The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-06 00:00:00

Bria,h Boom of Commons through the medium of
the foreign newspapers. (Hear, hear.) That it was with
the utmost difficulty that any notice of thew events should
have been heard in that chosen temple of the national rights
sad national honour, and that at last, when some notice was
taken of it, the prune minister should tell the House of
Commons that negotiations were going on. (Hear, hear.)
That was the great fault which he found with ministers.
Be wanted to know why, after such an outrage had been
committed, a fall and perfect satisfaction had not long sine*
been exacted. (Hear, bear.) He said this totally inde-
pendent of the policy of the government or the character of
the ministers. &Attraction was a primary con-
dition to be fulfilled before they entered into
either one or other consideration. (lieu.) They knew
that the representative of her Majesty had been dismissed
with shame and dishonour, because, as the Under Secretary
of State at Madrid had courteously informed Sir H. Bulwer,
be had been abused in the English papers and disowned in
pulisment, and because his safety could not be ensure I. Fos
these sutticieat reasons the BritiAt minister was handed his
Deepens, headed into his carriage, and assured of the
bpimigh government a high consideration. (A laugh.) But
they were told that negotiations were going on to ascertain
the reasons for his dismissal. Were those reasons satisfac-
tory ?—that was the real question. (Hear, hear. i The
time had come when such unprecedented outrage must be
explained ; end explanation was ceeessiry before any plOl-
- of policy could be eateitained. If Minkel had been
authenticated to the noble lord, and had made his communi-
=bon, it would have been by thattins• on the table. lf,
even taking advantage of the noble lord's indulgent
permission, he had, although not accredited,written anything
worth attending to, they might have bad it before them. He
bad coma to tell the truth, and had started twenty-four
hours before the British ministi r. and having up to the pre-
sent time said nothing. he (Mr. Daireeli) had aright to infer
that the Spanish government had no accusation whatever to
make against Sir H. Bulwer. Except the expulsion itself,
be could conceive no outrage greater than that a person
should hotpot over here to circulate rumours which he took
no pains to substantiate. (Hear, hear.) He repeated that a
gross outrage had been committed, and what he found fault
with the government for was that they had entered into
negotiations before the honour of the country had been vin-
dicated. The noble lord who had just addressed the lmps"
(Lord J. Russell) hail informed them that he and his col-
leagues were prepared to take their share of responsibility,
end afterwards, ecriching his phraseology, had added that
they were prepared to adopt the greater portion of Sir 11.
Bulwer's policy. He (Mr. Disraeli) could tell the noble
lord that ministers must take upon themselves the whole

responsibility.
Lord J. RUSSELL : I said so. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI was delighted to understand that the
noble lord had spoken differently from what his (Mr.
Disraeli's) ears had informed him—(oh, oh)—but he must
remind the house that he had not risen to defend Sir. M.
Bulwer, who was not attacked in that house, but who had
been mercilessly insulted and outraged by the government
of Sr.in. (Hear, bear.) It ministers took the whole re-
sponsibility, the House of Commons could not accept the out-
rage. They must show the world that they were always
prepared to protec, a public servant who in a foreign country
bad done his duty, and, as was generally admitted, well.
The gentleman whose name formed the text of the present
discussion was one who needed not be afraid to meet an
English parliament (Hear, hear.) But that was not
the present question. It was their duty to show the
world that party quarrels would not prevent them from ap-
preciating the services abroad of a valuable diplomatic ser-
vant. What must be the position of such a man, enduring
outrage such as Sir 11. Bulwer had been subjected to ? Ile
had arrived in England, and remained here nearly a
fortnight, and as yet had received no public recogni-
tion of his services, or sympathy from his fellow-
countrymen. His grievance was a public grievance, an
insult to himself, to his sovereign, and to the nation at large.
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Disraeli) asked how must that
public opinion on which they so much relied suffer, when,
On asking government for redress, they. were told that nego-
tiations were still going en. biegodations for what ? To
receive fresh insult'- (Hear, bear.) There was a British
secretary of legation still at Madrid. Did they want
hint to receive his passports? (Hear, hear.) The more
they negotiated, the more certain they would be to receive
fresh insults. He had formed that opinion from the docu-
ments which bad been lan before the house. The whole
matter was this : Sir H. Bulwer received a certain despatch
frurn the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and sent it to
the Spanish government. That was his whole offence. The
Spanish government retorted. What happened next ? The
representative of government in another place expressed
his regret at the conduct of Sir H. Bulwer. They were
told it was a de,p itch of the noble lord's that did all
the mischief; but it was not that dispatch, but the speech
of the minister in another place, that bad caused it. (Hear.)
