The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-10 00:00:00

:f;Fj~,

said to have taken place within the last four months.
There were moral deluses as well as physical ; and on this
occasion his Riekst Hon. Friend seemed to have been de-
sirous to overwhelm the few circumstances which
Were revelant to his motion, in the deluge of remarks
which were utterly irrevelant to it. His Right
Hon. Friend had been a little taken by surprise
on the last motion which lie had brought forward, for he
.
found the paper for which he moved grant. d without op.-
Position. His Right Hon. Friend was determined to
guard himself against a similir surprise on this occasion,
for be now mood for papers which he must know that it
was impassible for any Government to grant. His Right
Hon. Friend wanted to obtain a sight of certain ex-party
affidavits, which had been forwarded to Government, cast-
ing reflections on individuals which were entirely unsup-
ported by facts. and which related to matters which might
he the subject of future legal proceedings. He denied that
the Administration had shown any partiality to either of
the two conflicting parties, either by what they had' dune,
or by what they had left undone.—(Cheers.) His Right
Hon. Friend near him had said, and had said very truly,
that there was nothing in the provisions of the Foreign
Enlistment Act which made it obligatory on the Govern-
ment to carry them into axecution. Any one might en-
force those provisions; and he did not know so'.at reason
the P .rtuguese Consul-General had to call upon the,Bri-
tish Government to institute proceedings under that Act,
when, if he had proof againq the parties, he omit,' institute
them himself. He repeated the assertion,—the Portu-
guese Consul- General could have instituted such proceed-
ings himself, and it was not incembont on the Government
to institute them for him.—(Cheers.) Oae word now as
to the power which the Government possessed. under
the same Act, to detain ships. Toe Act of Par.
liament said, that when there was reason to believe
that a ship, lying in an English harbour, was taking
in arise and colliers to be employed against a State in
amity with England, any party might lodge an informa-
tion against the captain and owners of the vessel with the
officers of eustotos, and upon that information being veri-
fied, the (dicers of cestonis shal have power to detain the
'l4, and to prevent the individuals on board of it from
sailing. His Right Hon. Friend might not be aware of
this fact, but lie (Lord Palmerston) would remind several
of his Right Hun. Friends, colleagues in the late Ca-
binet, of it, by reminding them of what had occurred on
the detention of the ship litzry. That vessel was de-
tained some time ago on the suspicion that it was proceed-
ing to the coast of Spain, as part of a projected expedition
against the Monarch of that country. There were on
hoard of that ship several Spaniards, a number of arms, a
quantity of proclamations addressed to the people of Spain ;
and there could be no doubt, morally speaking, that she
was equipped fur purposes of war ; and yet, strong as the
case was, he was sure that the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber fur Boroughbritlee would agree with him in saying
that there was no ground for detaining that vessel, except
that she was preparing to take out arms which had not
been entered at the Custom-house. The vessel was sub-
sequently proceeded against for having on board contra-
band arms ; but it was not found practicable to proceed
against her under the Foreign Enlistment Act. That W3S a
much stronger case than any which bad happened here.
The vessel complained of in this instance had no arms on
board, it was destined for a port of France, and its cargo
Was consigned to French subjects. What the ulterior
destination of the vessel and of the cargo were to be
it would be idle to express a doubt ; hut in the execution
of the law they must look only to facts prayed, and not to
surmises, guesses, and doubtful interferences. If the y
looked to any thing else but facts, when they were admi-
nistering a law, which was as strongly penal as the foreign
Enlistment Act was, they must inevitel4 run into very
great and dangerous abuse. He thought that he had now
said enough to prove that the conduct of the present Ad-
ministration was not open to any of the censure which his
Right Hun. Friend had passed upon it. He should not
take the result of the inetion to be confined merely to the
introduction of half a dozen additional affidavits, but to ex-
tend to the approval, or otherwise, of the manner in which
the present Government had conducted its foreign rela-
tions.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL thought that if the Government had so
much confidence in a good cause, it would be better if they
were ready to meet any inquiry, or to crate a sufficient
reason for not affording information, rather titan upon
'every occasion, when the conduct of Ministers was called
into question, to shield themselves under the Reform Bill.
