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

THE POLES IN PRUSSIA.

Mr. VILLIERS STUART said, the House was
aware that the King of Prussia had allowed fugitive
Poles to take up their residence in the Duchy of Posen,
and had conceded to many of them the rights of
Prussian subjects. It had been lately announced, that
his Prussian Majesty had given directions to withdraw
the protection from these Poles. He wished to ask the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), if he could give
the House any information upon the subject.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was not prepared at present
to give an answer in a definite manner to the question
put by the Hon. Gentleman.
SCOTTISH LAW COURTS.

Mr. WALLACE rose to bring forward his motion
upon the above subject. He said that the legal tribunals
in Scotland had been an immense expense to the nation.
Instead of those Courts being called the Courts of
Session, the more proper name to nee would be the
Courts of Vacation, for they were idle for nearly seven
months in the year, and during those seven months
the judges sat only for five days in the week.
He held returns in his hands which would prove
beyond doubt that the law authorities in those Courts
had allowed au enormous amount of arrears to accumu-
late from the year 1781 up to the present time. The
number of cases which were in arrear in the year 1838
was 477, and he thought this was sufficient to require inves-
gation. The vacations of the Courts in general exceeded in
length of time the sessions. There was another matter
that called for remedy, namely, the choice of Courts,
and he must say that he thought the delay and ex-
pense incurred in the Courts in Scotland were attri-
butable to the listlessness of the judges. He
firmly believed that until a Court of Review
(as we understood) was established, there would be
•no satisfaction in the courts of law in Scotland. There
was no court more dreaded, with the exception
of the Court of Chancery, than the Court of Session.
He would next advert to the expenses. In the first
place he would state what these judges cost the country.
The first division of judges cost the country 14,3751. a
year. Owing to the short time during which they sat,
the amount of their salaries and that of their secretaries
was 1271. per day. The number of cases decided in the
year 1839 by this division of the judges was 157, and
therefore the judicial charge for each case—without any
refer. nce to the charges of counsel—the j udicial charge for
each case was 911. 1 ls.. while the cost in the courts pro •
sided over by the other judges was 251. 14s. for each case.
All this waste was at the cost of both countries. lie
would now read to the House a statement of the yearly
cost of this establishment, and he believed ad
the Honourable Gentlemen who were friends of
economy would be surprised to hear it. They
had thirteen Judges of the Supreme Court, to a
population of two millions and a half. They might
know by the number of the English judges, whether
this was a justifiable mode of applying the money of the
people. The cost of the judges was 42,7001.; that of
clerks of the court 17,000/. There were also thirty
sheriffs, who cost 16,5001., or, on an average,
5511. each per year. He had no hesitation in
saying that the most vic'ous part of their
vicious system was the having three times the
number of judges required. When the Noble
Lord the Member for London introduced his County
Courts Bill, the number of judges he proposed for all
England was twenty-five chief judges, and four
others in the event of illness of the Chiefs. The
whole amount of the cost of the judicial establish-
ment in Edinburgh was not less than 150,0001.
You might travel from one end of Scotland to the other,
and you would not find one man who was not dis-
satisfied and disgusted with the whole system
of the administration of the law in that coun-
try. In 1834, an Act was introduced by the late
Government to raise the salaries of the judges, by
which it was held that it should give great
facilities to the means of obtaining justice—the
rides of Court were to be altered, and the time of session
was to be extended so as to do away with
the arrears of which so much complaint had
been made, and so justly. The salaries of the
judges were at that time raised to 1,000/. a year
each. The Court of Sessions and the Crown had
the power of extending the sessions for one month.
Now, by this act, which the Noble Lord (Lord John
Russell) carried with the assistance of those who now
sat on the opposite side of the House—for it was re-
marked in Scotland, that whenever anything was to be
done to raise salaries, both sides of that House joined.—
(Hear, hear, and laughter)—the causes in the Court
had diminished since one-half, and this year they would
diminish still more, in consequence of the general dis-
satisfaction with the Court.—(The Hon. Member then
read an extract from the Act of Parliament, that gave
the power to the judges and the Crown to extend the
sessions by two months.) There was a place in Scotland
where the Parliament used to meet, and there the Court
of Session was held. God forbid he should ever see a
Parliament held there again. But the judges were le•
gislators as well as judges, and they made laws which
ought to be made only by the Imperial Parliament. They
had full power to make rules for expediting the public busi-
ness, but they had not availed themselves of that power.
The Committee which had sat in 1834, and had re-
commended an increase of the judges' salaries, had
evidently contemplated an increase in the labours of the
judges. As a proof of this, he would refer to the
evidence given before that Committee by Lord Elgin,
Lord Brougham,. Dr. Lushington, and Mr. O'Connell.
From their evidence it was clear that it had been con-
templated to make a considerable addition to the la-
bours of the judges. Then, with regard to the passing
of the Acts of Sederunt, one of the most distinguished
lawyers in Scotland, Sir Alan Campbell had
brought in a Bill, in 1785, to reduce the number of judges,
and at the conclusion of the Act there was a clause
enacting that the judges should occupy themselves with
revising and consolidating the Acts of Sederunt. That
duty they had neglected to perform ; and at the present
moment the Acts of Sederunt were an unconsolidated
mass, which had not been revised for 300 years. The
complaint they made was this, that they had 13 judges;
and who did their duty ? Why the Lord Chancellor of
England. What proof had he of this ? Why that
nearly three-fourths of all the appeals coming to the
House of Lords, came from Scotland. Why was this ?
Why because the Scotch judges, although per-
fectly competent to do so, did not do their
duty. At the present moment there were
forty-five appeals from Scotland in the House of Lords,
twenty-seven from England and Wales, and twenty from
Ireland, whichwas a most unusual number. Then with
respect to the superannuations, they amounted to
15,0001. a-year. Two of the judges receiving part of that
superannuation had received upwards of 70,000 L, one
having retired nineteen years, and another fourteen.
The other day another judge was allowed to retire,
though at a period of life that did not entitle him to
claim retirement. It might be stated that his health
was such as to compel him to do so, but if such
was the case, it was not known to be so in Scotland.
A very expensive Commission had been issued by the
late Government to examine into the state of the Scotch
Courts, with a view to improvement, and certain minor
recommendations of that Commission were adopted ;
but all the material points were entirely neglected. Since
the present Government had come into office, three judges
had been appointed—Mr. Hope, Mr. Robertson, and Mr.
Wood. He had no hesitation in expressing his belief that
the Government werejustified in these appointments, but
judges.ahe pt
eh rosuognhtttoh
Everye yb
one admitted
madeover a
thenet headsipnrjpropriety
injudicious
all ot
fct
hhteohi
other
teha
ap-
pointment pointment of the Lord President, one of the most hard-
working and judicious judges on the bench. It was
stated that the judges in the two inner chambers
of the Court of Session did not afford sufficient
time for the counsel to perform their duties.
When Mr. Hope presided he occupied the time of the
court and the public, not with attending to the argu-
ments of counsel, but in displaying his own eloquence.
The consequence was, that the businese in his court
was rapidly on the decrease. His (Mr. Wallace's)
countrymen were a shrewd and reflecting body of men,
and they knew well enough when a mart was doing his
duty and when he was shamming it.—(A laugh.)
With'regard to the appointment of Mr. Robertson, it
was a judicious one, and that of Mr. Wood was first-
rate. In the Report of the Committee which sat in
1840 there was a great deal to show that they had a
right to expect a decided amelioration in the judicial
system. In that short Report of nine pages, it w as
stated nine or ten times ,how great was the just
dissatisraction with the Court or Session. In
the original Report the dissatisfaction was ex-
pressed no less than thirteen times, (Hear.)
He called the attention of the Noble Lord most particu-
larly to this matter. Such allegations were made before,
and they would be made again if there were no improve-
ment. The present system was perfectly unwarrantable,
and required instant amendment. Six courts were sit-
ting at the same time, and two counsel being obliged to
attend in each case, great embarrassment ensued. He
thanked the House for having so patiently listened to
him, and as he understood that part of his motiou was
irregular, he would only move the latter part of it. He
then moved that " an humble address be presented to
her Majesty, praying her Majesty will be graciously
pleased to exercise the powers which are reserved to her