All the misunderstandings that could arise from all the
despatches that were ever written, might have been easily
explained away by a diplomatist of experience and temper
like Sir li. Bulwer, had that speech not been made. The
despatch, which was headed " confidential," said, " the re•
cent fall of the King et the French, and the expulsion of his
ministers, should teach the Spanish court and government
how great was the danger of attempting to govern a country
in a manner at variance with the feelings of the people."
Why this looked like a passage out of Gibbon. That the
noble lord could have written a letter such as this to his con-
fidential agent to a foreign court—a letter full of catastro-
phes and sesquipedalian sentences as to the consequence of
trusting to force, instead of the feelings of the people, in
governing a country—was absurd. But no doubt the letter
was an excellent one for its purpose, and Sir H. Bulwer
was directed to communicate its contents as opportunity
occurred; and he did so; but probably not being able to
convey the noble lord's meaning in the same style in the
French language iota which the despatch won trans-
lated, it failed in its effect, and at length Sir
H. Bulwer thought the time wee ripe for him
to show that he was in earnest, and that he was authorised
by his government to make the representation, which dur-
ing 20 days he had been insinuating. If he had written a
formal letter to Sotomayor that he had received such in-
structions, it would have had but little more effect than his
conversations—it would have been but the representations of
Sir H. Bulwer, and if those representations had failed he
would have been responsible to his own government for not
having used his discre,ioo, and shown the letter of his prin-
cipal, and the only chance of success was to make known
the communication which had been addressed to him by the
British Minister for Foreign Affairs. And after the exhibi-
tion of conduct, which could only have been pursued by a
man of great experience and talent ii, his profession, like Sir
H. Bulwer, it was hut poor satisfaction to bins, after it had
been stated in the House of Lords, by the Lord President of
the Council, that the despatch was confidential, and it ,
was to be regretted that he had not so understood it;
and after that statement had gone forth to the world, and he
had been expelled from the court to which he was accre-
dited, to be told that a despatch had been produced which
expressed the entire approval of his own government of the
course he had taken. He now came to the important inquiry
why these misunderstandings had taken place between mem-
bers of the sense cabinet. And this brought him to the con-
sideration of the policy of the noble lord. It had been shown
In the debate, and avowed by the right hon. the Ma ter of
the Mint, that all our interference in the affairs of Spain had
arisen out of the quadruple treaty—that treaty which, ac-
cording to the right hon. gentleman, was the Magna Chsrta
of the continent, out of which our rights to interfere grew,
and by virtue of which the ministry had bound thecrown on
the brow of the Queen of Spain—not a very flattering or agree-
able statement to a nation that could scarcely bear an allusion
to the victory of Waterloo, as the means by which their in-
dependence as a nation was secured. Now, what was this
quadruple treaty ? It wan the philosophy of that
liberalism which, whether it were developed in do
mestic or foreign affairs, was, in his opinion,
equally feat to liberty, but which had been the
characteristic of our foreign policy for too many years.
(Hear, hear.) The noble lord who became Lord Grey's
foreign secretary, necessarily from his position, wan not only
the organ but the expounder, and certainly the most able
expounder, of this great diplomatic principle. Now his
objection to this philosophy of liberalism was, that it was the
introduction of philosophical ideas into life, and the highest
and most important affairs of life instead of political princi-
ples, and that it taught a man who might be accredited to a
foreign country not to consider what was best for the in-
terests of England or Spain, which he hoped were mutual,
but to propagate certain philosophical principles, which
were to be the bond of brotherhood of a small and miserable
f.acrionoshich but for such interference would not exist. The
small party in that house who opposed this court, told the.
government that they could not carry on the foreign affairs
of this country on this system of abstract theories—that they
could not go to a nation is ith an absolute government like
Spain, and tell the people that the only way to be happy was
to have a constitution and an English treaty of commerce.
