to say will induCe the House to pardon the extreme anxiety by which I am actuated on the present occasion; and which are such that I should for ever - reprouth myself, were I not to attempt to make my humble voice heard in the protest against what has taken place. What I complain of, Sir, is, that his Ma jesty's Government have departed from the prin ciple of neutrality, which they were bound to ob serve; that they have done so, and in spite of con siderations of morality and good feeling. But what I most deeply lament is, that they have put forth a document which was not necessary for the infor mation of the commercial interests of the country, which was not necessary to the performance of their duty of neutrality between the contending parties; but which, in tendency 'at least, for I am most will ing to believe that it was not in intention, was calcu lated to be exceedingly injurious to the legitimate cause of the one party, and exceedingly adean-•, tageous to the atrocious designs of the other. Sir I advert to the terms in which the blockade, as it was celled, of Oporto, was announced to our mer chants by his Majesty's Government. I am very far from saying that it was not the duty of his Ma jesty's Government to give substantial information, warning . all British subjects of the danger which they would incur by entering the harbour of Oporto. But surely that duty might have been accomplished without any parade of technical language. It might have been accomplished' without using the word " blockade," as descriptive of the act of a ringleader 'of rebels. The use of that term—a term in legitimate' war, involving a recognition of lawful authority— was calculated to create a false impression. lam at a loss to see why the most informal and popular notification of the act by which the commerce with 1 Oporto was interrupted by the violence of the party in power would not have been suflicient, on the part of Government, in the discharge of that which I ac knowledge was their duty to his Majesty's subjects. All that our merchants could require was, to know on high and indisputable authority that the commerce with Oporto was so interrupted as to expose British vessels which entered that port to a danger from which they could have no assurance of protection. — I do not know why his Majesty's Government might not have done mole. Ido not know why they might hot—not through our Ambassador at Lisbon, because diplomatic intercourse had ceased, bat through the Captains of the men-of-war composing the British squadron on that station--have caused it to be declared that, although his Majesty's Go vernment took no part in the civil disputes going on in Portugal, yet that still, ;in the peculiar situation in which the two countries wereplaced, and with the close alliance which had always subsisted between his Majesty and that Sovereign, whom alone he could recognise as Sovereign of Portugal, his Majesty did not consichs himself bound to permit the commerce of his subjects to be interrupted by the act of any autho rity until he knew whether that act was recognised by Don Pedro. I do, not see that such a declaration would have been any infraction of just neutrality. For, Sir, we must recollect that this is a very pe culiar case. Both parties in Portugal assume—one the fraudulently and basely, and the other truly and honestly—to be acting in - the name of Don Pedro. The dispute is by which party Doll Pedro is really represented. Sir, as I understand, the authority, I mean the usurped authority of this person, Don Miguel, was about four weeks old when he pro claimed the blockade of Oporto. It was about four weeks after he renounced obedience to legitimate authority; although still acting under the pretence of acting fer the lawful Sovereign. I know not if there is any example in the history of mankind of any Foreign State acknowledging such a young, such a green usurpation—a usurpation which had been so short-a time in the possession of power. I know not where this practice may end if it be per severed in. If a gang of banditti were to possess themselves of a portion of the sea-shore of a foreign State, and with the aid of a fleet of fishing boats, were to stop the entrance to some small harbour, why might we not as well recognise that as a legiti mate blockade ? But, Sir, the great objection which I entertain to the document to which I al lude is, that in that document the ringleader of the rebels is called the Prince Regent of Portugal. The Prince Regent of Portugal ! Do those words, Or do they not, imply that the individual to whom they relate is in • the- possession of legitimate autho rity ? What is the meaning that would be annexed to them by ninety-nine persons out of a hundred ? That in describing Don Miguel as the Prince Regent of Portugal, his Majesty's Government described him as the possessor of legitimate authority. Now, Sir, what effect is such a supposition calculated to produce ! Its tendency is to proclaim to mankind at large that the persons in Portugal opposed to their lawful Sovereign arc not rebels. It is true that the expressions may be softened away; but in strict ness, that is their populatimeaning. But what ren ders this