Majesty, in the Act 2 and 3 Vic., c. 36, as to extending
the sittings of the Court of Session, if there shall be
arrears of business in the said Court,' or the state of
the business otherwise may require it ;' and in virtue of
the said power so reserved to the Crown, that her Ma-
jesty will graciously see proper to command that the
sittings of the said Court of Session shall be extended
by two months in each year, or by such other period as
to her Majesty shall seem more proper."
The SPEAKER called for a seconder, but as no Hon.
Member answered, the motion fell to the ground.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that perhaps the Mouse would
allow him, although no motion was before them, to
answer one point of the Hon. Gentleman's speech. The
Hon. Gentleman had commented very severely upon the
character of the Chief Justice Clerk of Scotland. Now,
he (Sir J. Graham) could state that that learned indi-
vidual was held in the highest possible estimation by the
whole bar of Scotland. He was elected unanimously, at
a moment when party feeling ran high, and when he was
in opposition to the Government. His (Sir J. Graham's)
duty was, in all cases where application was made for
the mercy of the Crown, to refer such cases to the con-
sideration of the Chief Justice Clerk, and although it
might be invidious to say FA yet he could not refrain
from stating that he received no such full, careful, and
well-considered reports from any other judicial autho-
rity as those he received from the Chief Justice Clerk.
He (Sir J. Graham) knew that this learned individual
had performed the important functions of his office with
the highest credit to himself.—(Hear, hear.)
DURHAM ELECTION.
The SPEAKER informed the House that he had re-
ceived a letter from the parties petitioning against the
return of John Bright, Esq., for Durham, stating that
it was their intention not to proceed with the petition.
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. Havingf 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-
ciple of justice he (Lord J. Manners) demandedjhis 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 Franco 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. HP
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 oould 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,
the liberation of Don Carlos—in the name of justice
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 know 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. Perfect 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 com-
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 tacts 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
i 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—
h
wi) hao nen nd
C, paoornwl
Governmentote
hsr
eshshpahoadour,
tvdi
showed
def. fat,ocscontinue
tmni
ngedepartedl
ojaf fturi
theoi
em
Bmi
4mpl
releasingr—.
tst
hwho
enea
etrr onei
Prince,
dee
oeehf-,
but the Noble Lord interfered, and refused to accede.
Away, than, with this cant of liberalism about securing
the tranquillity of Spain. 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
Doi, 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,

