The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-06-11 00:00:00

gislature were not quickly met by an opposite vote, emanating
from that house, '24 hours would not elapse, after the declaration
made in another place was known, before a Spanish army would
cross the Portuguese frontier. (Hear, hear.) Surely, there-
fore, they ought to stand forward in order to prevent such a ca-
tastrophe—a catastrophe that might be the means of plunging
this country and all Europe into war. The gallant member
concluded by moving, "That an humble address be presented
to his Majesty, expressing the regret of that house at the pro-
tracted hostilities in Portugal, and, at the same time, thanking
his Majesty for the judicious policy which he had pursued with
respect to the affairs of that country. (Hear, hear.)
Viscount MORPITH rose to second the motion which had
been recommended to the house in a speech of so much ability
by his hon. and gallant friend. The last time that the question
of Portuguese affairs had been brought before the house, it had
been sustained so triumphantly in argument, as well as carried
so overwhelmingly in votes, in favour of the conduct of gover-
ment in those affairs, that he was not surprised, putting every
' thing else out of view, that the next motion introduced was a
motion not to arraign, but to avow and confirm their policy.
Indeed, it seemed to him that if any person, either a contem-
porary witness or a future peruser of these transactions, could
question the entire propriety of the resolution before the house,
it would arise from a doubt whether this country had assumed
a moral attitude sufficiently elevated—had exhibited a moral
countenance sufficiently constant to the Sovereign whose rights
she had unequivocally acknowledged—sufficiently constant to
the parties whose hopes she had inevitably encouraged—suffici-
ently constant to the principles which she must approve and
cherish, because they were alike the principles of truth and her
own. (Hear, hear, hear.) He would admit that it would be
both a superfluous and an easy task to heap terms of vitu-
peration upon Don Miguel; but it might be asked, on the other
hand, whether there were not those in whose eyes he might
appear clothed with certain redeeming attributes ? They had
heard much of Don Miguel being the choice of the peo.ple and
the delight of the Portuguese. It had been published in 1831,
that upon a calculation it was found there were in the prisons
and Ini,lks of Portugal, or transported as convicts, 27,000 indi-
viduals, of those emigrating to avoid his vengeance there were
no less than 13,000; and in hiding places in Portugal there
were between 4000 and 5000. Thus it appeared that out of a po-
pulation not exceeding 2,600,000,there were not less than 45,000
victims of political resentment, whom, no doubt, these partisans
of Don Miguel would, perhaps, include amongst those who, as
they alleged, testified universal acquiescence in the dominion
of the usurper. In him were centred the hopes of Absolutists,
and the perpetuity of priestcraft. (Hear.)
'His birth, his titles, crowds and courts confess
Chaste matrons praise him, and grave bishops bless."

As for any apprehension which might arise respecting a per•
manent change in the system and principle of government, he
was persuaded, after an emphatic declaration by.that house
upon the particular point at issue, and the full, and precise,
and satisfactory declaration of his noble friend the foreign
Secretary of State, the other night, that no person could take
it into his head to conceive that any serious consequences could
possibly follow from so preposterous and absurd a matter.
Weightier and more serious affairs awaited their deliberation
and decision, and whilst they proceeded to encounter these with
all the care and consideration they demanded, he confidently
trusted that no efforts of party tactics or of ambition would
distract those, who, in the moment of need, would form the
stoutest rampart against revolution, from that march of steady
improvement in which at present reposed the only prospect of
our national safety. (His lordship sat down amidst loud
cheers.)
Sir H. HARDINGE said, he felt it imperative on him to state
his sentiments on this occasion, not only because it was a ques-
tion which was intimately connected with the honour and
interest of the country, but because he had himself worn the
Portuguese uniform, and commanded Portuguese troops.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. and gallant officer who introduced this
motion had given a long list, an ample catalogue of the crimes
which were said to have been committed by Don Miguel.