circumstance mere serious in its character, is the following consideration. In all wars, the de• claration of the possession of legitimate power has ever been deemed most important. But in popular contests, the danger of any rash declaration of that nature is increased tenfold. His Majesty's Govern ment may understand the meaning which they intend ed to convey in the expression I have adverted to. But what must the multitude,an ignorant multitude, a Portuguese multitude, think? How must they be affected by such an expression, as they understood it, proceeding •from the ancient ally of Portugal, the Sovereign of one of the most renowned na ' tions of the - civilized world ? How must they con sider it but es a determination on the part of Great Britain to recognise Don Miguel as the possessor of lawful authority, and to give its sanction to his acts? I know but this single instance in which the Govern ment of this country have recognized, under similar circumstances, any party by the name which it has itself assumed. From the beginning of the French Revolution, in all our diplomatic transactions with France, with Holland-, with Italy, with Spanish America, and lastly with Greece, we have always recognized such parties as " the persons exercising the powers of Government." By that term we have until the present occasion invariably designated the actual Government in any country as contradis tinguished from that which we considered the lawful Government. Sir, this long usage on our part hears with mighty force on the deviation of which we have in this instance been guilty. For what can the people of Portugal think of this exception in favour of Don Miguel, to that which for forty years has been the uniform practice of this country ? See what took place . with respect to Greece. When the Greeks declared - Lepanto - and Patras to be in a state of blockade, Sir Frederick Adam, in Nov. 1824 s issued a Proclamation announcing the fact ; but although the revolt of the Greeks had then been going on for four years, Sir Frederick Adam, acting under the direction of Mr. Canning, described them as " persons exercising the powers of Govern ment in Greece." Is it fair—is it equitable, to select the aasc of Don Miguel, as that on which to ground an exception to our general practice ? What is it, Sir, that entitles him to this distinction ? Is it his private or his public virtues ? Is it his rebel lion against his father, or his rebellion against his brother ? Is it his repeated perjuries ? Is. it his cruel oppreSsion ? Is it his breach of faith with all the Powers of Europe ? I speak not of intention, but I speak of tendency, when I describe the natural consequences of such an act as this contrasted with all our former conduct. It is an act which I most deeply regret, and which requires the most ample explanation. Will it be said that the expressions in question are mere words ; that titles are matters of no consequence ? What was it that excited the war with Louis the Fourteenth, in 1702 ? I hold in my hand the declaration on that occasion of the members of the Grand Alliance, characterizing the acknowledgment by Lewis of the Pretender, as King of England, Scotland, and Ireland,. as a grave and intolerable offeece; and it goes on to state, " that the Allied Powers will never make peace with France until his Britannic Majesty has rec e i ve d satisfaction for that atrocious injury ?" What was the answer made by Louis the Fourteenth ? lam sorry to say that it was not very unlike in character that on which I have just been animadverting. Louis's words were—" I am no judge hi the dispute between the King of England and the Prince of Wales, and I cannot make myself a judge in that dispute by with drawingfrona the latter the title - to which he has been from his birth entitled." Is it possible that it will be said, that because the title given in this document to Don Miguel justly described him before he violated his faith, that it justly described him afterwards? Sir, that that title justly described him originally, is precisely the. reason why his Majesty's Government should have avoided giving it to - him under his pre sent circumstances. Why is it that we have ..sns pended all diplomatic intereourse with Portugal ? If he be in truth -Prince Regent of Portugal, that is, if he be accredited as such by Don Pedro, why have we put an end to our diplomatic arrangements with hint ? If he be not so accredited, why do his Ma jesty's Government call him by the name ? The very circumstance' of his having (Mee been justly entitled to the name, makes it the mere necessary that we should not give it to him now that he has forfeited that title. What are the facts with respect to that individuel's conduct? Sir, 1 hold in my hand a passport, dated the 7th May, and purporting to be in the name of our Sovereign Don Miguel the First," which was given at Evora; by the In tendant of a province, to an English goblernan, whose name it is unnecessary to mention, - but who is a man of the highest character and respectability. This passport way • preiriouilly • subtriit tett. to t h e examination examination of three or four public of6Cere. Sir, this one fact sufficiently shows that in at least some of the provinhs of Portugal, the usurpation is practically acted upon. Added to this, Sir, every body knows that the Lisbon Gazette abounds with addresses, published under the sanction of his au thority, some styling him Don Miguel the First, and others imploring him to assume that title. But, Sir, I rest my argument on neither of these facts.