and humbly praying her Majesty to intercede with the
Court of the Tuileries for their deliverance therefrom.
The motion having been seconded,
Sir ROBERT PEEL felt it his duty to call upon the
House not to accede to the motion of the Noble Lord.
The Noble Lord called on that House to present an ad-
dress to her Majesty, denouncing the conduct of the
French Government—of our ally, the King of France,
and declaring their acts inconsistent with the honour of
this country. Although he opposed the motion, still he
was not devoid of sentiments of natural sympathy for
the fate of an illustrious Prince, nor of a hope that his
treatment would continue to be in accordance with the
dictates of humanity—(Hear, hear).—but he deprecated,
as a great political principle, that this House should
interfere in respect to the conduct of the French Go-
vernment. The matter had been brought under discus-
sion in the French Chambers last year. In the House
of Peers, the Minister for Foreign Affairs was asked two
questions; the first—was the restraint of Don Carlos a
condition of the Quadruple Treaty? The second—whe-
ther Don Carlos was not restrained at the instance of
the British Government ? The first question was
answered in the negative, the Quadruple Treaty having
expired before Don Carlos was placed under restraint.
The second question was likewise answered in the ne-
gative, by declaring that Don Carloi was restrained
solely on account of their views of French policy, and
entirely in consideration of French interests. Did any
Hon. Member think it would be right for the House of
Commons to interfere under such circumstances, and
tell the French Government they were not acting in ac-
cordance with the principles of justice? The Noble
Lord said Don Carlos was restrained as a prisoner,
within a French town. The policy of the respective
nations should be taken into consideration. In this
country a foreigner could not be placed under any re-
straint unless he offended against some law, since the
expiration of the Alien Act; but in France refugees
from foreign countries were placed under a system of
surveillance and restraint; and in this instance the same
rule was applied to Don Carlos as to the other poor
peasant refugees, which was not unfair, as Don Carlos
had certainly greater power of disturbing the
tranquillity of France and Spain than these
poor people. Don Carlos had claimed the hospitality of
France in common with Cabrera and 12,000 refugees,
and he must act in accordance with the laws and regu-
lations of France. The French Government took steps
to prevent their country from being made the focus of
intrigues and indirect efforts of hostility. Suppose the
Noble Lord's motion was acceded to, and that the Queen
had requested of the French Government to liberate
him, and remonstrated with that Government on the in-
consistency and impropriety of restraining Don Carlos,
would not the French Government very naturally say,
" No, we will we act upon the principles we have hitherto
acted ; we consider it the policy of France to restrain
him, and we shall not change our policy regarding the
Prince, because the British Government imagine that its
honour is involved in his liberation." And he (Sir
Robert Peel) thought the French Government would
be quite right in so saying. These were facts which in-
duced him to believe that this motion, if carried, would
have the effect of disturbing, those prospects of peace
which now so happily existed between the two countries.
He thought that the House of Commons, according to
the recognition of the French law, had no right to inter-
fere in the domestic relations of France. In saying this,
he felt bound to express the strongest hope that no un-
necessary or harsh restraints would be imposed upon
Don Carlos ; and he felt confident that there would be
all that attention and respect paid to him, which could
be demanded by a member of the illustrious Bourbon
race. No person could, for a moment, refuse their sym-
pathy to Don Carlos ; but he (Sir R. Peel) could assert
that, far from his being confined in a prison, he had the
privilege of parole to the extent of four leagues, and
within this circuit there was not the slightest restriction
imposed upon his intercourse and associations. If Don
Carlos was to give an assurance that he would abandon
all his relations with Spain, and go to any part of
Europe after having made this promise, there would not
be the slightest objection to his at once being free to
quit France. He thought that England could not pos-
sibly interfere in this matter by a vote of this House,
demanding the liberation of Don Carlos, without sub-
jecting herself to the chance of engendering a hostile
feeling between this country and France. Such being
his opinion, he should most decidedly vote against the
motion of the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SMYTHE said it was with great regret that he
felt bound to vote against the Right Honourable Baronet
at the head of her Majesty's Government. France was
the nation which fought the fight cf private judg-
ment, and yet by the course which they now sou4ht to
take with respect to Don Carlos, they wanted that
country to inflict pains and penalties upon private judg-
ment. With respect to Christina, he should certainly
say, that there was but little of Spanish nationality
about her, while she was much more closely identified
with French intrigue than with the interests of the Spa-
nish nation. The Carlist party were those in Spain
which most decidedly favoured the English interest in
the country. He knew it were vain to expect a tangible
result from any decision of this House, but he would
appeal to the great man who now held the reins of go-
vernment—(Sir R. Peel, as we could guess from the fact
of the Hon. Member pointing at the Right Hon. Baronet)
—whose name would be handed down to posterity, first,
for his character as a statesman, but above all, as being
an example of every domestic virtue and happiness, not
to allow his fame to be tarnished by lending himself to
anything like the oppression of a fallen man.—(Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said he should not have risen to
speak on this subject were it not for some expressions