But it should be recollected that this was a national question,
that it was not a question as to the comparative merits of the
two brothers. The real question wasp whether in this civil con-
test-a strict neutrality had been maintained by the British go-
vernment. (Hear.) In the whole course of what had been said
by the honourable and gallant officer, he had not applied him-
self to that point. He had made no defence of ministers,
but indulged altogether in a series of recriminations. He
did not rise to defend the character of Don Miguel. It was
not perhaps worth so much notice, but when they spoke vitu-
peratively of that individual, he perhaps might incidentally be
allowed to ask what was the character of Don Pedro ? (Hear,
hear.) There was not, he believed, a single man of common'
sense or of common reason in that house who did not feel that
if Don Pedro were successful, he, and not Donna Maria, would
be the sovereign of Portugal. (Hear, hear.) He was perfectly
convinced that any vote of that house, or that any
.step which
might be taken to assist Don Pedro, and by so doing to fur-
ther the purposes of France, would in the end recoil upon this
country. The gallant officer then entered into a very brief re-
view of the conduct of Don Pedro from the commencement of
the present contest, and argued that his career had been begun
for the purposes of ambition, and was continued for the pur-
poses of pillage. (Hear, hear.) The most unwarrantable
means had been adopted for strengthening the army of Don
Pedro. In one instance a German, who had proceeded to Por-
tugal for commercial purposes, was absolutely impressed, and
compelled to join the army. An individual who had joined
Don Pedro from this country was punished with 500 lashes, be-
cause he dared to complain of ill-treatment. And he could
add, that the conduct observed towards the Irish regiment in
Don Pedro's service was not a whit better than that which was
experienced by other portions of the troops enlisted in his ser-
vice. He repeated, we had nothing to do with the relative
merits of the two parties to the contest. The first question
which we had to resolve was this,—what course was it the duty
of the government of this country to pursue, his Majesty.hav-
ing promised to observe neutrality? The answer was plain,—
government was bound to adhere to its pledge, and not inter-
fere in the struggle. The next question which arose was—had
government maintained that strict neutrality which was neces-
sary to be observed? He could not give them credit forhaving
done so; on the contrary, he argued that during the last two
years interference of a direct nature had occurred. When the
commissioners of the customs detained the three vessels, they
received orders from the government to release them within
48 hours ; but he had seen the opinions of eminent lawyers to
the effect that if the matter had gone to an adjudication the
ships must have been condemned. Was there any evidence of
neutrality in that act of the government ? Did it not rather
prove direct interference on their part, and a disposition to
favour one side in preference to the other? (Hear.) There
was another personal topic to which he wished to advert. It
had been said in another place that a gallant friend of his,
Sir John Campbell,. had made observations upon the govern-
ment unbecoming in a British officer. He knew Sir John
Campbell, and had served with him in the Peninsula. His
gallant friend married a Portuguese lady, and naturally be-
came attached to the people, as all who were acquainted with
them must, for kinder persons did not exist in the world. Un-
der these circumstances, it was possible that Sir J. Campbell,
thinking Portugal to be ill-used by ministers, might have ex-
pressed himself with some acrimony as to their conduct. Mi-
nisters might consider it unbecoming in officers of the army or
navy to express themselves disrespectfully of them ; but if they
were in the habit of frequenting some places to which he some-
times went (cheering and laughter), he was glad of those cheers,
because they afforded him an opportunity to savthat the United
Service Club contained as honourable men as breathed; and if
such individuals were biassed against Government, what was it
but to say that ministers were unpopular with many intelli-
gent and high minded men, who were not afraid to give an in-
dependent expression to their sentiments? (Hear.) If it were
supposed unbecoming the honour of a British officer to speak
disrespectfully of the conduct of ministers, God knew that was
very frequently the case. (Laughter.) He repeated, Sir J.
Campbell might have spoken with acrimony of ministers, but
that his gallant friend had ever expressed himself with disres-
pect of a higher and more sacred person he entirely disbelieved.