— I rest it on a much more important occurrence, which cannot be denied. On the 3d of May he ac tually published a proclamation, summoning an Assembly of the ancient Cortes, which had been abrogated by the Constitution, in order "that it might deliberate on the laws and constitution of the kingdom." That was at once an abdication of his character of Prince Regent, and an act of manifest and undeniable treason towards his Sovereign: Let me imagine a case. What if the year after the Union with Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant had summoned a separate Irish Parliament, to " deliberate on the laws and constitution of the kingdom ;" would any man have doubted that that was a rebellious act ? If the same Lord Lieutenant had proclaimed the blockade of any of our ports—Liverpool, for in stance—would any neutral power have avoided that port, because his Excellency the Lord Lieu tenant, or rather the individual no longer Lord Lieu tenant, had chosen to lay it under blockade? By such an act, the person committing it would have abdicated his office of Lord Lieutenant, and would have taken upon himself the character of the Sove reign of Ireland. Sir, I will go one step further. I du not mean to say that we have a right closely to scrutinize the acts of a foreign Prince, in order to see if he punctually observes' the laws and the Constitution which he professes to maintain.. But some acts are so flagrant and notorious, that we may justly proceed upon them. Such are the acts which the great body of the Portuguese nation eoncur in characterising as rebellious. Sir, there is one further consideration which imposes upon us the necessity of more distinctly performing our duties with re• ference to this subject, in the face of Europe. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite is well aware of those transactions at Vienna, in October last, in which the return of Don Miguel to Portugal originated. Of course I can know nothing upon the subject, except that which I have heard. As I understand the matter then, there was a con ference at Vienna, in October, between Prince Met ternich, on the part of the Emperor of Austria; Lord Cowley (then Sir H. Wellesley) on the part of the kingdom of Great Britain ; and the Count, Villa Real, on the part of Don Miguel. That con ference had for its basis a note from the Brazilian Minister at Vienna, announcing that Don Pedro had conferred the Regency of Portugal on Don Miguel. It was declared to the assembled Ambassadors by the Count Villa Real, that Don Miguel was firmly determined to administer the Regency according to the Charter. Indeed, a few days before, Don Miguel, in a private conference with the Emperor of Austria, spontaneously declared that it was his firm-determi nation to maintain in Portugal the Charter which he had the year before'sworn to observe. On the 19th of October Don Miguel wrote to Don Pedro, declaring that, in going to Lisbon, he went with a firm determination to fulfil Don Pedro's wishes respecting that country. It was accordingly agreed by Prince Metternich, Lord Cowley, and the Count Villa Real, that Don Miguel should repair to Por tugal. If, not in form, this agreement was, in sub stance and nature, a treaty entered into by Don Miguel with the great Powers of Europe. Fie com municated it not only to his brother, but to the King of Great Britain, the King of France, and even the King of Spain. It is clear then, Sir, that the close of the long conference at Vienna was, the agree ment that Don Miguel should return to Portugal; and I conceive that I ant perfectly justified in stating, that the three great Powers of Europe per mitted him so to return substantially on the condi tion that he would adhere to the established Con stitution. I know, Sir s that it is said by some per sons that the great Powers of Europe had no right _to exact from Don Miguel. such a condition.. That I deny. Sir, I go further; I contend that this tsansaction gave to the great Powers of Europe the right of intervention in the affairs of Por tugal. I do not say, that they should interfere. But at all events. it was indispensible that they should observe the greatest reserve in the use of any language which might imply an approbation of the conduct of Don Miguel, after he had violated the stipulations, or, if you will, •the understanding on which his return to Portugal had been permitted. Sir, there is another point to which I will again, though reluctantly, advert. His Majesty's Govern ment had an additional motive for caution in the language which they used on this occasion, because, as is well known, an untoward correspondence had taken place tetween a Noble individual in a high employment in this country, and some persons of consideration in Portugal, connected with Don Miguel's faction. It is well known, Sir, that