The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-16 00:00:00

THE SUW LONDON, WED

either side as long as actual intervention of the Govern
ment and the nation was uncalled for. There were three
stages in the policy which the Government had adopted.
There was a time when they toot only the part of
spectators—but interested spectators—of the internal
discords of Portugal, and they could see that no one of
the conflicting parties came free from blame into the
tribunal of public opinion ; but there were times in
which all of them had committed acts which more or
less required the disapprobation of those who were
interested in the affairs of Portugal. The state of the
country had been described by Sir 11. Seymour, in page
221 of the report upon this subject. He stated that the
most alarming disturbances had been the consequence of
the indulgence of all those evil passions which had been
called forth by the disputes between the Crown and
the people. The whole of the attempt of the Govern-
ment had not been an attempt to overthrow the dynasty
of Portugal—it was not an attempt to introduce any new
laws into Portugal, but merely an attempt to bring the
Crown of that country into more close communication
with the people, so as to obviate many, or all of those,
disturbances which had taken place in that country.
The Government laid between three chances—namely,
despotism with Donna Maria, a republic with the Junta,
and despotism with Don Miguel. So that between all
those chances, it was hard if one of them would not
eventually become the ascendant, unless some interfer-
ence took place upon the part of the Government of this
country. From the dispatches of Mr. Bulwer, it would
be seen that there could not be a more anxious wish to
co-operate with this country, than that which was shown
to ex:'t on the part of Spain. It was said, however, that
Spain should act under the command of the English Go-
vernment. Now, was that language to be used to a free
and independent Government? Ile thought Spain was
quite as interested in the affairs of Portugal as this
country could possibly be, and he could not con-
ceive how Spain could possibly be more indifferent with
a view to their interests, than this country. The Noble
Lord said that they had an opportunity of carrying war
into Spain. Now, an interference on the part of Spain
with the affairs of Portugal, would have had the effect of
embroiling France and England; but even that inter
ference on the part of Spain would have been less absurd
than the course pointed out by the Noble Lord. The
Noble Lord (Stanley) had taken advantage of M.
Guizot to draw a conclusion in favour of his
views. They ought not to let it be sup-
posed that in the course of events, that if they I
had come down with a war on Spain, that France would
have remained perfectly neutral ; and he thought, there-
fore, that the Government had pursued a wise course on
this question. They had "not," as Mr. Canning said,
somewhere in that speech to which the Noble Lord
(Stanley) had referred, " waited for war, but gone be-
fore war." And the policy the Government had pursued
would have been that adopted by Mr. Canning.—(Hear,
hear.) They (the Government) had endeavoured to
reconcile the Queen of Portugal to the feelings of her
people. They had endeavoured to give her subjects hope
that they might be able to induce the Queen to
revoke those unjustifiable measures which excited
the indignation of her subjects.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought that the Noble Lord (Stanley) was
most unreasonable in his condemnation of the appoint-
ments of the Government. They could not have made
a more judicious selection than that of Colonel Wylde.
That Gentleman had been engaged for many years in the
Peninsular war, and had become acquainted with the
habits and feelings of the people of Spain and Portugal,
and that knowledge could not fail to be a most valuable
acquisition in the situation to which be had been ap-
pointed. He believed that no more eligible person
could be chosen than that gentleman, and unless the
Noble Lord told him (the Marquis of Lansdowne) some
speciecircuinstance of disqualification, he should still ad-
here to his opinion. Sir H. Seymour also was a most eligible
person, possessing, as he did, knowledge and abil
He must say that the Noble Lord had totally failed to
make out this part of his case ; and in the correspond-
ence that had taken place between Colonel Wylde and
Marshal Saldanha, the latter said :—" I give you my
word and honour that nothing coull be more painful to
me than to think that I have given cause of complaint."
And what was the conduct of these gentlemen ? Was
it not in conformity with their character ? Both Colo-
nel Wylde and Sir Hamilton Seymour naturally ad-
dressed themselves first to the leaders of the Queen's
party. But the Noble Lord said that when they went
Portugal understood that they were to favour the
interests of the Queen, and that their views were to be
directed to establish a Government totally different to
that then existing in Portugal. Now, these gentlemen
went out to Portugal upon the distinct impression that
their measures were to be directed to the restoration of
the Legislature of the country in its fullest efficiency.
