Star.
London, England, 1830-04-29 00:00:00

lie matt repeat, that !t cvety point of view the conduct of our 0-
verninent was most unjus'i :aule. We had given friendship where
friendship was not due—we had given to Don Miguel every thing
shell of avowed co-operation • and to Donna Maria we had opposed
every thing, not even entirely excepting actual hostility. He la-
mmed that it thould be left to other nations to be generous and
ju.t, where we had hecn cold and severe.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
ktrg!and. when anti-libnal in her policy, could only be a secondary
pwver, for the s...cret of her str,:ngth and of her ascendancy, was to
be found in her principles of freedom. The favoured scat of Eng-
land was in the front of the enlightened States of Europe, and this
seat for years she had proudly occupied, looked up to, and honour, d
by all other nations, who, when establishing liberal institutions,
tioked up invariably to those of England thr a model.—(Great
cheers.)—ile called upon the house to give effect to these resolu-
tions, which related to a transaction that, more titan any other, had
untied to throw England from this proud pre-eminence.—(Great
che,ring.)--The right hon. gentleman then moved resolutions to the
41 fr:ct--

The questieni,being'put,
Lord F. L. GOWER feared he be accused of presump-
tion Mt rising at so early a period of Ow debate to intrude upon the
attention of the house. He hoped, however, that some excuse
would be formed for his conduct in the fact that he rarely rose ex-
cept when especially called upon ,y his swim to do so ; and that
a still stronger excuse would present itself, in the consideration that
he must feel anxious to endeavour to vindicate the conduct of the

government with which lie was connected from the char e+ made
against it, although they referred solely to its foreign policy. His
right honourable friend had drawn some nice distinctions between
stipulated and voluntary neutrality; but looking at the papers lie
must say ho could nut see what advantage was to be derived from
any such distinctions He should not therefore enter upon them.
In the narrative of the right hon. gentleman he thought there were
some deficiences. His right hon. friend had spoken of the arrival
of the refugees in this country, hut he had not stated their condi.
lion or the benefits they had received from the good offices of the
government of this country. Some of those benefits had been
abused. The government was called upon, compelled by circum-
stances, to say where the refugees should not go. With respect to
the civil war in Terceira, he thought that some indication of that
fact was to be found in the letter of the Martinis of Barbacena,
who gave as a reason for the refugees going there the apprehen-
sion of an attack. His Right Hon. Friend questioned the state-
ment of one naval officer of Terceira, but lie (Lard F. b. (lower)
taking a different view, could not accord with the resolution
founded upon the assumption of his Hight Honourable Friend.
Great stress had been laid upon the argument that the expedition of
the refugees was not of a hostile character, but in his opinion his
Right Hon. Friend had done but little to prove his assertion. Ile still
considered the expedition as an infraction of the ueutrality to which
the refugees had sutiscribed. To prove this it was only necessary to
refer to the three-fold warnings of the Duke of Wellington; and this
being the case he did not see what other course could with propriety
have been pursued by this government other than that which it had
adopted. With respect to toe letter of the Duke of Wellington,
concerning the refugees proceeding as individuals to Terceira, he
regretted, in common with the noble duke, that he should have
used any expression which could be so misinterpreted as that one
had been by his right hon. friend. They were not called upon,
nor had they any right to indulge in sympathies with respect to
particular parties.—(hear, hear.) And he believed that if the par-
ties of the transactions in Portugal had been reversed, they would
have heard but little of the display and eloquence concerning na-
tional law, in which his right lion. friend had so ably indulged.—
(cheers.) He had heard much of the falling off of this cottony in
the estimation of public opinion. He attached but little importance
to the opinion of foreigners respecting the means and power of this
country, and he knew that the opinions cf many at home were
erroneous. He remembered when the Duke of Wellington was
reviled for planting the British standard in Portugal rather than in
Spain ; and he must confess he was little moved at the opinions of
those who were unable in their own country to uphold the institu-
tions they advocated. lie set but little value upon national gratitude,
and he only expected to receive kindness or consideration from Por-
tugal, while it derived benefit from our commercial connections
with it. He contended that the government of this country had
sitewn many good offices towards the refugees. In sumo... of this
assertion he referred to the correspondence of the Earl of Aber.
deen with the commissioners of the Admiralty. (Mr. C. Grant re.
minded the noble lord that no such document was before the House.)
He thanked his right honourable friend for his interruption. He
felt that he could not do more than allude to that and other docu-
ments of a similar character, merely to show the disposition of the
government towards the refugees. These being his feelings, he
could not concur with the resolutions of his right honourable friend.
lie should have been glad, had the forms of the house permitted
him, to have moved the previous question ; but, as the matter stood,
he must meet the resolutions of his right honourable friend with a
direct nejative. (Hear.)
Dr. PiIILLIMORS contended that this was a case in which the
law of nations had been shamefully and openly violated. After ex-
pounding the principles of the public law, the learned civilian pro-
ceeded to remark upon the correspondence in the possession of the
house upon the affairs of Portugal. He eulogised the letters of Mr.
Canning, and condemned those of the Noble Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs. Ile maintained that the expedition to Terceira
was undertaken and conducted without infringing the law of nations.
It was said it had been secretly prepared, but that he denied. Then it
was said that the vessel took out false clearings, than which nothing
was more common in time of war. But whether the expedition had
been legal or not, we had no right to pursue and search her on the
high seas, and the instructicns given to our cruisers to that effect
was as gross a violation of time public law as ever was contained in
any document, and so it was considered throughout Europe. The
offence wee aggravated by the unfortunate and helpless condition of
those against whom it was directed. With the deep conviction that
the right hon. gent. had made out a, case which was unanswered,
and, as he believed, unanswerable, he should cheerfully Dote in fa-
vour of the motion. _ _ _