which had fallen from the Noble Lord who had made the
motion. Me should not go at any, length into the sub-
ject upon which he had touched, because that had been
already discussed at considerable length in that House.
By the law of Spain, properly and equitably constituted,
Isabella was the lawful Queen of the country. In favour
of that point the nation had pronounced its opinion.
The Noble Lord, in his speech, had impugned the con-
duct of the late Administrati(oi with respect to Spanish
affairs, but he must have never read, or paid but slight
attention to the articles of the Qaadruple Treaty. (The
Noble Lord proceeded to read an extract from the treaty.)
It was. therefore, quite a misapprehension of the fact to
suppose that the Carlists vyere ignorant of the conditions
of the treaty or the intentions of the four Powers. No
one could be ignorant what the intentions of the English
were. The Noble Lord who made this motion admitted
the fulfilment of the treaty, to its utmost extent.—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said that England was
the great mystery by_ which the overthrow of Don
Carlos was effected. He (Lord Palmerston) accepted
the compliment. So far as the limited means of the Bri-
tish Government. had part in that overthrow he ac-
cepted the compliment.—(Cheers.) But the success was
owing to the Spanish nation.—(Cheers.) The exertion
used by the British could not have turned the scale
without the co-operation of the Spanish nation.—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) The Noble Lord had spoken
in terms which he (Lord Palmerston) regretted to hear
of the conduct of an officer engaged in that service. He
said that Lord John Hay was a go-between.—(Hear.)
Certainly the Noble Lord said that he did not use the
words in an offensive sense. It would have been better
then that he had used the word mediator, which was a
good English word.—(Cheers.) Lord John Hay acted
as b:carne an English officer trusted with an important
service, and he performed his duty with great activity
and success, It should be recollected that in the Basque
provinces, by his mediation, an end was put to a civil war
ofn unparalleled
. His of anycatrocity,t,o i civil greater than stained the
a war in Europe.—(Hear,
h
cfar from being a stain on
eanra c conduct,
duothers v
his own reputation, was an honour to his country, and
above all things creditable to that part of the service of
which ho was a member.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord complained when I)on Carlos was expelled from
Spain, Government gave orders that he should not be
received on board a British ship. He (Lord Palmerston)
would have been ashamed of himself if that order had
not been given.—(Hear, hear.) When Don Carlos had
been rescued by British offieers in Portugal from the
fate which awaited him, and was conveyed in a British
ship to the hospitable shores of Britain, and when he
had rewarded that kindness with the brutal decree of
Durango, and put British subjects to death in cold
blood, he (Lord Palmerston) should feel ashamed of
himself to be responsible for receiving him.—
(Cheers.) He should be ashamed of himself if
he had not performed his duty to those brave
British subjects who had engaged in that service with
the express consent of their Sovereign, and—he would
not shrink from saying—with the direct encouragement
of the Government.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
(Lord J. Manners) also said that the British Govern-
ment interfered afterwards to prevent the French Go-
vernment from setting him at liberty. No doubt the
British Government did communicate with the French
Government on the subject, and did intimate that it
would not be consistent with the peace of Spain to allow
him to return, and renew the civil war in that country.
But there was no intention whatever on the part
of that Government to set him at liberty. In the
whole course of the proceedings upon the treaty
and in its origin, the French Government acted only
for French interests.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it
would be most unbecoming of the British Government
to say to the French Government that it was necessary
to the honour of Britain that France should do some-
thing within her own territory.—(Hear, hear.) Such a
course would be most undignified—{Hear)—and France
might very well say to us, " Keep your honour to your-
selves, we have our own laws."—(Hear, hear.) Or, did
the Noble Lord (J. Manners) recommend that we should
go to war upon a subject in which we had no interest ?
—(Hear.) He (Lord Palmerston) looked only to the
consideration of what was due to a person of royal
birth, who had been brought up in expectations
which the course of events had disappointed ; and he
believed that the French Government treated Don
Carlos with every indulgence and consideration
consistent with the object of promoting his re-
turn. Ho believed that if Don Carlos were to
give his word of honour that he would not go into
Spain, he would be permitted to go to any part of
Europe he thought proper ; and ho also was satisfied
that if he pledged his word, he would keep faith.—
(Tory cheers.) But, so far from giving that assurance,
he would not surrender what he considered to be the
claims of his son ; and any person of common sense
must see, that if he were to return to Spain, already,
torn by domestic troubles, he would plunge that unfor-
tunate country aen'n into all the horrors of civil war.—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord opposite thought that
this Government ought to take part with some one party
or other in Spain.' But he differed from the Noble
Lord, and thought that the duty of this
Government was to take part only with
the people of Spain.—(Cheers.) The interest
independent,
strong, England was, that Spain should be
strong, and prosperous—(Hear, hear)—antl that was a
Spanish, more than it was an English object.—(Hear,
hear.) Whatever party in Spain sought for, and was
capable of attaining that object—ought to have the sup-
port of the British Government. But as to joining any
party because we could get from it a more favourable
commercial treaty than from another, that was a con-