They were told also that the insurgents were to be in-
cluded in the amnesty. A better provision could not be
procured for the insurgents, though the Noble Lord said
that they had derived no advantages from the inter-
ference of this Government. He contended that the
Government throughout had acted in a manner
calculated for the security of the peace of
Europe, and had succeeded in securing a constitution
for Portugal. In effecting that they had achieved more
than if they had gained a victory at Torres Vedras.
With respect to the argument as to non-interference he
did not think the arguments of the Noble Lord were
satisfactory. Abstinence from interference might be
carried too far in public as well as in private life. Then
might arise a state in which interference became a duty.
It was the same way in public life. The views
of the Noble Lord reminded him of what took
place at a trial. A person was murdered
and in the course of the evidence one of the witnesses
called was a looker-on and cognizant of all the circum-
stances connected with the crime that had been coin-
witted. He had even heard the knife with which the
murder was committed sharpened. The judge inter-
rupted him, observing, " Do you mean to say that you
did nothing all the time?" The answer was that he
" never interfered in matrimonial disputes." Now that
resembled what the Noble Lord sugg sted. By inter-
fering, he believed that they had done something
towards preventing bloodshed. He thought that the
Government had, as he had already asserted,
acted with the wisest policy in this interference in the
affairs of Portugal. If they hsd abstained altogether
from interference, they would be acting most disgrace-
fully, because it would show incapacity, while by their
present interference they had succeeded in restoring
the constitution to Portugal. He therefore would sup-
port the policy which her Majesty's Government had
adopted.—(Hear, hear.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON, who was almost in-
audible at the cotnmencement of his address, said, it
was most essential to the interests of this country to
preserve peace in all the countries of the world.
Agreeing, as he did, in the propriety of this Govern.
ment refraining from an interference with the affairs of
any other Government, he still expressed a hope, and as
far as his knowledge went, his belief was, that a British
Ambassador or a British Minister, in every part of the
world, would exercise a most important influence in
maintaining the peace of the particular country in which
such Minister should reside, and so far as was necessary
for the maintenance of the tranquillity of that country,
and of the policy pursued by the Government existing
in it. Ho had the conviction, from other reasons besides
those be had mentioned, that there should be a strict
abstinence from interference with the internal Govern-
ment of another country ; but he still held that the pre-
sence of a British Ambassador, cognisant of everything
that was going on in that country, had a most powerful
influence in maintaining tranquillity in that country, and
in maintaining the form of Government existing within
it. His Noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had made a most
eloquent speech, and throughout the course of it had
more than once expressed his disapprobation of the in-
terference of this country with the affairs of Portugal,
and said, that in no case could an interference be justi
fled. The Noble Lord complained of Cabral, and all
that he said of the Cabral Administration was true.
The Noble Lord, the Minister in that country, had la-
boured to the utmost of his power, and as far as he
hi
his
could,N honourableoin
b orderle Fri e
principles.n t
Friend
complained,
have the Government conducted on
Th e a
hadcts, however,beebeen
the ofc n
aw hmi co hn
acts of the Government ever since it had been esta-
blished. The couatry, then, was in a state
consi-
derable disturbance. This country was under of
er oblige
Lions, by treaty, to aid Portugal—under
dobligations,
by the old existing relations ; and it was the in-
terest of this country, by her commercial
and by her political relations to maintain the tranquillity
of Portugal. This country had an interest in the political
existence, and the independence of the Government, as
well as in the tranquillity of the country. Her Majesty's
Ministers were under the necessity of sending to that
country an armed force in order to give protection to
her Majesty's subjects, whose interest it was to reside
there, and whose property was all in that country. Here
there was a British force in that country in a state of
disturbance; this country had an interest in her political
independence, and a British force was there for the pro-
tection of the British subjects exposed as they were to
the misfortunes of war. It must be recollected that
parties in that country were nearly equally divided,
at least there was no great military event. This
equality existed, not only in Oporto, but somewhat
in com-
nearly
so in Lisbon, and it was found that the genera
mand of the troops at Oporto, to the amount of from
4,000 to 5,',.)00 men, embarked from Oporto with the
off ec in-
t
tention to take them down to Lisbon, and there to
by them what no o e would for a moment defend— the
dethror.etnent of the Queen—who would thereby be
under the necessity of leaving Lisbon, or possibly putting
herseelf on board the British fleet. Was it desirable that