that correspondence was viewed in such a light in certain quarters, that an opinion was very generally spread that the real views of his Majesty's Government were at variance with their avowed policy, and that they were disposed to favour the unjust preten sions . of Don Miguel. God forbid, Sir, that I should insinuate that any such notion ever entered the minds of his Majesty's Government. It will give me the greatest pleasure to hear it totally dis avowed. But defect certainly is, that such were the reports at Lisbon; and that those reports produced a most unfavourable impression. Until the last mo ment, as appears by the last advices from Portugal, the active agents of the Usurper have been loud in their declarations, that although Lord Beresferd did dissuade the Usurper's party from pursuing the course on which they had entered, yet he was in se cret favourable to their cause. I will not vouch for one word of this; but, at the same time, if I had not heard it from proper authority. I should riot have stated it. There is one circumstance more, which 1 think it my duty to mention. It must be recol lected that I did not blame the withdrawing the British troops from Portugal. All I blamed was, the withdrawing of them at the very moment of the usurpation, coupled with the circumstances of the representations circulated throughout the country, that some of the highest servants of the Bri tish Government were, by their correspondence, countenancing that usurpation. All these facts, and the coincidence of them, constituted a case which imposed the highest degree of caution as a duty on the British Ministers when they were framing .the notice; the tendency of which I think so unfortunate. In looking over the adverthies merits from the General Post-dike, which are frained perhaps by Sir F. Freeing, who is sometimes, I un derstand, constrited On the affairs Of thii department by the noble person who superintends it, I find, in speaking of Portugal, the terins made use of are— " In consequence of the interruption of the commu munication with Oparto; the mail will close," &c. I Wish that . Government had kept equally close in the words they had used; for the language of Minis ters may have, and, most likely has produced, a milked e%ect throughout Portugal—it may have en couraged the bad, whilst it damped the exertions and disappointed the hopes of the good; it may have induced them not to maintain that system of- Go vernment conferred upon them:by their lawful So vereign, with the fidl concurrence of the Adininis tration which then existed in England. Riving made these statements, I h ave sa id w h a t I s hould never have forgiven myself if I h a d om i tt ed. It Will give me great and very high 'pleasure to have the doubts and diffieultieS attending the subject . removL ed, but their removal will require a very full . and ample explanation on the park of his Majesty's Mi nisters. Mr. Secretary PEEL,—Sir, in contesting the Right . Hon. Gentleman's opinion's, which I am pre pared to do, I would carefully geoid saying any thing calculated to lessen the feeling of high disapprobetion previously expressed by his MajestSr's Government at the course taken by Dori Miguel; but I mean to , contend, that the:true policy of a Government, in of seek cases international is not to out ex- FelitiOna to generahprinciples, but to observe that Course which this country has always required to be observed towards itself by other states under cir cumstances a.tsall similar,. In a word, to refer to the practice of idte f inatipnist'laW:generally established anisecognizecriii saaeh cases. ith respect to the eorriiipandence' alluded to b:r . the Right Hon. GeOentini—a, correspogence '• which took place before the notification Made; ht overnment to Bri 'sh merchants,in referencelo the blockade of Oporto, I declared, whatever that correspondence was, that Lord Beresford had no authority to communicate with any individual in Portugal, on the part of the English ' Government, or any responsible adviser of the Crown. The sentiments of the British Govern ment, as they regard Portugal, can only be spoken by the British Minister at that Court; and if ever the time arrive when his instructions shall be dis closed, we will possess the means of judging of the accuracy of this statement. I have no hesitation in ;expressing my conviction that this rule has not been departed from in the present case. But when the Right Hon. Gentleman puts a construction on this correspondence, he ought in fairness to inter pret it in reference to the declaration of Lord Beresford himself, and not take the construction of parties who may have been directly interested in putting an unjust and unwarrantable construc tion upon it. Lord Beresford hai not only con firmed the statement, that he was not autho rised by the British Government to commu nicate with Portugal, but ha.