sideration which ought not to sway any English Go-
vernment.—(Cheers.) The only object of his policy had
been the interest of the Spanish nation; and that was a
policy which no English Minister need be ashamed to
act upon, and if acted upon it was sure to be successful
in the end.—(Cheers.)

Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE was glad to hear the
last words of the Noble Lord ; but he thought it rather
inconsistent with that statement that the Noble Lord
persevered in the course which he had followed, after he
had received from Lord John Hay the assurance that
parties were so equally divided that it was very doubtful
in what way or when the contest would terminate. He
was also glad to hear the Noble Lord acknowledge that
if Don Carlos gave his word of honour he would observe
it. But what obligation was Don Carlos under to the
Government or people of France ? The circumstances
of Don Carlos were poor indeed, and little had he to
thank any one for. He had an income 15,000 f., or less
than 7001. a year, and this he derived from his own
family resources. His dwelling, consisting of a suite of
only three or four rooms, was all that France provided
for him. He (Mr. Cochrane) said it was all very well
to state these facts, and to elicit year after year a speech
upon them from a leading Member of the Government,
but what was the result? There was no result. There
was no alteration in Don Carlos' situation—no ame-
lioration—no relief ; and the feeling in his mind was
that the Right Hon. Baronet was cognisant of, if not
a party to, his present unhappy condition.
Sir PEEL was understood to say the whole world was
cognisant of it, but England was no party to it.
Mr. B. COCHRANE—The feeling was certainly
strong in the mind of Don Carlos that the manner in
which he was treated and provided for was not merely
known to the English Government but quietly sanctioned
by it. The whole policy of France in respect to Spain
was such as could not be justified. It was always de•
signing and aggressive. No movement took place in
Spain but what, sooner or later, France was at the bot-
tom of it. Under the Monarchy, under the Consulate,
and under the Empire, France had only one object, and
that was to make Spain her province. And Louis Phi-
lippe had other objects in his policy than those which
were dictated by mere personal motives. Placed on a
throne by such means as he had been, he was driven to
overthrow dynasties, and to look with favour upon
treason. It was a sad thing to look round Europe at the
present moment, and to see how few were the suppor-
ters of monarchy—how few the advocates and examples
of ancient loyalty and faith. He would say
it plainly in that House, that loyalty, faith,
and honour, were not by any means as con-
spicuous now as they used to be in earlier and
better times. It was the interest of Louis Philippe to
encourage these doctrines of violated faith and honour ;
but was it the interest of England to follow so worthless
an example? In the olden time they would have scorned
advantages gained by and for a democracy, at the ex-
pense of monarchical dishonour. In vain did he now
look for that public morality that used to be the cherished
treasure of this and other monarchical countries. In
conclusion, he would beg to say that, in his opinion, it
was a wiser principle to conceal from countries that
thrones were founded on revolutions, than to make a
boast of such unhappy events, for the knowledge of them
only caused bolder men to rise up and tell to the world
that their idea of sovereigns and sovereignties was such
only as themselves approved and chose for the time to
uphold.—(Hear.)
Sir C. NAPIER regretted that he was not in the
House when the Noble Lord had brought forward his
motion. If the Noble Lord knew all about Don Carlos
that he (Sir C. Napier) did, he was sure he would be
the last man who would wish that he should get out of
prison, or rather out of comfortable lodgings.—(A
laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman who spoke last had said
that Don Carlos had never broken his word ; that might
be true enough, because he had never been called upon
to give it.—(Hear, hear.) Now what was the course
that had been pursued by Don Carlos ? The Hon. and
Gallant Member then proceeded, at some length, to de-
tail the course pursued by Don Carlos from the time of
the acknowledgement by the Cortes of the present
Queen,of Spain to his imprisonment, and stated that
he did not mean to say that Don Carlos had broken his
word, but he had bamboozled the Ministers of this
country. Don Carlos was brought to this country with-
out pledging himself to anything, and what was the re-
sult ? Why in less than a week he was across the
Channel, and in less than a fortnight he was in the Bas-
que provinces.—(Hear.) This caused the greatest
bloodshed, and the Noble Lord wanted these scenes to
take place over again. Was Don Carlos' the popular
monarchy of Spain or not?—he wanted to know that.
—(Hear.) Could any one assert that he was ? Don
Carlos was doubtless a favourite in the Basque provinces,
and from thence he sent out one of his officers, who,
after plundering the country, was ill received by his
master.—(Hear.) Something had been said about Lord
John Hay. That Noble Lord had shown himself not
only an excellent officer, but an excellent diplomatist.
He had performed his duty to the satisfaction of every
Government under which he had been employed.—
(Hear.) It was astonishing to him that that Noble Lord
had remained so long without receiving any reward for
his services from the Government.—(Hear, hear.)
Bilboa would never have been relieved but for Lord John
Hay. The Hon. Member for Bridport had said that
Don Carlos had never forfeited his word, he thought he
could recollect an instance where he had done so to
the Spanish Ambassador. The I-lon. Gentleman who
spoke last had said that Don Carlos was living in France
on 1,500 francs a year. Well, supposing he was so,
could any man who committed the atrocities he had
done under the Durango decree expect anything ?
(Hear, hear.) He thought it would be a disgrace to any
country to allow him anything.—(Hear, hear.) Hav-
ing stated thus much, he felt bound to vote against the
motion of the Noble Lord.