In conclusion, he called upon ministers, if they desired to inter-
fere in the affairs of Portugal, to do so in p-baanly and straight-
forward manner, instead of adding insult and mockery to de-
ceit, by pretending to be neutral at a time when they were act-
ing as partisans. He should give his strongest and most
decided negative to the motion.
Mr. ROBINSON argued that the other Mouse of Parliament
had a right to express its opinion on this subject; and having
exercised its undoubted and constitutional privilege,. it was nei-
ther necessary nor expedient to bring forward a motion like the
present, the direct tendency of which was to place the Commons
in collision with the Lords. Unless great temper and modera-
tion were observed in both houses, such a crisis would be un-
avoidable, and the effect must be to embarrass any government
that could be formed. His gallant colleague did not deny the
right of the Lords to form and express an opinion on the sub-
ject of Portugal—why, then, call upon the Commons, in the
midst of public business, to agree to a vote which was meant to
cast a slur upon the other house ? Besides, he objected to the
motion on the ground that it expressed approbation of the judi-
cious course pursued by ministers in the affairs of Portugal in
the absence of any information on the subject. He regretted,
therefore, that he could not agree in his gallant colleague's pro-
position. (" Hear" from the opposition.) He deprecated such
a vote on the ground that it went not only to bring the Com-
mons in collision with the Lords, but because its effect must be
to create a feeling in the minds of peers that there existed in
that House of Parliament a disposition to interfere unneces-
sarily with the privileges of the other. It had been stated that
there was a short road by which to settle the question. Un-
doubtedly there was a short road from the top of a precipice to
the bottom, but it might not be wise to take it. (Hear.) This
motion called upon the house, without having the prop.er Par-
liamentary evidence before it, to declare it as its opinion, that
the conduct of his Majesty's _government towards Portugal had
been wise and judicious. Now, he (Mr. Robinson) was not
prepared to concur in a vote of that kind, and if, before the close
of the debate, no other hon. member should do so, he would
move, as an amendment on the original motion, the previous
question. (Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the honourable gentleman who
had just sat down had no doubt expressed his sincere opinions
upon this subject. In opposing the motion that honourable
member had laid the principal stress of his argument upon the
danger of that house coming into collision with the other house
of Parliament. Before he replied to that part of the honour-
able gentleman's speech, he would just advert to some other
points that had arisen in the course of the present debate. He
would not say that it was not necessary to discuss the character
of Don Miguel, but that character had been so often discussed
before, that it required but little illustration or remark to set
it in its true light before the world. Indeed he did not think
that it was at all necessary to add a word to the condemnation
which had been pronounced, in the other house of Parliament
not very long since, by a noble lord, then Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, upon the conduct of that prince, whom the noble lord
called false, cruel, and cowardly. (Hear, hear.) There could
not possibly be imagined any three qualities more disgraceful—
qualities Which could more degrade a man or a prince than
those which had been then enumerated by the noble lord in
question, as distinguishing the character of Don Miguel.
He now came to the case of the subjects of this country en-
gaging in the service of a foreign power. That, he believed,
was the case as regarded the vessels detained by the commis-
sioners of customs, and to which reference had been made by
the right honourable gentleman. Those vessels were detained
under an order from the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment, who, having been informed that a question had arisen
regarding them, the issue of which was doubtful, ordered them
to be detained until it was determined. They were according-
ly detained by the commissioners of customs, and his Majesty's
ministers referred the case to the law officers of the crown for
their opinion upon it. The King's Advocate and the other law
officers of the crown, to whom the case was referred, gave it as
their opinion that the information in this instance was too
vague to authorize the detention of those vessels. The law-
officers of the crowp having, then, given the opinion he had
mentioned, nothing was left to his Illajesty's ministers but to
tell the commissioners of customs to let the vessels depart.
They were all well awaie that in the more ancient periods of
our history it had not been the policy of this country to prevent
its subjects from engaging in the service of foreign states.