(Hear, hear.) They had never yet obtained the treaty of
commerce, thr,,gli they had, by lending the aid of Eng-
land to some miserable faction, occasioned changes and
convulsions in tt,ose countries in whose affairs they had in.
terfered. In (very country in which their interference had
been felt, from Athens to Madrid, they had deteriorated the
prosperity of the people, and sowed the seeds of inextricable '
confusion. He would do the noble lord the justice to say.
that advocating such absurd and perilous opinions, he had
conducted their development in a business-like manner.
(Hear, hear.) But the noble lord, notwithstanding
the quadruple alliance, and notwithstanding that he had
succeeded in forcing a constitution on Greece, Portugal and
Spain, found that the system would not work. How could
It ? During twenty years we had been introducing a senti-
mental for a political principle in the conduct of our foreign
affair'. One instance of this was our efforts to abolish the
'lave trade, without considering whether the course we took
was calculated to increase the horrors of slavery and to lay
the seer's of endless misunderstandings with foreign countries.
Under this sentimental policy the constitution of England
was looked upon as a sort of model farm for all the world,
and in our dealings with foreign countries we were not to
consider the interests of England or of those countries, but
the propagation of a system of liberalism which had nothing
to do with our interests, and which might be antagonistic to
those of the countries with which we were connected.
(Hear.) In ISV and 1840 the noble lord finding he could
not manage affairs on the principle of the sentimental alli-
ance into whit:. he had entered with France, returned
to the principle he had abandoned, and thus arose
all those misconceptions and misunderstandings with
France, from which so much evil had resulted.
And in 184 G, when the noble lord by an accident found him-
self again in power, his intended colleagues entered into an in-
trigue—t iliagr.ceful cabal—to keep the noble lord out of the
cabinet—(hear, hear]—lnd their plea was, his meddling po-
licy—that middling policy which they alleged bad lost us
the friendship of France, but which was not found meddling
for ten years before when the noble lord and his party was
intriguing with every country in Europe. He believed
he was right when be said the noble lord was wil-
ling and anxious to take office, and, if possible, to con-
duct affairs with a view to promote a good understanding

with France. But bow could the noble lord have influence
—hum any influence with Europe or France, when his own
colleagues had so blackened his reputation in England
that when he accepted office the measles es of the tete cabinet
went to the Twining, and told the French government,
"You see the position in which Lord Palmerton stands;
his own colleagues are against him; all you have to do is to
thwart him in every way 1" And thwart him they did. And
this led to all our misunderstandings with France. The
noble lord, so thwarted, was forced to tette up liberalism in
foreign affairs again, and of course with the same result.
But now not only were we to force constitutions on
foreign countries, but we had arrived at that pitch
that we actually claimed to select their ministers.
rho, being his feelings on this Rubject, he should be exceed-
egly loathe to give any vote which should single out the
e lord alone from the rest of the government, which had
.olto.ve,' a coulee of foreign policy so pernicious to this
county. What the house had to du win to strike at the system,
and not at the individual. It might be very convenient to
the noble lord at the head of the government to say that
this motion was a vote of censure on the government. It was
like medicine, very disagreeable to take, but after it was
taken they would be none the worse far it—it was a medicine
that would nut poison or terminate their existence.—(Hear,
and • laugh.) But be that tai t meht, the house was by a
course of circumstances forced to express its public. opinion
upon one of the most remarkable events in diplomacy that
ever occurred. (Hear, hear.) This expulsion of the
British minister from Madrid was the consequence
of the liberalism in foreign affairs which had too long
prevailed in this country, and as such it ought to be
accepted and received by the house. They had in his judg-
ment three duties to fulfil. Without reference to parties
their first duty was to express their sense of the gross and
unprecedented outrage which had been committed against
the dignity of the sovereign and the honour of the country.
(Hear, hear.) They had next to show that they would taut
allow the diplantatio agent of this country to be made the
scapegoat of the policy of the government. And, lastly, they
hail to manifest, whatever might he the consequences of the
vote, that this was not en attack upon an individual minister,
but upon a system which from circumstances that minister
had too often and too long been forced to develops, but in
whose career he (Mr. Disraeli) recognised many great
achievements by which he had inaiiimined the power
of this great empire. (Hear, hear.)