Mr. BORTH WICK supported the motien of the No-
ble Lord. This was not a question merely with respect
to Don Carlos, but it involved questions that were inte-
resting not only to them but their children and
their -children's children to all time.—(Hear, hear.)
At the time the civil war raged in Spain, the army of
Don Carlos was in a deplorable condition ; he had not
as many pounds as he had men for whom to provide ;
he had no horses at all. Such was the state of the army
of Don Carlos in 1835. Yet the Noble Lord, the Mem-
ber for Tiverton, said the English troops were not an
adequate force to assist towards the conquest of Spa in.
But was not the moral force of England some-
thing ? It was the moral force of England that
was the most influential in deciding the con-
test. In 1838 he (Mr. Borthwick) drew the
attention of the House to the state of Spain ; he then
stated that if Carlos and his Generals were prisoners
in Spain, the country would be as far from being tran-
quil as ever. It was not a question to be decided by
him or by his Generals. The whole transactions of that
war exhibited a mass of treason unparalleled in the pages
of history. He would challenge any one to show a case
of treason so base as that of the Convention of Algarve.
With respect to the conduct of Don Carlos, he contended
that the decree of Durango was a decree of mercy.—(Oh,
oh.) It was but little understood, but he con-
tended that it was a decree of mercy to General
Evans and the unfortunate men who were deluded by
the hollow pretences of the Government of that day
into this unhappy struggle. That decree was an an.
nouncement, on the part of Don Carlos, of what was
the law of Spain (and is the law of England) long
before Don Carlos was born. If at the time the Orange
Lodges were existing in Ireland, there had been a civil
war, and supposing the insurgents had landed a
foreign army on any part of the coast of Eng-
land or Wales, would any quarter have been
shown to those troops ? Would it not have been the
duty of Englishmen to hang the invading force
on the first tree they could find ? That was the law of
Spain, and is the law of England. The Legion was not
au English force, fighting under English colours, wear-
ing English uniform, and commanded by English officers.
It was a foreign force, obtained by a suspension of the
Foreign Enlistment Act, fighting for Spanish pay
(which, by-the-by, they never got) for purposes entirely
alien. The Durango decree apprised them that they
were mere robbers, liable by the laws of the country to
be put to death without the rights of war. Yet he did
not know any instances in which that decree was acted
on by Don Carlos ; many of those taken under it were
treated as prisoners of war. He did not justify the
cruelty of the reprisals on both sides ; but no act of
gratuitous cruelty had ever been proved against Zumala-
carreguy. Allowance ought to be made for the
Spanish. character. Among the Spaniards, life
was not so much regarded as among Englishmen.
Could any man in that House blame Cabrera for acting
as he had done ? He was a student of law, and had no
idea of entering the army; but being called on, in the
University, to debate on the rival claims of Isabella and
Don Carlos to the throne of Spain, he supported the
claim of the latter, and joined his standard when he
arrived in Spain. During the progress of the war his
mother was taken. She was placed in the middle of a
battalion, and shot, by the orders, he believed,
of Nogueras, and with the sanction of General Mina.
It was to the honour of Cabrera that he signed
the Eliot Convention. They had heard a great
deal of the pacification of Spain. Where was 1)on
Diego Leon, that brave officer who had been shot
for supporting the cause which Espartero had deserted?
The papers furnished them with the details of the atro •
cities which were committed recently in Spain. Seven
officers had been shot on one side because they were
prisoners of war, and Bonet commenced reprisals on the
other, by orderingfourteen prisoners to be shot, amongst
whom was Cerate, the uncle of General Roncali. Spain was
for all useful purposes blotted out from the map of Europe,
Was this owing to anything in the Spanish character
which rendered them different from the people of other
nations ? No; but because what were called free insti-
tutions were forced upon the people of Spain, which
they did not understand, and because they tried to force
a monarch upon the throne who was not acceptable to
the great body of the people of Spain. Don Carlos was
the legitimate monarch of the country, and no law of the
Cortes could be produced legitimatising the right of
Isabella, except some law passed by the Cortes
under Isabella herself. There were now three exiles
from Spain, Don Carlos, Queen Christina, and Espar-
tero. It had been said that Espartero was the de jure
Regent of Spain according to the defaeto Constitution
of the country, and that he ought to be received in this
country with every hospitality. He was accordingly
feted at Windsor; while Don Carlos, who was Esparter6o's
sovereign, who was the de jure King by the de jure Con•
stitution, was an exile in France. What were they going
to do with the other exile Queen Christina? She was
an agitator who threw the Hon. and Learned Member
into the shale, and it was through her intrigues
that those lamentable results, which they must all de-
plore, were brought about. Well, but it had been said
that Spain must have liberal institutions, when the fact
was that Spain had shown us the way to liberal institu-
tions. They might talk of the Inquisition. Spain
might refer them back to the Star Chamber ; and, at
all events, the Inquisition was no reason why the people of
Spain should not be governed by their own laws.
Guipuscoa, Navarre, and Biscay had their separatelegis-
latures. The mode of election was by universal suffrage,