They—all of them who had heard or read the able and eloquent
speech of Sir James Macintosh on the foreign enlistment bill
—were aware that in the times of Elizabeth and of James I.
such a principle as that of preventing the subjects of this
country from engaging in the service of a foreign power had
not only not been acted upon, but refused to be acted upon, even
at the solicitation of Spain and France—that in the reign of
James 1., despite the remonstrances of Gondomar, the Spanish

ambassador, troops levied here were allowed to serve in Flan-
ders against the Spaniards, and that, in fine, to use the words
of his lamented and eloquent friend, " What we had refused to
the greatest of modern military tyrants and despotic sovereigns
—what we had denied to Louis XIV. and to Philip 11. we
were required to give to such a man as Ferdinand VII."
There was no doubt that it was at the instance of the ambassador
of Ferdinand V I L that the foreign enlistment bill had been passed;
but before that time it had not been the policy of this country to pre-
vent its subjects from engaging in the service of a foreign power.
Since the
.passing of the Foreign Enlistment Bill assistance
had been given by subjects of this realm to Greece and South
America. Had the persons who had thus entered the service of
foreign states been punished for a misdemeanour under that
bill? Had not his gallant friend, Sir Robert Wilson, who with
his own hands had pointed the guns at the defence of Corunua
against the French, been subsequently restored to his rank of
lieutenant-general in the British army, notwithstanding the
offence which lie had committed in violating the provisions of
the Foreign Enlistment Bill? He quoted that instance be-
cause it' had occurred during the late administration. Under
the present government a noble lord had been restored to his
rank in the navy, though he also had violated the Foreign
Enlistment Act. When, therefore, persons of such high rank
—generals and admirals—were not punished for doing so, it
would be impossible to punish soldiers, mere privates, for Navin;
entered a foreign service. (Hear.) But whether the sentiments
of the majority of the house coincided with those of one hon.
member or of the other, it was not fair to say that that house,
in carrying up its sentiments to the Throne, could be consi-
dered as at all interfering with the other House of Parliament.
He denied that in doing so they would be seeking to provoke a
collision with the House of Lords. His (Lord J. Russell's)
object in all his former conduct had been to prevent the chance
of such a collision, and if in certain measures lie had confined
himself within certain restrictions,—if he had abstained from
pressing forward opinions which were deep-seated in his breast,
—if he had abstained in that instance from carrying into effect
views and opinions which the more he considered them the
more he was convinced of their being most essential to the hap-
piness, prosperity, and welfare of this country, let the house, let
hon. gentlemen be assured that he did not decline then urging
those views in consequence of any change that had taken Place
in his opinions, or in consequence of any wish to preserve office
or place, but because he saw there was no chance of then carry-
ing them into effect without bringing into collision the two
branches of the legislature—a result which he thought they
should not wantonly bring on, and for the bringing on of which
any men whoever took office in this country would be most
deeply responsible. (Cries of "Hear, hear.")
Captain YORKE denied that the instances to which the noble
lord had referred, of assistance being afforded to Greece in the
time of Mr. Canning, were at all applicable to the present case.
The fact was that the masters of the two ships alluded to, which
sailed from this country in 1825, were afterwards fined by
government for a breach of -the act of Parliament. The neu-
trality which had been spoken and boasted of by the noble lord
opposite had not been maintained; and he could not doubt the
object of the noble lord the member for Devonshire when he
improvidently rose the other night to play the same part which
he had done last year. (" Hear" from the opposition.) The
noble lord had aeain introduced his conception of a collision
between the two branches of the legislature.
Mr. O'CoNNELL supported the motion, and expressed himself
satisfied that the time was come when the British legislature
ought to make a declaration that would cheer the friends of
Don Pedro, and by so doing that there should be an end to such
a monster as Don Miguel, his opponent. (Hear hear.)
Sir R. PEEL began by observing that he could well under-
stand the object of the lion. and learned member for Dublin in
supporting the motion now before the house, and that object
was, that this country should directly interfere with the consti-
tution, and establish itself as a judge over the transactions of
another country, with which it was not to limit itself to disap-
probation of, but to embark regiments to dictate to the domestic
policy of a foreign nation; in short, that this country should
resort to war to dispossess a prince of his dominions. (Hear.)