Sir It. 11. INCILIS raid he believed it was :Omitted on all
hands, that it was a fact unprecedented in the history of
Eng:and, that such an insult as that which had led to the
present discussion had ever been offered to the crown of
England in the person cf one of its diplomatic representa-
tives. This was a matter which in itself ought to command
the attention of the house, even if it atood alone, and without
any reference to the career of interference which hail marked
the course of the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs. It might be right for this country in some occasions
to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, but the
,mint at issue now was whether the particular interference,
as shown in the pepsin on the table, was or was not justified.
His first complaint was as to the matter, and next as to the
manner, et this interference. Whatever might be said as to
the matter et the interference, he (Sir B. Inglis) believed
that for the fi time in diplomatic affairs the noble lord had
note infined lii confidential communication to the minister
of the court of SeaM, but had aiithorised its communication
to an individual, who of all her sex had obtained the most
unhappy notoriety, and who was of all persons the least cal-
culated to receive the confidence of this country. (Hear.)
Why should that confidential letter have been directed to
be communicated to the Queen-Mother? Ile held
that the note cf the IGth March was wholly uncalled
for and unnecessary, because on that very dry Sir IL
Bulwer intimated that all the noble lord desired would be
accomplished by leaving the Spaaish government to the
exercise of their own discretion. But after the note had been
thrown back in the face of this noble lord's agent, the noble
lord wrote that her Majesty's government were not at all
offended. The first note might have been written by •Bobridif,
while the last was worthy of ancient Pistol; and in-
deed the noble lord, like Pistol, had swallowed the
leek He hardly knew whether his hon. and learned
friend (Mr. Bioko) meant to take the sense of the
house upon his motion ; if he did so he (Sir It. 11. Inglis)
should give the motion his support.
Sir It. FEEL.—I have heard with great satisfaction the
noble lord the first minister of the crown declare that it WS
the intention of her Majesty's goveinment to avow their
public approbation of tee conduct of Sir Henry Bulwer,
end to adopt for themselves the risoonsibility of that
conduct. (Hear, hear.) I assure the noble lord that in his
speech he did qualify his approbation of Sir 11. Bulwer by
stating, as was represented by the hon. member for the
county of Buckingham (Mr. Disraeli) that the government
would assume the greater part of the re.monsibiiity for that
conduct; but the noble lord in his subsequent explanation
led me to think that he would take the more manly and just
course of adopting the whole of the responsibility, and
identify himself and the government with Sir H. Bulwer.
(Hear, hear.) I think it is but just that the noble lord
should do to, and I also am of opinion that it is the more in-
cumbent on the government now to adopt the responsibility,
and to sanction the conduct of Sir H. Bulwer, because it
,ppears on record in these papers that one of the reasons
assigned by the Spanish government for removing Sir 11.
Bulwer was that public opinion was adverse to him in Spain.
Sir 11. Bulwer was placed in Spain not by the noble
lord opposite (Lord Palmerston), but by my noble
friend Lord Aberdeen. He was sent there be my noble
friend, not In m any political connexion between them, but
because my nal-, friend thought Sir H. Bulwer'a past con-
duct in the profession he had chosen entitled him to the
favour and confidence of the government, even though he
differed in politics with the government. (Hear, hear.) My
noble friend thought, and thought most justly, that the
diplomatic profession should not be made subservient to the
commotion of party politics. (Hear, hear.) His noble
friend thought that the diplomatic profeoi in partook of the
character of the naval and miiitary professions, and that it
would be most unjust that a man who had entered into the
profession and had proved himself worthy the confidence of
any government should be removed from the pesitien to
which his abilities entitled him merely b,cause be differed
on politics with the government. (Hear, hear.) My noble
friend has been blamed by acting upon that sentiment ; but
lam sure the true way to encourage diplomatic exertions
is to show that, provided there was no such difference of
opinion as ti dieentitle a man to the confi fence of those who
employed him, those who engaged in that profession en
served their country faithfully and honestly should not lose
the prospect of reward because the party entertaining die
.ereat political views came into power. (Hear, hear.) It
was on these grounds that my noble friend Lord Aberdeen
advised her Majesty to place Sir 11. Bulwer in the respon-
siele and difficult position of British minister at the court of
Spain, and I must say that during the whole period Sir 11.