'yet those legislators elected by the people taxed the
property of the people to the amount of fifty per cent.
in order to support Don Carlos. Would they have done
so if Don Carlos was not the object of their choice?
He should certainly give his support to the motion of
the Noble Lord the Member for Newark. If Don Carlos
were restored to Spain, he had no doubt that a large and
powerful party would rally round him, and support his
claims ; and he was equally certain that that large party,
instead of introducing additional cruelties into the
present civil war in Spain, would be a powerful
instrument in putting an end to them.--(Hear.)
The parties who supported the present motion
were taunted with introducing the subject, in the hope
that they might be able to effect the restoration of Don
Carlos, so as to afford him an opportunity of getting
something in the general scramble. Not only the in-
terests of Don Carlos and of Spain, but also the interests
of Europe, depended on the adoption in the affairs of
that country of the spirit of the present motion. He
hoped they would allow Spain to work out her own re-
demption, and in that hope he would give his vote in
favour of the motion.

Sir H. DOUGLAS said, however much he admired
the feeling which prompted the Noble Lord to bring
forward this motion, he could not think of giving his
vote in favour of it, as he did not wish to support any
measure which would interfere with any line of
policy which the Government thought proper
to adopt in reference to a foreign country.
Whatever might be the claims of Don Carlos, it was
quite certain that his detention in France, which his
partisans considered unjustifiable, greatly increased the
sympathy which was felt for him. He (Sir H. Dou-
glas) deprecated foreign interference in the management
of the affairs of Spain. The question of the Spanish
monarchy was a question which Spain ought to have
been left to settle for herself ; it was, in truth, settled
by British intervention. He believed, however, that
notwithstanding all that had taken place, it would yet
be settled by Spain.—(Hear, hear.) When the war of
succession was about to begin, they ought not to
have recognised either party; Spain should have been
left to fight his own battles. The anarchy of Spain was
one of those sad inheritances which had descended to
this Government as the result of the miscbievous inter-
ferences of those who preceded them. The cause of
Espartero's fall was, that the great body of the Spanish
people were inclined to a moderate monarchy. Many
of his young friends who had been in Spain before that
event took place, had spoken of it to him (Sir Howard
Douglas) as matter of rejoicing, but the result proved
that they did so without sufficient cause. Espartero
had already disappeared; Narvaez would disappear be-
fore long. With regard to the former, he must say, that
he had never known more dastardly conduct than he ex-
hibited in the whole course of his retreat from Albacete.
Notwithstanding his views, however, in reference to
this subject, as he had no wish to place the Government
in an unpleasant position, he should not support the
motion.—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. TRELAWNEY said the party now denominated
" Young England," had shown a great deal of misplaced
sympathy for Don Carlos; they had shown farmore sym-
pathy for him than for the gr►evances either of England
or of Ireland.--(Hear, hear.) He had understood that
the Hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Borthwick) had
been made prisoner. (Laughter.)
Mr. BO RT HWICK—No.
Mr. TRELAWNEY had certainly understood that
such was the case.

Mr. BORTHWICK wished to explain to the Hon.
Gentleman, that he had visited Don Carlos, but that he
had never been taken prisoner.—(Laughter.) With re-
gard to " Young England," he did not refer to the Hon.
Gentleman when he said that " Young England" was
not the only school of youths—there was another party,
which might be called "Young Bceotia."—(" Oh, oh.")
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES did not think it any
dereliction of the duty which he owed to his prrty to
vote occasionally against the Government.—(A laugh.)
If anything could have seduced him into voting with the
Government on this question it would have been the
speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for Bridport.—
(A laugh.) His Hon. Friend had last year brought for-
ward a motion on the affairs of Greece, and had spoken
of the King of Greece in terms which he (Mr. M. Milnes)
had felt it his duty to reprehend.—(A laugh.) The
speech of the Hon. Member for Bridport had been fol-
lowed up by a revolution—(Loud laughter)—and the
Hon. Gentleman perhaps thought that the indecorous
language which he had used with regard to the King of
the French would also be followed up by a revolution
which would restore the Duke of Bordeaux to the
throne. He had perhaps been induced by the temporary
success of his last speech to use the improper language
which he had used with regard to the distinguished
Sovereign who at present occupied the French throne.
In voting for the present motion he begged it to be un-
derstood that he meant to cast no reflections on the
character of the King of the French. Hon. Gentlemen who
imputed such motives to the King of the French, should
recollect that the accusation against Louis Philippe in
France was, that he had shown himself too favourably
disposed to the cause of Don Carlos, and had not been
faithful to the Quadruple Treaty. He considered that
the liberation of Don Carlos would, if anything could,
tend to reduce the present anarchical state of Spain into
something like order. It would tend to the pacification.
of Spain by increasing the probability of a marriage be-
tween the Prince of Asturias and the present Queen of
Spain, the event of all others the most likely to pro-
mote the settlement of the affairs of that country. Ile
should vote for the motion of his Noble Friend.