--(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) The speech of
the Noble Lord, the Member for Yorkshire, had but little
reference to the present motion, but referred to what had
taken place in the House on the subject of the neutrality
observed by the former Government with respect to Ter-
ceira, as if Parliament had never expressed an opinion
upon the subject, and the Noble Lord maintained that the
Ministry of that day had escaped condemned n for the line
of policy pursued by them with respect to Terceira, on the
sole ground of gi-atitude to them for passing the Bill for
emancipating Roman Catholics. But the House wolud
remember that on the occasion to •svhich lie had referred,
the Ministry had been carried thre(igh with a majority of
113, and therefore he (Sir R. Peel) was entitled to say
that the opinion of the House was ;hat the Ministry hail
not acted improperly in maintaining neutrally.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord bad also spoken of the
forbearance used on that occasion towards the then Go-
vernment, but when he looked opposite, he saw no less
than five Cabinet Ministers who had voted against them.
The Right Hon. Gentlemen, the Vice Presidents of the
Board of Trade and Controul,were tellers on the occasion.
--(Hear, hear.) He did not intend to give an indiscri-
minate censure on the present Ministry with reference to
the Present question, but was ready to give them credit
Where they were so entitled. His Noble Friend who had
sPoken last had said that no valid objection could he raised
against the claims of the British subjects, and that the
mode by which they had been enforced could not he
called in question, and he (Sir R. Peel) was not disposed
to differ from his Noble Friend, for it was impossible after
ja perusal of the papers now on the table, to attempt to
ustify or to attempt to palliat?the conduct of Portugal;
at the same time when the House of Commons were en-
gaged in passing a Reform Bill, which they were told
Would cut off all chance of war, and when he heard at-
tempts made to excite the passions and divert the better
judgment of the House by dwelling on the grievances of
dividuals, his expect itions of an eternal peace from a
Reform in Parliament
were not great, particularly when
he saw the promptness of Reformers for war.—(Hear,
hear
th.) The conduct of the Government of Portugal
wi respect to the British claims was such as to justify
the employment of force ; but he considered the claims of
France stood on totally different grounds. France had de Mended redress to an extent not conferinable to justice or
equity. He thought his Noble Friend opposite, in his
anxiety to vindicate France, had made use of some expres-
sions, which before tie debate should be brought to a close,
he would not be unwilling to retire front. Whether his
Noble Friend slid so or not, lie (Sir R. Peel) would
undertake to prove that the Noble Lord's justification of
France was not well founded. The Noble Lord had said,
that even if Bontiomme had been justly condemned,
France was justified in demanding the reparation she had
demanded. Wheat were the demands of France ? The dis-
missal of the Judges who pronounced sentence, a reversal
of the sentence, and the payment to Bonhomme of a com-
pensation of 20,000 francs. If the sentence was well
founded on legal evidence, such a demand was not war-
ranted.—(Hear.) Tt:e next demand made by France on
the Portuguese Government—namely, that all the sen-
tences passed during the last two years on Frenchmen for
Political crimes, should be: rescinded, was such a demand
as was fatal to the integrity of any country ; and while he
thought that the English Government were right in not
refusing to assist France in obtaining a just reparation, yet
they were not bound to enforce a reparation of this nature.
The Noble Lord on the third bench (Ebrington) had con-
gratulated the House on the fact that the removal of the
former Government from office had saved the country the
en,naity of the recognition of Don Miguel on the throne
ot Portugal. It would be remembered that in 1830 it was
announced by the then Government, in the speech from
the throne, that they thought the inconvenience of sus-
pending the relations with Portugal was so great, that it
could not long be withheld ; and the Noble Lord then said
(FePosseseing, as he then did, a full knowledge of the con-
ut, of Don Miguel—that when he considered that Portu-
gal‘ been for three years under the sovereignty of Don
„,..g4.0) his hostility to interfere with a de facto Govern-
le:llr.svas removed, and that he did not think it would be
that ifthe Government longer delayed the recognition of
cour "nee.
