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 calculated 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 merits, but more
likely to look at and remark upon our faults—that we have
gone a little—arid how little it is they say—that we have even
Sane something beyond the point which we were strictly, and
by their 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,,ernplemeengaged.—(t of the ships had been engaged.—( Hear, hear. )
Why did my Right Hon. Friend, with whom I had the hap.
Pneas and pleasure of acting, when he was First Lord of the
Admiralty—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
number 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
When 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 received it, took out his scissars and cut it.--( Great
laughter and cheers.) So, sir, I say that to overcome the
objection to which I have referred, it was only necessary for
14 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
rs,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 to the country, as has been alleged, how 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 the policy of the
Government ; 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 this permission in the cases in which the
"untrY was at war would be obviously unnecessary ; I
tontend, then, that the case contemplated was one in
Which the country would neither act on the principle
of neutrality nor take a part as a principal in this war, but in
Which
it had bound itself by treaty, or in which it was thought
he its policy, to favour one side. Under such circum-
ttances it was intended that the King might give 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
irk which their own country is not engaged, I stand amazed,
or I feel that I am asked to imagine that the whole history
toil 'war is nothitg but a fanciful dream—( Hear, hear)—that
e practice of the distinguished men of all ages and of all
Countries has 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
El 9 actual transactions of mankind. There is no country in
urope whose subjects have not at some time engaged in the
hivice of a foreign 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 recollaeycetiohna),
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
Horn
their memories to immortal fame.—( Hear, hear.) The
and Gallant Officer who began this debate, mentioned a
„all.
Vversation which occurred to him as having taken place be-
eyeen him and his friend and my friend, General Alava, with
Hon, to the exploits of the Black Prince. Does not the
guilt and Gallant Officer know that the Black Prince 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
tik:gaboc,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—
Withoera) —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
thaett 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
"(Hear
admire he had served our armies till lie taught us to
that in
his valour and his general character—thinking, I say,
ariatt 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:Tit; 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
eheard ? It was General Alava.—( Renewed cheers.)
are told that it is a work of supererogation on our part
trsll. set° put ourselves improperly forward in defence of the
'
Leue:lt•When_ application was made to the Government of
7 asngta.ll. for assistance, a similar and simultaneous application
made to the Government of France. Franco acceded to
just
as England had done, with only this difference—our
'eoAgeeettnt was given that men should be raised by the Spanish
having nothing to do with it ; and it was stipu-
• ilatedstlwiact 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 foreign policy, and our total
want of influence amongst our 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