that should be effected—that which this country
had
had
power at hand to prevent? The officer at Oporto
already commenced a blockade of the river, and duly
sent in a notice, that in case the Portuguese fleet should
attempt to sail out, they would be seized by
the k-
ading force. But now he would shortly call the atten-
tion of their Lordships to the mediation. It
was te
that the natural mediator with Portugal was the
British Government. But it was unnecessary
for him to remind them that a mediation, in order to
consult the interests in question sufficiently, must be pos-
sessed of some military power ; and this country had,
on the present occasion, a British fleet near the seat of
disturbance. It might be said that Britain had great
reputation for power ; and they did have great power,
and great wisdom in their counsels and great energy,
but they had been resting to much and too long on their
reputation. It was necessary to show sometimes that
they could accompany their opinion with power to make
it good. On the application, then, of the Queen of Per
tugal, this country had at length thought proper to
interfere for the support of the Queen, and he hoped that
they would take care to make proper arrangements for the
good government of the country as far as was possible
within the limited powers of the mediation. Anxious
as
Br
ihtea
iwn aws
afor
tthhee
ni na de t
urpndn
aelmeeder of a Portugal,toron the affairsand althoughthat
country, he yet was glad that that mediation had been
taken up, and established by three independent coun-
tries. It was not in this instance the influence of France
alone, or of Spain alone, or of England, but of all those
conjointly. He, therefore, thought the British Govern-
ment was justified in interfering, at the request of the

Queen of Portugal, in the affairs of that country. The
Noble Duke, who spoke from the cross benches, with
his back to the gallery, was very indistinct in his enun-
Aation, and was very imperfectly heard.
Lord WINCHILSEA said their Lordships were not
called upon to say whether the intention of her Majesty's
Government was good, but whether the procedure which
they had adopted was right? He thought that the in-
terference which had taken place was most unjustifiable,
and therefore he felt it to be his duty to give the most
cordial support to the motion.
Earl St. G ERMANS said that in the first instance he
was very much opposed to the interference of the Go-
vernment in the affairs of Portugal, as being likely to
involve a most complicated question with reference to the
affairs of other countries ; but, upon a careful perusal
of all the documents connected with the case, he had
come to the conclusion that the course adopted by the
Government was the one least likely to lead to trouble
and inconvenience in the end, and most calculated to
meet the justice of the case. He thought that the rela-
tion which had always existed between Portugal and
England was a full justification of these measures which
had been adopted by her Majesty's Government under
the existing circumstances, and therefore he should not
feel it his duty to support the motion of the Noble Lord.
—(The Noble Earl was during the whole of his speech
nearly inaudible in the gallery.)
Lord BEAUMONT said that the great question of
neutrality was involved in the question which was then
before the House, and their decision would in future re-
gulate how far that passive conduct which one nation
should preserve with regard to the internal af-
fairs of another was to be departed from. He
thought that if this motion were negatived,
so as to affirm the principle of her Majesty's
Government, that that principle might be in future car-
ried out by other countries to the detriment of this
nation, whilst from a feeling of consistency they would
be compelled to look on without any effort to take any
part in that which might possibly very much concern
them. What could have been said to induce the Govern-
ment to suppose that France or Spain was about to in-
terfere, but even supposing either country had contem-
plated an interference, it was evidently not for the pur-
pose of an invasion; and he, therefore, attached no im-
portance to that plea, that had her Majesty's Government
not have interfered France or Spain would. From all
the proceedings of Spain and France, it was quite clear
that if they ever did entertain the expediency of inter-
fering, it was only in conjunction with England. He
thought instead of interfering in this instance, the
Government ought to have left it to be settled
by the quadruple alliance. The Government, however,
seemed to contend that the quadruple alliance performed
all its functions in relation to Portugal, when it placed
the present Queen upon the throne. Had the move-
ments of either the Queen's party or that of the people
been calculated to injure British interests theremight have
been some reason for their directly interfering in the
decided manner they had done, but so far from that
being the case the two parties had, throughout the
whole of the insurrection, scrupulously respected the
rights and liberties, and interests of the British mer-
chants and residents of Portugal. He regretted the
preser' interference the more because it imposed upon
this country the performance of a difficult task,and might
probably induce the world to imagine that it was a party
to the civil and unconstitutional proceedings which had
been adopted in the name of the Queen of Portugal.