He (Sir R. Peel) concurred with the
se recommended then by the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) It
cie",}ll44. for one nation to inquire into the private conduct
that aracter of a monarch of another country, nor should
sotionc°onuct or character be an impediment to his recog
and ; for where he appeared to be the people's choice,
adarrive reigned fur a period of four years, the time was
saver When he might safely be recognised as ade facto
.8 In• It was very well for the Noble Lord to clothe
IPeeoll with clap-traps, in order to raise a cheer at its
The but he begged to disclaim any such object.
mina ole tenour of his life had shown how much he abo-
glorietedtWar, and
that he never was dazzled by the false
°Y which it was eneompassed.—(Hear, hear.)
Roti..'"g all reference to party feeling, he would ask the
• ro consider the present condition of this country
With
• teaPeCt to Portugal, and to say if, however the House
aught divide on ether questions, it was agreed on this—

that England should preserve and maintain a strict neu-
trality. The country was bound to do this on every
ciple of law, equity, and prudence; but hNiiid ti;laesi
tate to say, notwithstanding what hid
..fklkal't am the
Noble Lord opposite, that a strict neutrality iitir not been.
observed. The system notoriously pursued in', this'.
country, of enlisting men, fitting up • armaments,
and the purchasing of warlike stores for !the put:
pose of assisting one of the contending parties, %Vist-
a direct breach of those very international laws which
provided a strict neutrality shMild be maintained.
It was said that the House had only heard tumours and
whispers, which did not prove any thine, ; but if this mo-
tion was carried he (Sir Robert Peel) would undertake to
prove a vast deal. lie believed the fact to be notorious,
that in the metropolis stations were fixed for the enlistment
of private soldiers for the expedition against Don Miguel,
anal where commissions were issued, and that hundreds of
young men had been so engaged—(Heir)—and he had
also learned from those newspapers mist in the confidence
of the present Ministry,.that n9.less than'four vessels laden
with warlike stores bad been seized, and remained three weeks
under detention by the Custotn-house authorities. It was
said to be in the power of any individual to prosecute for
foreign enlistment, but the Act afforded no such power ;
neither was there authority fur detention of vessels so cir-
curnstanced, but in the
.Custom-house authorities only.
They were, however, released by the direct intervention of
the King's Government. Instead of referring the matter
to the Court of Exchequer, which alone had the power to
d cide upon the point, the executive Government of the
country stepped in and directed the release of the vessels. This
afforded matter of grave suspicion of a violation of neutrality.
Was it a 'act, he asked, that these four vessels, thus released,
after three weeks' detention by the Customs, formed part of
the expedition of Don Pedro ?—(Hear, hear.) Was it a
fact, that one of these vessels was the very vessel with a
change of name, from which the proclamation of Don
Pedro was issued ?_( Hear, hear.) If these were facts,
and if these vessels were suffered to go to a French port,
and to farm part of an expedition against Don Miguel, it
was a violation of our neutrality. In a case of this kind,
unless the contradictory evidence was strong in the extreme,
the presumption was that there had been a departure from
our neutrality. If the Noble Lord (Palmerston) stood on
the public inconvenience attending the production of the
papers moved for, that would be a different question ; but
he (Sir R. Peel) did say, that the prima facie evidence of
a breach of neutrality was extremely strong; and to say
that a simple motion for papers was a censure upon the
Government was an extraordinary argument. If the
Noble Lord desired an alteration of the terms of the motion,
it should be couched in the humblest tone ; but to reject a
motion for information on tile ground that it was a censure
upon the Government, was a more extraordinary mode of
Treating a motion for information than he had ever heard.