% also expressly denied that he in any way countenanced, in the course of that correspondence, the attempts to sub vert the constitution of the country. Then, as to the fear of misconstruction by the r Portuguese, of the sentiments of this country, with regard to re cent transactions there—a misconstruction which the Right Hon. Gentleman apprehends may arise from the terms of the document ,announcing the blockade of Oporto, it should be recollected, that I, as the official organ of the Government in this House, and other Members of the Administration elsewhere, have, in the most explicit terms, notified the total disapprobation of his Majesty's Govern ment, with regard to the late conduct of Don Miguel. Surely this must be sufficient to prevent the chance of misconstruction. If the expressions of Ministers have not been sufficient to notify the disapprobation felt by Government of recent events in Portugal, what can be more formal and de cided than , the suspension of the functions of the British Minister at the Court of Lisbon ? The Right Hon. Gentleman admits it may be pos sible that we have no other course to pursue but to notify the blockade; at the same time he quarrels with the particular expression adopted on that oc casion. He also intimates that there is another course, more agreeable, perhaps, to his feelings, but which, if he were a responsible adviser of the Crown he would be the last man to recommend. The Right Hon. Gentleman advice amounts to this : " Iwould have you maintain a perfect neutrality be tween the contending parties ; but I would not re spect the blockade of either, because I consider it inconsistent with the interests of British merchants to do so." Sir, that would be equivalent to a de claration of war; and all ive have to do, if we take the Right Hon. Gentleman's advice, will be, to send out a sufficient force to over-power the blockade. I contend, it is more consistent with the usage of States, acting upon the principles of inter national law, to respect an effectiveblockade be tween two neutral parties, rather - than go to war with both, and use force for its prevention. If we were to act upon a different principle, such are the dissensions now existing from one end of the world to the ' other, that we should find ourselves at war with almost every State, and then the Right Hon. Gentleman would not be in a situation to come down to this House. and contest the amount of the Army or Navy Estimates. As to the terms of the notification, the Right Hon. Gentleman says—" I wish you had not used the word blockade. I wish you had selected some other term to signify the in terruption existing with respect to commercial inter course at Oporto." Sir, I really do not know what other term we could use which would express our meaning so well. The Right lion. Gentleman adds.—" But this is a term which implies the exer cise of a legitimate and perfectly recognised autho rity." I took down his. words. The Right Hon. Gentleman also said—" The term applies to the rights of belligerents." Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH.--As 'against the other party. Mr. Secretary PEEL, in continuation. It is of importance to consider whethkr the terms we have employed imply a recognition of the existing autho-: rity, by which the blockade is declared as legal, or an affirmation on our part, that it is to be viewed in that light. I contend that it is not. What is the Right Hon. Gentlemen's objection to the use of the word blockade ? He objects to it, as implying the existence, and our admission of the existence, of a legitimate authority. New, I say that the term blockade has been used in cases, where, so far from there being a recognition, there was a positive denial of th e e xistence of a legitimate authority; and if lie admits this, which I think he must, when he has heard the precedents to which I mean to refer, it will he utterly impossible for him to complain any longer of the use of the term. Sir, in the case of Greece there was no recognized authority ; but the person %vim assumed the direction of the Go vernment established a blockade of Napoli di Ro mania, and the British Government, which con tested the claim of that aisthority to the designation, of a legitimate one, recognized the blockade. Sir Frederick Adam apprized all British merchants of the circumstance, and informed them, that if they violated' the blockade, they would possess no claim to compensation for the losses which they might sus tain. The terms made use of on that occasion were the same as have been now used. Again, in the case of Chili :—ln 1819 a blockade of five hundred leagues of coast was .attempted, and it was not made known to us except through the clunniel of the newspapers; yet the British Government noti fied the existence of the blockade, not indeed as an effective one, because it was not so. However, if the blockade hail been confined to the port of Cal lao instead of being extended over a coast of five hundred leagues, it would have been notified as effective, which I have already said it was not, more having been attempted than the resources of the country would admit of. Here was the recognition of blockades made by GoVernments which we had not recognized as legitimate. It appears, from these two instances,. that there is nothing in the ob jection which the Right Hon. Gentleman has taken to the use of the term blockade, which is a term that has always been used, no matter what the patty' that institutes it. Here, says the Right