But if this interference was justified, as he understood
Government contended that it was, upon the grounds of
humanity, why was it delayed so long, and why did it
not take place before so much blood had been spilt in
the Peninsula?—(Hear, hear.) Again, it was exceed-
ingly difficult to decide which party had violated the
constitution, so complicated were the charters, but in
his opinion both parties had been guilty of infringement
of the constitution. No doubt, however, could
be entertained as to the impolicy, not to
say injustice and tyranny of the measures pur-
sued by Costa Cabral. Up to the night of the
6th of October even that party did nothing which could
be considered a violation of the constitution. It was
said that they were obliged to interfere because it was
supposed that some intrigue had been going on at
Madrid to induce Spain to interfere separately. Why
was the petty intrigue of a foreign nation, however pow-
erful she might be, to induce England to depart from
the long-established principles of equity and justice?—
(Hear, hear.) There was but one topic more upon
which he wished to touch. It had been
said by the Noble Marquis that there was
some degree of partiality displayed towards
the Queen in the terms and conditions offered
to the Junta of Oporto. To some extent he agreed
with the Noble Marquis, and he regretted that such
should have been the case, because there was every
reason to suppose that it bad led to many of the diffi-
culties and disturbances which had subsequently arisen.
He thought that the motion showed a want of confidence
in a Government which bad acted with the very best in-
tention, and therefore lie felt it to be his duty to vote
against it.
Lord GRANVILLE said that it appeared to him that
the question before the House was not so much as to the
manner of the armed intervention of the Government as
whether the Government could have adopted any other
course less open to objection. That intervention was, in
his opinion, the only line which the Government could
have adopted, considering the course which had been
taken by the Government of Portugal and the Govern-
ments of other countries which were also interested in
the question. The measures which had been adopted
were of a humane nature, as they were calculated to
prevent war of a destructive nature; and he hoped their
Lordships would, by their vote to-night, hasten the
happy conclusion of that which had been so well coita-
-1 menced by her Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and their
Lordships divided, when there appeared—
Content
Non-content
Majority against Lord Stanley's resolution —l9
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned at Half-past Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. June 15.
PORTUGAL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the order of the day for the adjourned debate being
read,
Sir DE LACY EVANS said that he would not detain
the House at any length, but he would state his
opinions briefly and precisely upon the subject.
He begged leave to say, in reply to the statement of an
Hon. Member, that it was a mistake to suppose that the
civil war in Portugal was provoked by her Majesty's
Government. The fact was that the war in Portugal
had not been caused by the Government of the
Right Honourable Gentleman or by the pre-
sent Government, but when the present Government
came into office a civil war existed in that Country.
He believed that there was no doubt that a
civil war was raging in Portngal for the last two
years. The Hon. Gentleman to whom he here
alluded inquired if the people of this country had
added anything to their military reputation, or obtained
any advantage from their interference in this war. He
did not mean to say that any commercial treaty had been
obtained by the course adopted by her Majesty's Go-
vernment in their interference in the civil war of Portu-
gal ; but that interference had led to the important
results that had taken place. As to adding to their
military renown, it could not be supposed that the trans-
cendant military reputation of this country could derive
any additional lustre from an engagement in this contest
Various statements had been made by Hon. Members of.
the superiority of the British troops, and the higher
abilities of British officers, but he (Sir De Lacy Evans)
could refer to the victories achieved by General
Espartero as being unsurpassed by anything effected by
British arms upon the continent. The Noble Lord the
Member for Lynn and other Hon. Members spoke in a
florid and exaggerated strain of the evils to which these
civil contests had exposed the countries of Spain and
Portugal. They described these countries as degraded
in their population and almost ruined in their agricul-
tural wealth, as destitute of trade and of commerce, and
they traced these evils to the effects of the civil warfare
that had prevailed there. It was impossible to deny that
the interference of the Government was required, and
even in the case of the great French nation, it had been
found impossible to restore the legitimate monarchs of
the country without the armed intervention of foreign
interference
I tHoef had
(Sir
foreign
De
beenaLrrmeapcsresented by the House that
Lacy
must
Evans) denied
be attended
this ;
mischief.
consequences were not always mischievous. But, said
they, this country had no right to interfere. That cer-
tainly was contradicted by the position sof international
laws. The rule of non-interference extending to a cer-
tain crisis was illustrated by as many exceptions as ob-
servances. He needed only to refer to the French
revolution, and the subsequent war, the civil,
and the American war with this country, when
the interference of the French was solicited.
