The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-28 00:00:00

DON CARLOS.

Lord JOHN MANNERS then rose to call the atten-
tion of the House to the motion of which he had given
notice. He felt that he was fully justified in calling
upon the House to join him in imploring her Majesty's
interference in behalf of a royal victim of oppression.
He knew that it was a matter of delicacy for the House
to ask her. Majesty to interfere for the purpose of pro-
curing the liberation of a person who was detained by
one of her Majesty's allies. But there were precedents
for such a course when the honour and interest of the
country depended on such a course to be pursued. He
would first refer to the precedent of General Lafayette,
and he would then proceed to show that the honour and
interest of this country demanded the liberation of Don
Carlos. In 1794, General Lafayette with his troops
took refuge in Prussia, and he was immediately com-
mitted to a fortress by the King of Prussia. England
was• then at peace with Prussia ; but so strong was the
feeling which existed in this country respecting what
the people considered a hardship, that that House was
called upon to interfere in the matter. General Fitz-
patrick moved an address to the CroWn to interfere for
the purpose of procuring the release of General La-
fayette. That motion was defeated. But the ground
upon which he (Lord John Manners) now claimed sup-
port for his motion was the reason assigned for the defeat
of the address of 1794 to which he had referred. Mr. Pitt
opposed the address on the broad and intelligible
ground that England having had nothing to do with the
transaction, could not in fairness be called upon to in-
terfere. aving made ;this allusion to that precedent,
he would proceed to show that this 'country was bound
by justice to interfere for the purpose of procuring the
release of Don Carlos. On the broad and eternal prin.
cipleef justice he (Lord J. Manners) demandedPiis libera-
, tion. Where was the crime alleged against him ? What
offence had been laid to his charge—what tribunal had
delivered its verdict against him ? He (Lord J. Man-
ners) was aware that last year, when this subject was
debated, the Noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton,
said that England and Fiance had a right to in-
carcerate Don Carlos after the Convention of
Algarve. It might be that Don Carlos
had had some private communication with the
Noble Lord ; but all he (Lord John Manners) could
say was that he could easily enter into the feelings of a
gallant man, who had been deprived of a crown such as
that of chivalrous Spain, by intrigues the most base that
ever sullied the history of any country, finding himself
guiltless of all intrigue, finding his claim to that crown
defeated by those whom he loved because he knew them,
who loved him because they knew him—he could con-
ceive, and enter into the feelings of that gallant man at
such a crisis and he could not conceive how Don
Carlos could have acted otherwise than he had done.
But supposing the Noble Lord to be right, he (Lord John
Manners) said that the Ministry now in power, and those
who formed the majority of that House, could not avail
themselves of the plea of the Noble Lord. So long as
the war was commenced—so long as the gallant .efforts
of the Spaniards to maintain the struggle against the
Jews and stock-brokers of Algeria existed—so long the
great Tory party in this country, and those
who at present were its leaders, had a right
to give their sanction to the proceedings of
Don Carlos. The Noble Lord might rely upon
his flimsy argument, to which he (Lord John Man-
ners) had referred, but those on that (the Ministerial)
side of the House could not avail themselves of it. He
(Lord J. Manners) therefore apprehended that he had a
perfect right to call upon that House to interfere for the
purpose of procuring the liberation of Don Carlos. He
asserted, in the most emphatic manner, that no deed had
been committed by Don Carlos which could justify for a
moment the imprisonment he was now suffering.
If nothing had occurred previously to the break-
ing out of the war—if nothing had occurred
during its continuance that could be said
to justify the present incarceration of Don Carlos, had
anything occurred since which could be said to offer the
slightest pretext for it ? When Don Carlos entered
France, he was told that, he would be treated like an
unfortunate prince. He (Lord J. Manners) thought he
knew what would be the interpretation which an assembly
of English gentlemen would put upon these words.—
(Hear, hear.) Don Carlos did not—he could not—have
anticipated the meaning which was put upon them when
they were uttered by a constitutional Government ;
for imprisonment was a measure meted out
to their unfortunate victim by a Liberal Govern-
ment. Had Don Carlos, he would again ask, done any-
thing since his imprisonment which Gould be urged as a
justification of it ? Every one.knew that Donna Chris-
tina at one time was willing to risk not only Spain, but
even the life of her daughter to supplant Espartero. It
was also equally notorious that Don Carlos was solicited
to aid her in her views. Straightforwardness and ho-
nesty had always characterised Don Carlos, and he at
once rejected these overtures. He (Lord J. Manners)
must ask the House to pause for a moment, and reflect
upon the different reception Donna Christina had met
with to that given to Don. Carlos. Donna Christina,
with the countenance of all Europe, had instigated
bloodshed, anarchy, and insurrection, and she was al-
lowed to pass through Europe with regal pomp,. while
Don Carlos, who refused to enter into her unholy ma-
chinations, was kept captive in a fortress.