Hon. Gentleman, "You should not have notified the blockade as having been instituted by his Royal Highness the Prince Regent of Portugal." Sir, previOus to a designation usually employed, with re spect to foreign states, or their ruler being rejected, a variety of correspondence is necessary, and many steps must be taken, more particularly where the designation comes to the party through the medium of a superior authority. We should at least have consulted Don Pedm, from whom his brother de rives the tide of Regent, before we had refused to addres's Don Miguel bY•that style. At the time of this blockade the functions of the British Minister were suspended, hilt he was not withdrawn from Lisbon, and has not been withdrawn up to the pre sent moment; besides, the British Consul remained and still remains in communication with the Go vernment of that country. And thus, though we had marked our disapprobation of Don Miguel's conduct, we had not denied the validity of his authority derived from his brother. The House must be aware that it is a matter of great delicacy for a Foreign Power to intermeddle with or dis claim the authority of an existing Government in another country. It is not for me to say whit shall be the cireumstances,-or when the period will arrive, for such a declaration, in the case of Poi tsgal or any other State. I can only say, as it respects Portu gal, that the time did not then apl , ear to us to have'. arrived, and we theref, , re, felt bound to adhere to the course previou,li pur sued, and to give Don Miguel in this notification tit hi' title which he holds as Vicegerent of his broth(' ' 4l namely, Prince Regent of Portugal. What mg hsys been the nature of the remonstrances made el of by this country, in common with other State and what the hopes ent er t a i ne d o f i n d uc i ng a you " ` o , s , Prince, by means of thes e remons t rances , t o abando the course he was pursuing, it is not or me to say e ':t but sure I am that every m a n, vie w i ng t h e circuit , stances of the case prudently and with moderatiot t h must admit that it it not for a foreign Government, : even on the evidence of s o me i m prop er acts , such' of the presentation of addresses calling on the Prins Regent to assume the title of King, or already girl*, him that title—l say it w ou ld b e too mu c h to ce llo' ri l l,. a foreign Government, u n d er th es e circ umstances ,tc, declare the Government of Portugal dissolved, and O. deny to the Regent a title which he derives , frog another person, and in th e c on ti nuan ce of w hi c h at: that person is interested. B es id es , the a dd resses of " which the Right Hon. G en tl eman re li e s as esta bli s h ; b tr ing a charge of usurpation against Don Miguel, affo C lii arguments not very consistent with one another, it asmuch as one of them recognises his right to the , f i r , title of Majesty, and anothe r on ly ca lls on hi m assume that title. The latter, the Right Hen. Gee r l t tleman will perceive, is not ver y consis tent with th '° .supposition of the assumption of Sovereign power 11, 1 114 Don Miguel; for, if he be already King, why at dress him and call on him to invest himself with tls* 1 , 1 1 ! title. lam perfectly rea dy t o a d m i t th a t it was th e dirt h i' of Don Miguel to discountenance, from the very first,ei attempts at the assumption of regal dignity on hispart yet the presentation of such addresses, though injo; dicious, is not a necessary disclaimer of the delegate': pli authority which he derives from another party. ' gel think it will be generally allowed that it was bettO to try the effect of strong and combined remq. strance, with a notification of the course whit) i ,„ l might be ultimately purs ue d, su pp o si ng t h e remo e' strances to be ineffectual, than to suspend all out relations with Portugal. We had not taken ant. 1.1 such step up to the time of this notification--we I f have not yet taken it. Our Minister resides at the !th Court, though his funetions are suspended; ur x of Consul is in communication with the authorities. un and we were compelled to notify the blockade-id British merchants as the act of the person at "the 4 ' head of the Government. Under these circunr. ha stances I cannot admit that there was any thing it r the course taken by his M a j es ty' s Government, ca l r ciliated to signify our approbation of Don Miguel' conduct, and if improper inferences have been d ra ws t _ ° in Portugal, it is not through any want ofoc are of fe e caution on the part of Ministers to guard agains l them. sin Dr. PHILLIMORE thought the Right HO as , Gentleman opposite had 'entirely misapprehended the drift of the arguments made use of by his Righ' Hon. Friend. He (Dr. P.) had not heard b l ' Right Hon. Friend express any opinion to treat tit' „ f subject exclusively with reference to internatioe' , , h, law, or with regard to the propriety or policy or using the term blockade. .On the contrary, he an tic derstood him to express no doubt. as to the wort' , . th and he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman had at' d i stained from expressing -an intention to introdto any litigated question of international law. The d i could he