—(Hear, hear.) The Haute might reject the motion, but
depend upon it, unless a prima facie case of observanee of
neutrality could he made out, in the impending contest,
the conduct of Government will have exposed the country
to great mischief. The expedition was about to sail ; we
had been substantially agents in that expedition, though it
sailed from the ports of France ; and if Don Miguel was
driven from the throne and Don Pedro established, would
it or would it not be believed that England had been pre-
dominant? If we had observed our neutrality, and there was
nothing in the records of the Foreign-office to substantiate
the allegation that we had violated it, there was no reason
why the papers should be refused. One word as to the
municipal law. If the Noble Lord considered the Enlist-
ment Act injurious, why did lie not in an open and manly
way, repeal it?:--(hear.) Whilst that law remained on
the statute book, was it fitting that in that country which
.d been at peace with Portugal for fifteen years, a party
should be enabled to equip fleets against it ? The true policy
o this country was a strict neutrality.—(Cheers from the
Opposition )
Mr. STANLEY said, in the speech of the Right Hon.
Baronet who had just sat town lie (Mr. St miry) must
say, he had fairly confined himself to the question before
the House, and had not gone into those other topics
which some Hon. Members had sa amply discussed.
Upon some points the Right Hon. Baronet had given Lis
Majesty's Government a full justification; and he should
tnerefore not enter into a comparison between the plan
pursued lay his Noble Friend and his predecessors. But
the [lon. Baronet had adopted an extraordinary course
when he comulained of Ministers showing a desire to
flinch from the discus-ion, and to evade the question be-
fore the House, and when he taunted them with alluding
on a former occasion to the question of Reform ; for the
words were scarcely out of his mouth before lie turned
round and talked of a promptness for war, which a re-
farmed Parliament could not gratify.—( Hear.) The
Right Hon. Baronet and other Hon. Members expressed
their fears and anticipations that Government would in-
' volve Europe in war. But week after week, and month
a,ter month, this had been thrown out against the present
Govetnrnent, during a year which required, if it ever was
required, the most consummate prudence to prevent the
country being involved in that calamity.—(Cheers from
the Ministerial benches.) He remembered the Hon.
Member for Thetford (Mr. Baring) coining forward
and saying, "If you can for only six months keep
Europe from war, I will grant that you possess consum-
mate prudence."—(3e tr.) The six months had gone
by, and the peace of Europe rested on a more solid foun-
dation than ever.—(Cheers from the Ministerial side.)
Then they were told that the French troops were in Bel.
gium ; and what security was there, it was asked, that
they would return ? Our confidence in the French Go-
vernment—(Cheers from the Opposition interrupted the
sentence.) Why that cheer? Had that confidence been
violated ? He would tell the Hon. Member who seemed
by that cheer to sneer at the character of a great nation.
to come forward and say whether it had violated the con-
fidence placed in it?—(Cheers.) Then it had been said
we had allowed a French fleet to enter the Tagus ; anal
when, it was asked, would it quit it? Did it not quit it
the same day on which it was pledged to quit it ?
(Hear, hear.) Did it make any more reprisals than it
was justified in au ,king ? With respect to the sentences
on the individuals referred to, did the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet suppose that the French went to war for the sake of
13onhomme alone ? If the sentence of Bonhomrne was
just, and according to the law of Portugal—and the Right
Hon. Baronet talked of the danger of interfering with
these sentences and with the legal authority of Portugal,
but he would ask him whether the sentence against Bon-
homme was Just, that he should be banished to the pesti-
lential climate of Anemia ?—whether he would contend
that it was consistent with law and justice that Bonhomme
should be flogged a second time in prison ?—(l-lear.)
Sir R. PEEL—." I was aware of that."—(Hear.)
Mr. STANLEY—" If the Right Hon. Baronet was
aware of the fact, I am surprised he did not state it"—
(Cheers.) He (Mr. Stanley) would go farther, and say,
that'where the Judges were not independent, the Govern-
ment, and not the Judges, were responsible for such a sen-
tence ; and a foreign Power was not to be interdicted from
interference on the base pretext that it was the sentence
of Judges. He (Mr. Stanley) would not quote from Mr.
lioppner, whose evidence seemed to he suspected, but he
would quote a despatch from Mr. Matthews, who, in
1828, stated that the fate of the prisoners would be de-
cided according to the impression which the Government
took of their case, for that no Judge would venture to act
in opposition to the desires of the Government.—(Hear.)
