The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-02 00:00:00

and this country, from the year 1826 to the present
time. Sir, it is well known that in the year 1825,
a Treaty of Reconciliation between Portugal and
Brazil, founded on the principle of a peaceful sepa-
ration of the two brarichea,of the. Empire was nego.
ciated under thn'Attspices of Austria and France. That
Treaty iras concluded in August, 1825. At that
hegociation, Sir Charles Stuart, of whose distin-
guished abilities and eminent character it is quite
unnecessary for me to speak, acted as the Minister
Plenipotentiary of King John the Sixth. This is a
circutnetence well Worthy the attetiOtits f the
Howe. So Close ttA ihe'l.:teiiti6n with England
with thiS freaky of separation, that Sir Charles
Stuart Was selected by King John as his Plenipo-
tentiary on this important occasion. In the March
following the conclusion of the treaty, King john the
Sixth died. By his will he appointed his daughter the
Infanta Regent of Portugal, until Den Mituel should
arrive at Lisbon from I,7iSftia. Don Miguel then
barred the rights he afterwards usurps, by the most
soltaits oaths, and by promises of a nature not inferior
to oaths with men of conscience. He has by the
most sacred of oaths acknowledged before the
Powers of Europe the rights pf Don Pedro and of
the Regency of Donna Malin; during the minority of
the Infanta whom he has acknowledged as the lawful
Queen of liertugal. It is impossible for the Govern-
ment of England to undo what it has done, and re-
lesse itself from the reCognikicn, which, by its con-
duct, it has given to the arrangements of Don Pedro.
After the death of Dan John, his son Don Pedro pro-
eeiled to draw up the Treaty of Separation between
the two'states of Brazil and Portugal, and his situation
was, I must confess, of a very peculiar nature. As
far as I am acquainted with the subject, there is no
instance in histiry exactly analogous to this. How-
ever, Don Pedro proceeded to execute his Treaty
of Separation between the States of the Brazils anal
the ancient Kingdom of Portugal. By that Treaty
he has renounced all rights and pretensions as per-
manent King of Portugal. On the other hand,
however, Don Pedro had authority over Portugal
for the purposes of patting the Treaty in execution.
If this be denied-=if he had no such authority, I ask
who had? How was the Treaty to be executed ?
Of necessity, therefore, although after the Treaty
he was not King of Portugal for any permanent
purposes—although he was not King of Portugal in
the sense of a lasting Sovereign—he was King of
Portugal for the time necessary to perform the duty
imposed upon him by that Treaty. A reasonable
time must have been allowed to him for that pur-
pase. It is impossible to fix any precise limits to that
time, for the period must of necessity have varied
according to circumstances; but whatever powers
were requisite to put that Treaty into full effect,
with these powers Don Pedro was fully and per-
fectly invested. I hope I have made myself thoroughly
understood by the House, and that it is not neces-
sary for me to state any thing further on this point.
This being the case, I proceed to state that Doll
Pedro then introduced other measures to accom
plish his object of the safe and pacific separation of
the two countries. His natural desire was, not only
to separate them, but so to separate them that he
might preserve the existing relations between the
two branches of the house of firaganza. It was his
duty as well as his interest to do this, and this
country cannot object to the prudential course he
pursued in order to effect this object. When, there-
fore, he abdicated the crown of Portugal, he thought
that the marriage of Don Miguel with his daughter,
Denim Maria da Gloria, was a species of alliance
between the two houses which offered the best hope
of at once securing the connection of the family and
of preerving the tranquillity of both countries in the
moment of separation. This is a measure most
painful, and in every respect distressing, to the feel-
ings of an affectionate father; but Don Pedro was
unhappily placed in that situation in which personal
feelings were to be sacrificed to the public good. This
measure was the introduction of the Constitution,
without which the rest. would have been vain. It was
necessary that there should be a reasonable distri-
bution of power between the two parties, so that
neither the Royalists nor the Constitutionalists
should have the least shadow of advantage over the
other, or the arrangement would in reality have been
no :security at all to any party. Let whatever
may be the opinion of the House as to the fitness
of Portugal for a Constitution, all men must agree
in this great truth—that after a country has been
shakers by civil confusion, every man is entitled to
safety.: The only means of safety in this case was
in a Constitufon, vesting political power in both
parties. This was acknowledged to be the only
means to effectually preclude the possibility of one
party triumphing over or disturbing the other.
These were the means taken in 1826 to effect. the
separation of the two countries with the least possi-
ble chance of evil, and with the greatest prospect
of good. It then occurred that the Constitution of
Portugal was received at Lisbon; but observe by
what hearer it was brought from the Brazils. It
was borne back to Lisbon from Rio de Janeiro, by
Sir Charles Stuart, who bad gone to Rio from the
Portuguese Capital as the Plenipotentiary of Don
John the Sixth. I will not enter into the stories
circulated as to the propriety or impropriety of this
step. I am willing to express myself persuaded
that Sir Charles Stuart acted according to the judg-
ment of an able and honourable man, under the
circumstances in which he was placed. He was not
to lose time in bringing news likely to produce
peace to Portugal. Nor will I enter into the
question whether he acted justly or nor, in so
openly carrying the Constitution. It is much
more easy for men at a distance to make observations
and to cast reflections, than for men in emergencies
to decide. But I call the attention of the House
to the effect produced upon the people of Portugal
by a British Plenipotentiary's bringing the Consti-
tution from Rio de Janeiro. Is it too much for me
to ask whether any man in this House, were he a
Portuguese, would not in such circumstance augur
that the English Government entertained a fa-
vourable disposition towards the Constitution.—
(Hear, hear.)—l call upon any man who differs from
me, to state on what grounds he can believe that
this was not the inevitable interpretation of every
individual of Portugal. If I am riot greatly de.
ceived, the Government of Portugal hesitated with
respect to the introduction of this Constitution.
They were fearful of taking upon themselves the
awful responsibility of conferring the benefit trans-
mitted by the•lawful Sovereign; and they did not
carry the Constitution into effect until they desired
the advice of his Majesty, through his Ministers;
and dispatches were accordingly transmitted, which
led to the .reception of the Constitution. It was
not till after this dispatch was transmitted that the
Constitution-. was promulgated. I must beg to -ask,
was such a transaction capable of being tept secret ?
The changes of Administration were so great
and various in Portugal, that more than one
set of Ministers were officially informed of this.
It was generally known at Lisbon; and there
was not a shadow of doubt that most of the nobi-
lity of Portugal were. encouraged to manifest
their principles by the fact that the Constitu-
tion was befriended by the ancient- and powerful
ally of Portugal. I don't reflect upon the gallant
men who are now scattered over the face of the
earth by the tyrant : they were conscientiously
zealous for the institutions: they supported; but
• they found it a vain undertaking, fraught with blood-
shed and ruin, to support that Constitution without
the concurrence conveyed. by the advice of the ally
of Portugal. Do I blame that advice ? Do I say
that it was any breach of neutrality—any contra-
vention of international law
Far from it. It was
a part of the good offices which nations owe to
friends, and which imply no undue interference in
the affairs of allies. Could stronger encouragement
be imagined than that which was given to those
who embraced the Constitution ? I will call the
attention of the House to the next transaction, and
explain a little what I have heard said upon the
subject. Neutrality requires some definition. Neu-
trality is not an equally good opinion of both par-
ties, nor an equality of good wishes to both. It
does not require a detestable indifference between
right and wrong. It did not oblige us to reject