The proclamation that was issued declared that all that
was required was a free government. The four proposi-
tions that were contained in that declaration went,
i
how-
ever. further than that. The principles contended for n
teat proclamation, however they might abstractedly be
deserving of approval, were, under the circumstances,
impracticable. His Hon. Friends who took a part in this
debate had all expressed themselves satisfied with the dis-
patches that had been laid before the House, but they con-
tended that Government had not adhered to their word.
A Spanish party was formed, and there was no knowing
what the consequences might have been. Several pro-
vinces of Portugal, which had formerly been under the
influence of Spain, would have, no doubt, reverted to
that country on the first appearance of an uncontrolled
Spanish army. Having said so much, he would not
trespass longer upon the House ; he would rather apolo-
gise indeed, for having already obtruded himself so long
upon them. He had every confidence in the liberal
Government of Spain. It might not appear fitting for
him to revert to these matters, but having had ex-
perience in those countries, having been asked by the
liberal and by the opposite parties of that country to
return to the command of their armies, not because of
his professional merits, but because of his acquaintance
with their national constitutions ; having this experience
be might be allowed to pretend to some little knowledge,
and he was sure that the course pursued by the Govern-
ment, was that which would tend to the beet results.
Sir R. PEEL rose with several Hon. Members on dif-
ferent sides of the House, but the other Hon. Gentlemen
giving way, the Right Hon. Baronet proceeded to ad-
dress the House; he said,—Sir, as this debate has lasted

two nights, and as I think the practice that has grown
up of confining the more important part of the debate to
two or three hours at the close of the evening—(Hear,
hear)—is prejudicial to the public service, because it
leads to an unnecessary consumption of the public time
—(Hear, hear)—l intend, as far as my humble au-
thority will go, to enter a practical protest against it,
by delivering the few observations I have to make at
this, to a speaker, unpopular hour of the evening...—
(Heir, heir.) sir, I perfectly mar in an °blew

tion made in the course of this debate, that the deci-
sion to which the House should come ought to be a
decision on the abstract merits of the question. I
agree that no consideration of the position of her
Majesty's Government, or of the pendency of a general
election, or of the embarrassment that might arise from
a sudden change of a Ministry, ought to induce the
House to give its sanction to the policy of the Govern-
ment, or withhold its assent from the motion that has
been made, if this House does really believe that the
object of the recent intervention has been to support ab-
solute power in Portugal, or that the consequence of
persevering in that intervention will be to endanger the
public tranquillity in Portugal, or involve this country in
imminent peril of war. There are many motions of light
importance in respect to which the decision may, I
think, be fairly influenced by extrinsic considerations;
but this is not one of them. This question is of too
much importance to be treated or decided upon any other
grounds than its own intrinsic merits; upon that prin-
ciple alone I shall give my vote upon it. Sir, we are
called on by the motion to affirm that, in the opinion of
this House, an armed interference between political par- ,
ties in Portugal is unwarrantable in principle, and
likely to be attended with serious and mischievous
consequences. That vote will be a vote of censure, if not
direct, yet implied, upon the Government ; and the con-
sequence of it will be practically, in my opinion, the re-
versal of the policy on which the Government has en-
tered. An adverse expression of opinion on the part of
this House will completely paralyze the hands which
direct it. And the question is, whether I am justified,
on considerations of justice and public policy, in affirm
ing a proposition which implies not only a censure on
the Government, but an abandonment of the policy
which is at this moment in the course of execution ?