He (Sir R. Peel) believed the hon. and learned gentleman had
belonged to the school which had ever advocated the non-inter-
ference of this country with the domestic policy of other states
-=-that it should be left to every country to choose its own go-
vernment. (Hear.) He had thought that so powerful a com-
petitor for those principles as the hon. and learned gentleman
would not have been guilty of trying to effect an interference
with the internal affairs of a nation, and to force a ruler upon a
reluctant people, by the bayonet and physical force. Priuciples
had, however, changed, and though tyranny had fled there was
no tyranny under the name of liberalism which the hon. and
learned gentleman did not seem ready to support, even at the
expense of involving this country in a war, provided it was in
the maintenance of his own principles. The hon. member for
Worcester had stated that some public men were ready to re-
cognise Don Miguel, who had been described as a monster,
perjurer—nay, one guilty of all crimes. The same had been
reiterated by the gallant officer; and the noble lord opposite
had laid that sin to his (Sir R. Peel's) side of the house. Did,
however, the noble lord remember, that so far from objecting to
the policy of the government of which he (Sir R. Peel) was a
member, with reference to this question, it had been admitted
on a former occasion by the noble lord that the time had come
when, under certain conditions, Don Miguel ought to be recog-
nised by this government ? With the character of that person-
age he (Sir It. Peel) had on the present occasion nothing to
do, and into the character of Don Pedro he would not now
enter. (Hear.) Both those considerations involved unprofit-
able speculations in the present instance, and he would ask the
house not to be led away by any appeals to their feelings and
passions, but to determine upon the grounds of public policy.
The present question was, whether a prince who was de facto
sovereign of a country with the entire approbation of that na-
tion, could call upon another country to recognise him in his
state ? It was not for that nation to refer to the private charac-
ter of the prince enjoying the approbation of the people over
whom he was called upon to rule. If he was to be charged
with treachery, then openly enter into a war with such a ruler ;
but if the people over whom be reigns by a long course of fide-
lity to his domination establish that he is their choice, any pri-
vate grounds do not justify an interference, or the breach of the
neutrality which, under the law of nations, ought to be main-
tained. (Hear, hear.) On the same grounds that ambassadors
' were refused to Portugal might they be refused to Algiers. It
was sufficient to show that a party was the constituted autho-
rity of a nation to entitle that nation to call upon another coun-
try to enter into and maintain treaties with them. Mr. Fox
had said that Buonaparte was an usurper; so, he (Sir R. Peel)
would respond, was Cromwell, but that did not meet the maxim
in the law of nations, by which powers were actuated. Mr.
Fox on the same occasion also alluded to the allegation that
Buopaparte had broken his oaths, and he said that such a sub-
ject was one upon which the people over whom the. party ruled
was to judge, and it was not for another nation' to inquire into
such a grievance. He (Sir R. Peel) would entreat the house
to apply these principles to the present question, and though
strange the choice of the people of Portugal might be, yet still
if the determination of the whole people, or such portion as
Might be called the whole, was in favour 'of Don Miguel for
their governor, it was at variance with all those principles to
refuse to recognize his authority, or to establish relations with
him. If the house, therefore, would fairly determine the ques-
tion of neutrality, it must wave that of private character. If,
then, it was admitted that the private character of the individual
could not affect the choice of that individual by an independent
people, the question then came—had his Majesty's government
maintained a neutrality in the present instance? True it was,
that all the declarations of the ministers of the crown and the
speech from the throne had announced that neutrality during
the existing contest was to be the rule; but was it, then, con-
sistent with neutrality to permit British officers to direct hostile
expeditions against a power with whom this country was in amity?
The noble lord, the member for Devonshire, had alluded to
the instance of Sir Robert Wilson, but the present inter-
ference was not that of single individuals, but of numbers.