Then what became of the argument about inviolability
and security, when it was notorious that the Judges were
thus dependent on the Government ?—(Hear.) He (Mr.
Stanley) agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet with respect
to the relative situation of Great Britain, and as to the
expediency of maintaining our relations with that country.
The Right Hon. Baronet had stated truly that it was not
the character of the Prince on the throne we were t ) con-
sider ; but the Right Hon. Baronet must admit that there
was a time in the history of England, not far remote from
the present, when a Government, composed of persons
with whom the Right Hon. Baronet acted, justified the
continuance of a war with France, on the ground that
there was no security for the peace of Europe from the
personal character of Napoleon Bonaparte.—(Hear, hear.)
But he agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet that we were
bound to preserve a neutrality ; but the Hon. Baronet was
bound to show that the neutrality had been broken, by stat-
ing some fact, and net by begging the whole question.
The Right Hon. Baronet said that Government had been
culpable for suffering recruiting and purchasing of
stores and provisions for Don Pedro ; but he called upon
the Right Hon. Baronet to show by what Act of Parlia-
ment, unless the purchases'and enlistments were open and
notorious, the Government would have been authorised
to prevent them. He believed that it was notorious that
in various parts of the kingdom there had been enlisting of
men for Don Pedro ; he believed the fact to be so. But

if we were bound to enforce the enlistment law, we were
hound not to overleap the technical difficulties and over-
step the law ;—not to proceed on mere belief, but on facts
capable of being established by legal evidence. The Right
Hon. Baronet said correctly, that the four ships were de-
taMed at the Custom-house, he believed on a supposition
that they were intended for Don Pedro; but on a full in-
vestigation of the grounds of the charge, it was given as
the legal opinion of those who were consulted on it.—
(Hear, hear, from the Opposition)—that the evidence was
not such as would substantiate the charge, or as afforded a
chance of conviction; and Government would not have
been justified in proceeding in a case where their law ad-
visers told them they had no chance.—(Hear, hear, from

'the, Opposition.)..r Not one of the ships was armed, and
they were all the property of a French subjec', who claimed
them as his property, and substantiated . his claim. He
(dr.:Stanley) entirely denied the position of the Right
flOn.,Baronet, that there had been any enlistment of Bri-
tl4lilitildiers; and there was no legal proof that any persons
were enlisted in, the service of Don. Peiro ; and he would
~.
ask the. Right fitin.'l3.aronet on what ground he would inter-
- iiora,notdriety.and.public report, to prevent a ship from
frOm this"tn.nfor.eien country. On these grounds,
11 is ers rested trek defence, and let not the Right
Hon: Baronet says that this was only a motion fir papers.
ilk
He (Sir R. Peel) had been too log in Par iatnent to urge
such a plea, and they (the Ministers) had been long enough
on the opposite side of the House to know that they never
made a motion for papers which the Government was un-
willing to graft, which was not a direct attack upon the
Government—(Hear, hear) —and tneant to be a censure on
them. It this was not a part of the words of the motion,
it was a part of the intent of the motion; and if he (Mr.
Stanley) l;ad had a doubt upon the subject, that doubt
would have been resolved by the whole speech of the Hon.
Member who introduced the motion, which was a censure
on the conduct of Government in regard to Portugal. He
hoped the Hon. Member would not, as on some other oc-
casions, withdraw this motion.--(flear,-hear.) He knew
the Hon. Member did not expect it would he granted; his
object was only to make an angry attack on the Govern-
ment, and to shrink from the consequences by withdraw-
ing his motion.—(Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL explained, amidst cries of " spoke." We
understood him to say that he had not alluded to the second
fliieging of M. Bonhomme, because he considered the Go.
vernment to be in fault, not the Judges.