Sir, I am about to exercise a privilege which is most
agreeable to me; I am about to give my opinion without
any of that circumspection and reserve which necesarily
fetter the members of an administration and the leaders
of a party. I am going to state the opinion which,
after an attentive perusal of these papers, and after lis-
tening to this debate, I individually hold. I speak no
other man's opinion ; I know not what may be the
opinion or the vote of any other man ; I undertake
only to give my own honest and conscientious judgment
on this matter, without reference to any extrinsic circum-
stance or consideration. I first ask what was the motive of
her Majesty's Government in interfering in the domestic
concerns of Portugal? I separate the motives and objects
of the Government from their acts and proceedings. I
have read these papers ; and if I believed, with the Hon.
Gentleman who makes this motion, that there had been
a wanton departure from the principle of non-interference
—if I believed that the object of the Government had
been to range itself on the side of despotic power—and
to crush the struggling liberties of Portugal, I would
have most cordially concurred in a vote of censure. But,
after reading these papers—and speaking now of the mo-
tives of the Government as distinguished from its acts—
I acquit it of any other intention than to support an an-
cient monarchy, and at the same time to combine with
the support of that anoiont monarchy guaranteeefor the
constitutional liberties of the people. With respect to
many painful, transactions the Government had given
advice to the Government of Portugal before it com-
mitted itself to any active interference ; was it wise to
give that advice or not ? It would certainly be a plain
and simple course to decline giving any advice even to a
friend].) Government, to have said, " We have enough
to do to manage our own affairs, without concerning our-
selves with yours ;" it was possible to take that course,
and it would have relieved the Government of a great
responsibility. But that has not been the course taken
in former times with respect either to the Go-
vernments of Portugal or of Spain. I speak
without prejudice on this subject, for I was no
party to the quadruple treaty; I objected to the obli-
gations you incurred by that treaty; I thought it unwise
to enter into them; better at that time to permit the
people of Spain and Portugal to decide for themselves
between the rival branches of the houses of Bourbon and
Braganza; I am, therefore, free from any prejudice on
this subject. But I cannot enter into the consideration
of what has been recently done without remembering
that the quadruple treaty has been entered into. You
have contracted these special obligations to which the
four powers are parties; you have guaranteed the
thrones of Spain and Portugal to the present possessors
against the other two brances, and if Don Miguel were
to reappear in Portugal, or a descendant of Don Carlos
in Spain, then you would be bound by the obligations
of that treaty to interfere, not certainly for the purpose
of establising a particular party in the domestic govern-
ment of either country, but to take part in a civil war
for the maintenance of one branch of the family on the
throne against another. In deciding, therefore, on the
recent policy of the Government, either in giving advice
to Portugal or interfering actively with its affairs, we
must bear in mind, not only our ancient relations with
that country, the importance of Portugal from its [geo-
graphical position, and the long connexion between us,
but also the special obligations by which we are bound
in certain cases to a joint action with other countries.
It has not been usual to abstain from friendly inter-
vention, either with respect to Spain or Portugal.
When Mr. Canning was Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
the Duke of Wellington being a member of the Cabinet,
Lord Fitzroy Somerset was expressly dispatched in 1823
to give advice to the Spanish Government, and dispatched
too to advise it to modify the too liberal constitution, to
give increased power to the sovereign, and to alter the
terms of the constitution, that were supposed to be too
favourable to the democratic power. Lord Fitzroy So-
merset was the bearer of a letter addressed by the Duke
of Wellington to the leading men in Spain; the object of
that letter came under discussion in 1823, and when
Parliament, at the instance of Mr. Canning, rejected the
motion made by Sir James Macdonald, and affirmed the
policy of Mr. Canning, the tact was before the House of
Commons that we had attempted, no doubt from the
most friendly feelings, to avert from Spain the danger
of threatened invasion from France, by advising the mo-
dification of her constitution. Therefore, I say the prac-
tice of advising the Governments both of Spain and Por-
tugal has not met, in former times, with the censure of
this House. Then, Sir, if I look at the nature of the ad-
vice given to Portugal as in,the dispatches of the Noble
Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I see not
a word in that advice of which a British Minister has
reason to be ashamed. lam speaking now of the ad-
vice given before we had committed ourselves to forcible
intervention. What was that advice ? When it was in-
tended to commit that act which we cannot hear without
shame at this period of civilisation—(Cheers)—when it
was intended to transport men who had engaged in a
civil contest, but who had capitulated on the assurance
that they should be treated as prisoners of war—
kCheers)—when it was attempted to transport these
men, gallant soldiers, though they may have been mis-
taken in the construction of their duty—when it was
attempted, in violation of good faith, to transport these
men to an unhealthy climate, I find the British Govern-
ment remonstrating against that act, and earnestly ad-
vising that, both with reference to the interests of huma-
nity, and an enlarged and comprehensive view of the in-
terests of the Portuguese monarchy, such an atrocity
should not be perpetrated.—(Cheers.) Sir, I think that
the Government was justified in making that remon-
strance and giving that advice.—(Cheers.) Then, again
I find the British Government remonstrating against
the shameful decree that all prisoners taken in arms
should be instantly shot—(Cheers)—wisely and properly
leaving the Portuguese Government to draw the inference
that it was impossible for us to countenance or support
them, or show them any sympathy, if acts of that kind
were committed, endangering the throne in the estima-
tion of its own subjects, and bringing upon the Go-
vernment the indignation of every civilised country.