Mr. MONTAGUE GORE rejoiced that this motion
had been submitted to the House, although, after what
had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head
of the Government, he should feel it his duty, should the
motion be pressed to a division, to vote against it. There
was one great advantage resulting from the publication
of the debates in that House. The discussions were
known in every Court in Europe, and exercised an in-
fluence over them.—(Cheers.) He thought it would be
better, that instead of indulging in recrimination
both parties should endeavour to make Spain
a united and a consolidated Government, so as
to enable her to occupy again her proper
situation among European States.—(Cheers.) There
was one circumstance relating to Don Carlos which
must always raise him in the estimation of all honourable
men. At the time that the Spanish royal family had
been made prisoners by Napoleon, the Infant had been
offered the throne of Etruria in exchange for that of
Spain—Ferdinand had expressed his acquiesence, but
Carlos firmly refused to accept the offer of Napoleon.—
(Cheers.) The manner in which he had discountenanced
his own partisans was worthy of the highest admiration,
and it was impossible not to admire the spirited manner
in which he had thrown himself upon the hardy moun-
taineers, and joined thorn in their attempts to defend
what he considered their rights and his own. These
things reflected lustre on his character, and he was en-
titled to the sympathy of Englishmen in his misfortunes.
—(Cheers.) Mr. Canning had refused to interfere in
Spanish affairs, in order to be in a better condition Ito
act as mediator; and he thought that it would be well
that Mr. Canning's policy in that respect should be imi-
tated. He trusted the motion would not be pressed to a
division, after the explanation that had been given by
the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern-
ment.

Lord JOHN MANNERS, in reply, contended that
all the events in Spain had been occasioned by fo-
reign interference, without which the Carlists would
never have been put down. Had he consulted his own
feelings, he should have pressed his motion to a division,
but in deference to the wishes of his friends, he would
withdraw his motion. He thanked the House for their
attention, and he would conclude by expressing his
earnest hope that ere long tardy justice would be done
to Don Carlos.—(Loud cries of " Divide," from the Op-
position benches.) _ _

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no divi.
sion took place. The motion was negatived without a
division.

TOLLS ON LIME,
Col. WOOD postponed his Bill to exempt lime from
the payment of tolls to this day fortnight.
On the motion of Mr. R. SCOTT, a return was or-
dered of the table of fees and allowances to the clerks
to justices, and to constables, as settled by the justices
in sessions, in the different counties in England and
Wales. On the motion of the same Hon. Member, a
return of all accounts of assignees in Bankruptcy, audited
by the Commissioners for the District Courts of Bir-
mingham, Bristol, and Exeter, since 11th Nov., 1842
was ordered.

PROTESTANT ADDRESS.
Captain BERNAL rose to move for a copy of an
address presented to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland
from the Dublin Protestant Operative Association and
Reformation Society, dated the 14th of October, 1843,
together with the official reply of the Lord-Lieutenant,
" Vice-Regal Lodgo, October 16th, 1843." He (Captain
Bernal) thought it was a very objectionable practice for
a Minister to read letters addressed to himself, as a prac-
tice likely to lead to abuse. It put him (Captain Bernal)
in mind of school-boys who wrote love-letters to them-
selves.

Lord ELIOT thought it highly inexpedient to give im-
portance to such documents as that to which the HOn.
and Gallant Member had referred. The document, too,
had already appeared in all the newspapers, and, there-
fore, to produce it now would only be likely to per-
petuate religious animosities.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, if the production of this
document would be calculated to perpetuate religious
animosities, then it was clear that the Lord-Lieutenant
had received an address calculated to have that effect.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority -51
HORSE-RACING PENALTIES BILL.
On the third reading of this Bill having been pro-
posed,

_
Mr. CHRISTIE said, that several observations had
been introduced into the Bill at the suggestion of his
Hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, which very
much improved it, but still the principle remained the
same, and was highly objectionable. He need not go over
the old ground, but he must say that all the reasons he had
heard urged against the Bill were invalid, and not based
upon strict equity. The statute which enacted penalties
against the proprietors of gaming-houses should like-
wise be amended, if they wished to carry out their prin-
' ciPIPI and Mr. Bond, who was fined in a heavy penalty
for keeping a gaming-house, should be indemnified.
Proceedings had been instituted against certain Dis-
senters in St. George's Folgate, a parish in Norwich,
which was chiefl7 inhabited by Dissenters, at the
suit of the Arches Court, Canterbury, because they re-
fused to vote at a meeting of the parishioners in favour
of church-rates. This was the first attempt made
to use the criminal jurisdiction of the Ecclesi-
astical Court. In this parish a great number
of the inhabitants had some time ago atreed to pay half
of the church-rates, provided those professing the prin-
ciples of the Established Church paid the other half.
This proposition, fair though it was, was contemptuously
declined, and the Dissenters were subjected to eccle-
siastical prosecution.—(Hear.) This was a sill which