The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 1836.

ragement to these atrocities. I believe that they dislike
them as much as we do, and that they are as much as-
tonished at them as we are. On this ground, therefore, I
say I should have continued to refrain from this discus-
sion were it not for the atrocious acts brought forward by
my Noble Friend on this occasion, and which alone induces
me now to present myself to the attention of the House. The
other reason which induced me to refrain from the discussion
was on account of the position of public affairs in general.
It was likewise on account of the want of public feeling on
this subject, and likewise because I did not wish to have it
believed abroad, that there was in this country any difference
of opinion between the two sides of the House in respect to
the description of the manner of carrying on the war.—( Hear,
hear.) My Lords, for all these reasons, I pressed upon the
House last session the necessity of not proceeding with a dis-
cussion which had been commenced. I have since requested
my Noble Friend not to bring forward the subject, and most
undoubtedly I should have prevailed with my Noble Friend not
to give notice of this motion had it not been to bring these acts
under the attention of the House.—( Hear, hear.) My Lords,
the Noble Lord accuses us of having refrained heretofore
from bringing forward these matters, and of having brought
them forward now as a charge against the Noble Lord, we
having omitted to do so when we had the opportunity on a
former occasion. Begging the Noble Lord's pardon, I can-
not accuse myself of any offence in having omitted to state my
opinion on that occasion. My Lords, I must say,' the Noble
Lord has placed himself and his Government in an awkward
position, if he supposes that when he sent out to Spain this
body of British troops, he conceived it was at all possible to do
so without violating that convention which was only concluded
a short time before those troops went out. My Lords, the
very circumstance of sending out a body of troops the Noble
Lord must know could not do otherwise than deprive us for
ever of all power and influence at the Councils of that Prince
—( Hear, hear)—with whom we took such pains to prevail
upon to adopt the convention. One of the immediate results
of sending out those troops was, that the cartel could not be
carried into effect. These troops were positively not included
in the cartel when they arrived out ; and if this Prince had
admitted them into the cartel, he would 'nave made a conces-
sion for the purpose of extending to them the humane pro-
visions of the convention. But, my Lords, I say the most se-
rious feature in the case is, that by sending a body of troops
to Spain, his Majesty was made a party to this war—( Hear,
hear, hear)--and that by that act we lost all influence with the
councils of Don Carlos, either for the purpose of humanising
the character of the war, or for any other purpose for which it
might be necessary for us to resort to them. This, my Lords,
I say, is the most important part of the case, and the part to
which the Noble Viscount gives no answer. The next point
now is, with respect to the manner in which this war is car-
ried on. Nov, my Lords, I shall admit that it might be ne-
cessary to carry on the war, notwithstanding that it is carried
on in an inhuman, manner, and I must admit that I was a party
to sending out arms and munitions of war to this very country
previous to the conclusion of the cartel.—( Hear.) My Lords,
I was a party to this ; but the Noble Lord sends out this body
of men—for what purpose? Is it, my Lords, to aid in the
operations of the war ? Why, let me ask, have they been of
any use in the operations of the war ?—have they done any
one thing- since they have been out ?—have they been of any
use to any party whatever ?—( Hear, hear.) No, my Lords.
What they have done is this : they have deprived the Go-
vernment of the respect it had acquired previously, and the
influence it might have exercised over the councils of the two
belligerent parties. My Lords, I have considered it my duty
to protest against any liability or blame attaching to any party
with respect to the twenty-seven Carlist prisoners, who
were certainly taken under peculiar circumstances. At
the same time there can be no doubt that, under the law
of nations, the Queen of Spain had a right to take
those persons out of the ship. Therefore, laying aside all
other considerations, there could be no doubt but that those
prisoners were legally in the possession of the Queen. My
Lords, I know it has been said that the cartel ought to have
been extended to them, and that the Noble Lord ought to
have forced this on the consideration of the Queen's Govern-
ment. Now, my Lords, I must beg to remind those who use
this argument that, in point of fact, the cartel did not extend
to these prisoners. My Lords, all that I can say in addition
on this subject is, that these persons ought to be fairly, tried,
and dealt with according to the law of the country ; but as to
bringing them under the cartel, that is utterly impossible.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that on the sub-
ject of the 27 Carlist prisoners, all that had transpired since
the 24th of February last only contributed to confirm the ori-
ginal view he took of the subject. He now felt convinced that
those parties would soon be restored to liberty, and he was glad
to perceive that a Noble Lord's despatch, dated the 10th of
'tlarch, contained a recommendation to that effect.

The motion was then agreed to, and their Lordships ad.
journed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARcn 18.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY.

Mr. HUM E presented a petition, signed by 1,700 persons,
resident near London, in favour of the London Grand Junction
Railway.
Alderman 'WOOD presented a petition, numerously signed
by merchants and others, inhabitants of London, in favour of
the same Bill.