no doubt that the authorities in Portugal' bi if they had the right of . governing, also possessed the right of instituting a blockade. If they could exercise any privilege, of 'Sovereignty, .they could also exercise that one of its highest. But be guess se dolled the authority. On the other- hand, he e , thought with his Right Hon. Friend, that the Bris tish Government had acted on this occasion in rs manner contrary to established usage. The - Right c Hon. Gentleman opposite said that Government was • fa compelled to notify the blockade. Why? Are blockade had no effect on the subjects of any Stt4e except they were aware of it. If our -merchants sailed into a port in a state of blockade, but of th which fact they had.no notice, it was not in the power of any State to confiscate these vessels. But b e it was for the Government to give notice of the cis- hi cumstance, and after the period of such notice every „ merchant attempting to break the: blockade was H liable to have his property confiscated. Tire. Right „ Honourable Gentleman said we , bad. authority or for recognizing the existence of a 'blockade in p cases of a still stranger nature than the present— , put why should we be ancillary, and all th a t in us lay to assist the Government of Portugal el to impose a blockade which Don Miguel him self had no means of imposing as it regarded 1 .. ) British merchants. By the: notifieation, we look ti on ourselves to . do • what, Portugal herself wag incapable of performing, not being in a situation to xi , notify to us the existence of the blockade, on 8( . .. count of the suspension of the functions of our Am- ill bassador at that Court, who was the only official medium of communication between the two court- it tries. In the long war we had with France, there 0 was no such promulgation. The Right Ho n . Gen- . • durum talked of the blockade in the ease of :Chili, • ~r 1 but he (Dr. P.) contended that th a t p rece d ent was : 14- ' inapplicable. Mr. Secretary PEEL-1n the case of Chili we t (lid notify the blockade. With respect to the ar-.; .1 gument of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that 11 we should not notify.-the existence of the blockade . of Oporto to our merchants, because it wns not no tilled to us by the Portuguese Government, that t may be law, but sure lam it is not equity. How, does the case stand ? This country orders its Mis, sister to suspend his functions, and then turtle round and says to Portugal, it is impOssible for } tote to notify to us, through our Minister, the existence of an effective blockade, and we shall not notify it to 1 British subjects, whom we shall leave in ignorance I of the fact ; thus placing them in a situation to call on you for compensation foiany injury or loss they I may sustain. We being the parties who have au.' pended the functions of our own Minister, and who I by our own act have put it out of the power of Pot- 1 tugal to announce to us officially the blockade—are we to leave our subjects in ignorance of the eirenm stance, for the purpose of calling on the Govern-- ' merit of Portugal to compensate them ? I repeat, this may be law, but it is inconsistent with every principle of equity. Dr. PHILLIMORE said, the Right Hon. Gen tleman appeared to misapprehend his argument. What he meant to say was, that no blockade could be binding on the subjects of any power, lest legally announced to that Power. The property of, our , merchants was safe until they were officially apprised of the fact. Mr. Secretary PEEL.—If the Government of Portugal has not taken proper steps to notify the . blockade to British subjects resident in that country, it is accountable for any loss that may be' sustained from ignorance of its existence.: Bat how could they ' notify the fact to British subjects in this country, when the functions of our Minister at their Ceurt are suspended, and have been suspended by our act ? Dr. PHILLIMORE explained. Sir G. COCKBURN said, when merchant ves sels arrived eta port blockaded by vessels of.war, and attempted to enter, they became forfeited: . Dr. PHILLIMORE repeated his observation, that without warning they could not be forfeited. Sir G. COCKBURN admitted, that till the fart of the blockade was notified, vessels might force it, if they could, with impunity. Lord MORPETH wished to ask the Right Hon.. Gentleman, whether, if, according to the case sup, posed by his Right Hon. Friend, a blockade had beeti declared in the Tagus by the Junta of Oporto, • Government would have been ready to take 'the same steps as they had done in the present instance. Mr. Secretary PEEL--Really, it is not so easy to answer the question of the Noble Lord.' All'l can say is, that Government will be prepared, when such t case shall arise, to deal with it in a proper, mea sure. I am sure, on reflection, the Noble Lord will, adroit, that I shall better perform my duty to the country as a Member of the Crown, by declining to give a specific answer to his inquiry than by reply ing to it. On this occasion I shall follow the ex ample of a Turkish authority. The Allied Ambat.:- sarhirs not long , ' ago asked the Turkish - Miriister question founded on en hypothetical case. fr&r..