Sir C.WETHERELL contended that a more plain and
palpable case of violation of neutrality had never Le en
rstabli,heil. Having stated and explained the provisions
of the Foreign Enlistment Act, the Hon. Gentleman pro-
ceeded to contend that this was a case which clearly came
under that Act, anti th it the Government itself bad, by
acting on the complaint and detaining the vessels for a
time, acknowledged th it a case had ben fitly made out
for its interference. It had been said that this motion
should have been a larger one, and that if the Government
was to be put on its defence, a Committee of Imtiry.
should have been moved for, and the whole case submitted
to en investigation. Now he certainly would have no ob-
jection, if he c uld not get the papers, to take a Committee,
if the Hon. Gentlemen opposite would give them one on
this matter. It had been stated that the Law Officers of
the Crown had given it as their opinion that this was not
a case for interference on the part of his Majesty's Govern-
ment. Those Hon. and Learned Gentlemen were now
present, and though he would not call for the production
of their opinion, he should very much like to know whether
they had given such an opinion as that attributed to them.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there was nothing
' whatever in this case that would have justified the interfe-
rence of Government. Unit, r the provi.ions of the Foreign
Enlistment Bill, Government could only act upon deposi
tions formaly laid before it. The remarkable property of
the Foreign Enistment Act was, that when a seizure was
made ita cases of this kind, it was to be referred, like any
common seizure, to the Court of Exchequer, but no seizure
had been made here, and therefore there had been no re-
ference to the Court of Exchequer in this instance. In
truth his Learned Friend opposite, who had given an opi-
nion in reference to this case, upon ex-parte affidavits;
had, in arguing this subject, tale ,n altogether a wrong
view of the provisions of the Foreign Enlistmi-M Bid, arid
of the duty which that Act imposed upon the GovernmeLt
of the country. He well remembered the days when that
Act was under discussion, and when his eloquent Friend,
the then Member for Knareaborough, pointed it out to
them as a must unwise Act of Parliament ; and if he (the
Attorney-Gi-neral) thought so then, he could not but
think that it was an Act which should never he enforced

unless wl•en circumstances fully warranted its application.
They were nut, under the mask of impartiality, to seek to
interpose wherever they could with this Act of Parliament

to prevent Englishmen from giv4ig that aid which they
were always ready to afford to the cause offre,dom through.
out the world ; and they were not to restrict and hind
them down by an overstrained interpretation of such a
law from interfering in such ca,es, because they knew that
:heir interference would be always on the good side.—
( Hear.) In conclusion, he begged to repeat that there
had been no facts in this case to warrant the interference
of his Mijesty's Government.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that this was a case in which,
if ever the discretion given to his Majesty's Government
should be vested in them, such a discretion might be safely
vested in them. There was nothing that at all called for
their interference in this instance. He was a good deal
ainased by finding the Hon. Member for the University o,
Oxford exhibiting himself as the champion of the monks
of Coimbra. The atrocious sentence pronounced by
the monks of Coimbra was obviously pronounced upon
the individual in question because he was a freemason ;
and it was a remarkable fact that he was not arrested until
Sept-mber, 1830, or sentenced until the 11th of Deeemler
in that year ; although the matter alleged against him
taken place in April, 1828. Yet these monks of Coim-
bra, who had acted in such an unjustifiable manner, met
with a defender in the person of the Protestant Member
for the University of Oxford ?—(A laugh.) There was
no one who had the hardihood in that Rinse to call him_
self the defender of Don Miguel, but he (Mr. O'Connell)
would ask th. House and the nation, whether it this mo-
tion should be carried, every friend of Don Miguel out of
that House would not triumph at its success?—(Cheers.)
Nu one, he repeated, had had the hardihood in that House
to stand forward and avow himself the defender of such
bloo ly despot, yet party spirit drove men to join with such
a wretch, and to do his work, as the supporters of this
motion undowitedly did.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord SANDON raw no ground to shake his confidence
in the foreign policy of the present Government.
Mr. COURTENAY briefly replied, and the House di
vided, when the numbers were—
For the motion., 139
Against it
Majority for Ministers 135
On our return to the gallery we found
Colonel SIBTHORPE remonstrating, as we were then
given to understand, against a proposition made by Lord
Altitorp, that the House should sit on Saturday.
Lord ALTHORP said his proposit'on was solely brought
forward from a conviction of tie pressure of public business.
fhe conversation then dropped; but we believe it was
decided that the Reform Bill would be gone into on tha
day.