Mr. H. BATLEY thought that if the government had suffered
this country to be the point from which one of the contending
powers made war upon the other, while professing neutrality towards
both, it would have been guilty of a direct violation of the law of
nations, as laid down by the best writers. He should therefore op.
pose the motion.
The cries of "Question" were here general, and strangers were
ordered to withdraw, when
Mr. P. COUBTENAY rose, and contended that the Government
of this country had acted in perfect accordance with the duty of a
neutral Power, as laid down by the law of nations. He defied any
honourable member to show a single sentence in the correspondence
of the Government which was opposed to the principles of that law.
Whether the interference took place at Plymouth, or after the cape.
dition had sailed, was, in his opinion, immaterial. Ile was perfectly
willing to allow that what took place at Terceira was an untoward
event—(a laugh)—but he denied that it was attributable to any con.
duet on the part of the Government which called for the censure cf
that house.
After the right honourable gentleman sat down, the calls for the
question were again renewed, and the gallery was cleared for a di.
vision. After a short time, however, strangers were re-admitted,
when we found
Mr. H. TWISS addressing the house upon the question. After
stating the facts connected with the expedition, and maintaining
that they fully justified, and called for the course of conduct pur.
sued by the government, the hon. gentleman expressed his conviction
that the house would not support the motion of his right hon.
friend. Under all the circumstances, the only conclusion to which
he could come was that the government of this country was perfectly
justified in the course they had taken.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he was unwilling, while the hon. and
learned gentleman was on his legs, to interrupt him by rising to
order. He understood from some hon. friends near hint that the
hon. and learned gentleman read his speech, which he believed was
inconsistent with the usagts of the house.
Mr. TWISS said he could assure the noble lord that he did not
read the speech. He certainly had prepared copious notes, to which
lie was obliged to refer more frequently than would have been neces-
sary had he not been called upon so early in the debate, and had he
had more time for preparation. It could not be supposed, front his
professional habits, that he was incapable of uttering an extempora-
neous sentence. But he was not ashamed to confess, that, whenever
he expected to have the honour of addressing the house upon any
important subject, he felt it to be a duty, ewing both to himself and
to such an assembly, to prepare himself with as much diligence as
he could. (Cheers.)
Lord SANDON said he defied any lawyer to stand up and jus-
tify the attack upon the Portuguese in the waters of another power.
What right bad the government, in the correspondence with the
Marquis of Palmella, to make use of the word allowed, Would
they dare to use such language with Russia, or any other great
power ? The language of the correspondence was hardly civil. He
regretted deeply what had occurred; he felt that it was a blot cast
upon the fair fame of England.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that this country had
a right, by the law of nations, to prevent the Portuguese troops
from proceeding into the waters of another power. That they were
recognised as troops was rendered evident by all the circumstances.
The government of England was imperiously called upon to act as
they had done. It was not a question to be decided by feeling, but
by reason and principle. The simple question was if circumstances
justified them, on the 12th Dec. in preventing these troops from
reaching Terceira. He could not say, and he wished it was in his
power to believe that the conduct of the Marquis of Palmella was as
open and sincere in the transaction as that of the noble duke (of
Wellington.) He contended that due notice having been given to
the Marquis of Palmeila that there was a force to prevent the land.
ing at Terceira, he was to blame for all the consequences. If these
troops had been permitted to land, would this country stand as it
did new in the eyes of Europe ? The hon. and learned gentleman