Star.
London, England, 1824-02-18 00:00:00

fitter subject for the eulogy Obis swarthy associate."—
Ht alluded to the subject oar for the purpose.afshew-
fad thatihe circumstances of the,t*o cases were in a
gnat degree ; and. CM griming that they *ere
opt, was Sir William A'Court, ?r- the Government
fs country, to constitute theamelves judges of the,coa..
duct which the Spanish Cortes were then bound to putt
sue ? Suppose, in 1810, at the period when the Xi-
gency Bill passed, the Spanish Minister had thongbal
proper to remove himself fiom London, alleging as a
reason that the Legislature of this country were not jos-
titled in passing such. an Act—if he had acted on
vhis
own responsibility, should we not have deemed him hi*
sane? and had he pleaded the instructions of his Go-,
vernment, would they not have excited general indig-
nation and contempt, and have afforded a just ground
of war ? The Cortes had not, however, gone as far as
our. Government, for they had only declared their King
incapacitated for a short time, and had professed their
intention to restore him to his powers as soon as the
temporary object had been attained. Sir Wm. A'Court,
however, did not choose to give them the benefit of his
presence ; he withdrew himself from the Cortes, and
thus gave to their opponents a considerable advantage.
Shortly afterwards came forth the three famous Notes
of the three Allied Powers, whom England followed at
a humble distance; for although she did not join them
in the open avowal of her hostility to the Constitutional
cause of Spain, she afforded by her actions, and that.of
her Miaister, the most unequivocal proofs of the side she
was willing to espouse. And yet he could hardly suppose
Ministers base enough to send out instructions to Sir W.
A'Court to throw obstacles in the way of one of the
parties, when they had so openly professed their neu-
trality before: But here he had to contend with a di-
lettiniti% for either Sir. W.A.Court must have acted on his
owteiesponsibility or upon histructions from hone.—
If :Sir William A'Cotirt had not received...so instruc-
tions, why had not the Ministers recalled him ? a step
which he-(Lord Nugent) contended they ought to have
adopted, if they witted to save themselves from the re-
proach of acting with the greatest, the most consum-
mate duplicity and badfaids.. He woOld not, however,
enter further into the conduct of Sir William-A'Court.
That conduct would"), best explained by the produc-
tion of his instructions; and anything which he (Lord
Nugent) might say upon the subject would rest upon
his bare assertion, which, however, the -House might
be inclined to give credit to it, was not to be brought for-
ward in support of so grave a charge, unless supported
by documents. There was one observation, however,
which it just occurred to him he might make, as illus-
trative of Sir William A'Court's conduct. It was a
curious fact, that during the whole course, of the Spanish
struggle, whatever might have been the ptofessions of
that Minister, his actions were invariably hostile to the
Constitutional cause. He seas always to be found in
such a situation as injured the Spaniards.' He suffered
the time betsi,een the removal of the Court and the
blockade of Cadiz to slip away without making one
energetic remonstrance; and during all this period.where
was he to be found ? why at Seville, in the midst of the
army of the Faith, and surrounded by the Priests and
the French, in a situation where he must have known that
his very presence afforded countenance and protection
to the invading army. What could shew ibis morethan
theoffer made to him to become Governi.a. of Seville?
This offer, to be sure, he had declinedi and added, that
if made again he would quit Seville. But why, he
(Lord Nugent) would ask, did he not quit Seville? Why
did lie continue there one hour longer among the Ptiests
and themob after to degrading
.a proposition had been
made to him, the representative of a Government who
had previously declared their neutrality ? Must he not
have knowu that by taking up his_ residence there he
-was affording aid and protection to the enemies of the
Constitution; and that at a moment when the Ministers
of this country were professing their friendship towards
it ? Whit rims the immediate effect of Sir W. A'Court's
conduct? The hint which he so sagaciously threw out
Was taken, and Nlorillo deserted, stating in his public
Manifesto that his reasons for so doing were founded
upon Sir William A'Court's conduct; quoting the con-
duct of a Minister of England as an excuse for his
treason to his own country I—(lfear, hear, hear).—
There was one part of the conduct of Sir William
A'Court to which he could not refuse his approbation,
at least he was sure that iii'vvhat he did he was actuated
by motives of generosity and pi ivate friendship, and so
far he thought his conduct deserved praise. Ile alluded
to the advice which Sir William A'Couit gave to Ge-
neral Alava, to withdraw so a place of sat( ty after the
defection of Ballasteros. Of that Officer (General
Alava) it was impossible to speak but itt terms of the
highest praise ; and in stating what he had done, lie
(Lord Nugent) felt it necessary to remark, that he had
not received his information from General Alava, as
the fact was one of general notoriety. General Alava
had never been very intimately connected with the Con-
stitutional leaders, nqy was he believed very firmly at-
tached to the abstract principles of the Spanish Consti-
tution. But he felt nobly and honestly ; and the mo-
ment that his country was threatened by a foreign
power, lie consideied her institutions as his own. He
nobly withstood all solicitations to save his own valu-
ble life out of the wreck of his wretched country—and
who niade.this proposition to him ? Why, Sir William
A'Court, whom he (Lord Nugent) was bound to be-
lieve had done so from motives of generous and pure
attachment to General Alava, to whom he was induced
to make the communication, in consequence of the
private knowledge which he-poisessed. But in making
this communication, Sir William A'Court must have
forgotten what General Alava did 'not forget* that by.
withdrawing at so critical a period, he would have pre-
cipitated his country's fill, and stamped his own'unsul-
lied name with the indelible infamy and disgrace which
must for ever attach to that of the traitor Morino—
(Hear, hear). He was again willing to give Sir WilliaM
A'Court every credit for this act of generosity. He
could only have been actuated by a wish to save from
destruction a man respected by all parties, a man whose
name had never been tarnished by a single dishonour-
able or equivocal act, who was the admiration of his own
country, who was identified with British achievements,
by the part which he had borne in the Peninsular war.
kßut giving Sir W. A'Court every credit for his private
feelings upon this occasion, did he, he would ask, con-
sult the true interests of Spain upon this occasion ?
Ought he, with alibis knowledge of the circumstances
of the two parties; ought he who kept so studiously
aloof from the Constitutional party, who was even .at
Gibraltar the non-conducting medium of the sympathies
of England toward them—ought he to have run the
risk of striking the last blow at the liberties of Spain,
by advising such a man, and at sucha crisis, to with-
draw himself altogether from her cause? He was sorry.
to occupy the attention of the House so long; but there
were one or two circumstances to which he still thought