"Probitas laudatur et alget."
These were the reasons which induced him (Lord J.
Manners) to. demand, in the sacred name of justice,
justice
which liberation of Don Carlos—in the name of
which was seldom invoked in vain, he made that de-
mand. He would now allude to the formation of the
Spanish Legion, and he had the authority of General
Evans himself for stating that that Legion was formed
against the expressed opinions of three of the highest
military authorities in the kingdom, viz., the late King,
the Duke of Wellington, and the late Commander-in-
Chief. Now he (Lord J. Manners) said that the man-
ner in which that Legion had been formed was amply
sufficient to justify that House in interfering to set Don
Carlos at liberty. With every wish to speak well of our
soldiers and sailors concerned, he was bound to state his
sincere and honest conviction that, the moment they arrived
in Spain a system of double dealing and treachery of the
most disreputable kind, was commenced. In the annals
of England he knew of no more disgraceful transaction
than that connected with the English ships during the
siege of Bilboa. For nearly two months, while the Car-
lists were beleaguering that town, exposed to the fire of
its guns, the English troops stood passively, and wit-
nessed the strife. Perfbct neutrality was their position
—full impunity from danger was the result. But when
victory had already, he might say, crowned the Carlist
army—when Bilboa, in fact, had surrendered—in the
middle of the night a body of these English troops rushed
in and derived the Carlists of that success to which they
were, entitled. By the disgrace that transaction attached
to England, he asked the House to adopt the address
with which he was about to conclude. Nor was
this disgrace all. The' House would remember that
Lord John Hay continued to carry on the communi-
cations between the traitor Maratto and Espartero.
Lord John Hay had interfered against Don Carlos in
every possible manner. So far from taking the least care
that the life of Don Carlos should be guaranteed, it was
mentioned as a subject of congratulation by Colonel
Wilde to the English Government, that Don Carlos'
name had not been mentioned in any article of the Con-
vention. The House might easily guess what would•
have been the fate of that illustrious prince, if he had
fallen into the hands of his vindictive enemies. In 1836,
the Government sent an. order to the Captain eom-.
manding on the Cantabrian coast, that if Don
Carlos should seek for an asylum in an English
ship, that asylum should not be given to him.
He asked -the House to put these facts together,
and was not the conclusion irresistible, that throughout
the whole Spanish war,.from the commencement to the
close, England was the great interfering power. The
Church and State had been despoiled by that tyrannical
spirit of liberty whieh now devastated Spain, and which
had compelled Don Carlos to seek an asylum in a foreign
country, in order to avoid falling into the hands of mer-
ciless enemies.—(Hear.) 'From every motive of honour
and of justice they were compelled to interfere. The
Noble Lord had not yet forgiven the man whom he had
so deeply injured ; and one of the last acts of his office—
when power had, in that, departed from him—was to de-
mand, on the part of England, that the imprisonment of
Don Carlos should continue. In June, 1841, the French
Government showed some signs of releasing the Prince,
but the Noble Lord interfered, and refused to accede.
Away, then, with this cant of liberalism about securing.
the tranquillity of Stain. The efforts of Queen Christina,
and of the Regent Espartero, had done much more to
disturb the tranquillity of Spain than Don Carlos—the
feting at the Mansion-house was more to be dreaded
than the prisoner at Bourges. It was not because
Don Carlos had injured or offended them—not
because he had injured or offended France
—not because he had borne his captivity with
resignation—not because the freedom of Spain de-
manded• his incarceration, but in order to gratify a
tyrannical, sacrilegious, and licentious liberalism. in
1808 Bonaparte had imprisoned Don Carlos in Valen-
ciennes ; in 1841 the remains of Bonaparte found Don
Carlos a prisoner in Bourges. After exhorting the
House to interfere -on behalf of this exiled and deeply
injured Prince, the Noble Lord concluded with the
following motion:—" That an humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, representing to her Majesty that
the detention of Don Carlos and his family in a town
belonging to her Majesty's ally, the• King of the French,-
is opposed to justice and the honour of this country,