In every instance in which advice was given I find it to
be in favour of forbearance—in favour of lenity and mo-
deration—(Cheers)—and, inferring the motives from the
advice, I cannot think it consistent with justice to visit
the Government with the condemnation which this
motion implies.—(Cheers.) Then, Sir, I come to the
acts of the Government, and I am perectly willing to
admit that it is not sufficient that the motives and inten-
tions should have been good if the acts were in them-
selves unwise. You may acquit the Government of
intentional misconduct, but if their acts be at variance
with justice or sound policy you are perfectly at liberty,
if not to censure the Government, at least to compel the
revocation of the acts. In reviewing the acts of the
Government, the sth of April is a day of the utmost
importance.—(Hear, hear.) Up to the sth of April we
had limited ourselves to friendly advice, to warnings.
and to remonstrances, and up to the sth of April I think
there can be few persons disposed to censure Govern-
ment on account of any stop they had then taken, or any
advice they had given. In viewing the subsequent acts
of the Government, I certainly should attach consider-
able weight to the motives and intentions by which they
were dictated—not that good motives and intentions
would justify acts which are impolitic, but in consider-
ing the acts I should have material regard to the motives
and intentions which influenced them. The question is,
whether en the sth of April, when it is clear that the
Government departed from its former course and under-
took not merely to give advice, but to make proposals
c againsth eer . very
which in certain contingencies involved the necessity of
armed intervention,oli
yc
are there is
wh a
,e
firstsufficoief all,
sufficient iintdiiscatotiobne
ob-
served, thise
r v
ecdh,a.
position of judges after
ep who?t
That
p o
sthatnge ofw
the event have a great advantage over those who had to
fo n a decision,
contingencies.—(Cheers.) o t
complicatednw hailclhh wet anas de
uncertains
a): ddoauyb.tful, the light of
ng
providing
encies.
combinations which had then to be considered, and of
r
twhheinehobstchuereisissuenoawppaes gharleidvter
history has been shed. It is now easy to see the mis-
takes that may have been committed. The judge, being
in possession of all the facts, having a knowledge of all
the events which have taken place, is in a very different
situation from those who had to decide under uncertain
and doubtful circumstances.—(Cheers.) Sir, I place
myself in the position of a Government which, on receiv-
ing the representations of the Portuguese Government,
had to decide what course they would pursue; and, to
do justice to their case, it is absolutely necessary to at-
tempt to forget all we now know, and consider what we
would have done with the information before us which
they had in the early part of April.—(Cheers.) Sir, I
cannot conceive a decision more difficult to be arrived at.
On the one hand there was a Government which had
done acts that merited disapprobation—(Cheers)—there
was every argument against forcible intervention in the
domestic concerns of Portugal; there was the danger,
also, that, by intervention, we might set the precedent
for other and future interventions, from which very
serious embarrassments might arise; and no doubt these
were considerations that ought to be maturely weighed.
—(Cheers.) There is no man in this House who feels
more strongly than I do the grave objections that apply
to a wanton and unnecessary intervention in the affairs
of other countries. The danger is, that by that inter-
vention you are not propping up the throne in favour of
which you interfere—you may be sowing tke seeds of
weakness, instead of strengthening the cause you espouse.
But, on the other hand, it becomes a Government
responsible for tb,* administration of public affairs to