Bulwer acted is communication with us, his conduct was
such as fully toustify the confidence we had reposed in hint
(Hear, hear.) I confess that looking at these despatches now
before the house I do not see the shadow of any grounds for
imputing blame to him in these recent transactions. The
instructions sent to Sir H. Bulwer by the noble
lord opposite were such as to defy any man to
draw any other conclusion from them than that
it war meant to instruct Sir 11. Bulwer to make the com-
munication to the Spanish government, and alto at a fitting
opportunity to the Queen Mother. (Hear, bear.) Such
was Sir H. Bulwer 's construction of the noble lord's despatch,
and accordingly, as he tells us, he took an opportunity, and
made the communication to the Queen Mother. Whatever
might have been the intention of the noble lord opposite, I
think that Sir H. Bulwer was justified by the circumstances
under which he made the communicetion, in communicat-
ing the letter of the noble lord in extettso. Let it be remem-
bered that Sir H. Bulwer had seen the fall of thrones around
him—he hail found that his own representations and remelt.
steences to the Spanish government w' re of no avail—that
since he had received those instructions there had been an
insurrection in Madrid; and under these combined
circumstances he felt it necessary to make a
strong appeal to the Spanish government, but he
doubted his own powers of remonstrance, and thought
they would be made in vain unless he could show that
he was armed, that wee armed with higher authority
than his own fears, and therefore h- communicated to
ths Spanish government the opinion of the government of
England as stated in the letter of the noble lord opposite
(Lord Palmerston). I think Sir 11. Bulger exercised a
wise and just discretion in the peculiar circumstances in
which he was placed, and I further think that if the govern-
uent had abandoned hen, they would have set en example
whim woulu have warned every honest and faithful servant
of the crown against incurring a similar responsibility.
(Hear, hear.) Hence it is that I heard with satisfaction the
declination of the noble lord at the head of the administration
that the acts of Sir If. Bulwer are adopted and defended by
the government But the immediate matter for us now Wheel°
is how we shall dispose of tee motion brought forward by the
hon. and learned member for the county of Dorset (Mr.
Bankes). The hon. member for Buckinghamshire Rays that
we have three duties to perform on this occasion : first, to
manifest our determination to exempt Sir H. Bulwer from
all blame in ceueure; secondly, we are to maniteßt our deter•
mination to support the British government in maintaining
the honour of England which has been outraged by the court
of Spain ; and, thirdly, we are not to condemn the noble
lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but the system of
liberalism which has influenced our diplomatic proceedings
with all foreign nations. Now, I confess that I cannot see
how we shall fulfil any one of these duties by voting for
the resolution which has been moved by the hon. and learned
member for Dorsetshire. First of all, I see in it no recognition
of the good conduct of Sir IL Bulwer, but I do see a resolu-
tion which, if adopted by the house, would imply that he
had acted improperly. At least there is nn distinction made
between his conduct and that of the government ; but we
are called upon to vote that " a proposed interference with
the internal concerns of the Spanish government, as con-
ducted under the authority and with the entire approval of
her Majesty's ministers, has placed the British government
and our represer tative at the court of Madrid in a position
humiliating in its character." If we really wish to exempt
Sir H. Bulwer from any share of the responsibility, we
ought, if we are to vote any resolution, distinctly to declare
that we do not disapprove of his conduct- (Hear, hear.)
Another of our duties is to manifest on the part of the house
a desire to support the crown in vindicating the insulted
honour of the country. If so, we certainly ought to convey
the expression of our opinion in some less iquircal form, if
we wish to put on record that Spain has committed an out-
rage by her abrupt dismissal of our ministn, and the assur-
ance that the House of Commons will support the crown in
its vindication of its honour. (Hear, hear.) Instead of that,
if we vote " that a proposed interference with the internal
affairs of the Spanish government has placed the British go-
vernment in a position humiliating to its character," so far
from aiding the government in vindicating the honour of
England, you send the British government to conduct this
negotiation with disgrace round its neck by a vote of this
house, and you incapacitate them from making the vindica-
tion you wish. (Hear, hear.) How is a 4overnment, branded
with this vote of censure, to take a high tone towards the
Spanish government ? The Spanish government will reply,