The noble lord had referred to the speech delivered by Sir
James Mackintosh upon a question somewhat similar to the
present; but if he understood the bearing of that speech
aright, its authority would be but of little effect with regard to
the question at issue ; for it appeared to him that Sir James
Mackintosh's main argument was that the Government ought
not to shrink from enforcing the existing law of the state, but
at the same time ought not upon the mere remonstance of
Spain to adopt a new course of legislation. It was, in fact,
an argument against enacting new laws at the dictation of a
foreign power. He would, however, contrast with that speech
the speech delivered on the same occasion by the Judge Advo-
cate (Mr. Robert Grant), who laid it down as an illegal act for
individuals to carry on war after the state to which they be-
longed had declared its neutrality. How then, he would ask,
could those who declared the hostile expedition fitted out for
the service of Don Pedro to be no violation of neutrality re-
concile that opinion with the sentiment advanced by the Judge
Advocate ? 1 hat right hon. gentleman laid down this "irrefuta-
ble position—that when a neutral nation knowingly permitted
the levying of troops for the service of oue of two belligerents
in a foreign country, by which levying the fortune of the war
there carried on was materially influenced, then the neutral
state which permitted such a course of proceeding was depart-
ing from the character of a neutral and assuming that of an
enemy, and an enemy of the worst kind, because not a direct
one. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord had also referred to the
conduct pursued by Mr. Canning with respect to the contest
between the Greeks and the Turks. He had stated that Mr.
Canning forbore to interfere to prevent the enterprises of indi-
viduals during that contest. But what was Mr. Canning's opi-
nion with respect to a state of things, when the subjects of a
state demeaned themselves in a manner different from the line
of policy adopted by the sovereign? When on that occasion
complaint was made, what course did Mr. Canning pursue, and
on what principles did he act ? The proclamation issued by
the King in Council, dated Oct. 4, 1825, would sufficiently.show.
The principles laid down in that proclamation were in the
strictest accordance with the expressed opinions of the Judge
Advocate to which he had before referred. But what was the
conrse of policy now pursued ? His Majesty's government was
declared neutral, and yet the enterprises of individuals calcu-
lated to bring that neutrality in question were winked at and
allowed. He. could not but lament to hear such doctrines
avowed, for could the same principles be applied to France or
the United States ?—or were they only applying them to Por-
tugal, because Portugal was a weak state ? (Hear, hear.)—
Let them suppose the case of an insurrection in La Vendee,
and Charles X. living in the palace of Holyrood, would he have
been permitted to make levies of men in this country, and send
them forth under the command of British commissioned officers
for the purpose of subverting the authority of Louis'Phillippe in
France? Would the government, after complaint made of the
unauthorized nature of the acts, have ordered the release of the
vessels, and refused to hear additional evidence of the illegality
of the transaction when it was offered ? It would be impossible
to act upon such principles. Above all, it could not certainly
be allowed that British commissioned officers should em-
loi their skill and bravery in the service of foreign states,
an the government must surely consent to recall them.—
He now came to consider the propositions submitted to the
house by the gallant member. To the first of those proposi-
tions he could have no possible objection, because it merely
stated the regret of the house at the continuance of hostilities
•in Portugal. But he could not extend the same feeling to the
next, which stated the conviction of the house in the judicious
policy pursued by his Majesty's government with respect to
Portugal. Why ? Because he deprecated the hostilitics,—he
disapproved of the policy. He would go further and say that
he believed those hostilities would never have occurred but for
that policy. The second proposition was a complete non-
sequitur from the first, and one in which he could by no means
agree. He could not help remarking that while his Majesty's
government showed little disposition to observe neutrality them-
selves, they were extremely anxious that other states should
preserve it. He had read a correspondence inserted in the
Augsburg Gazette between the government of this country and
that of Spain, in which the latter was interdicted from interfer-
ing in any-manner in the Portuguese contest. It was laid down
as a principle in that correspondence that the independence of
Portugal would be a phrase without meaning if her sovereign
were to be imposed, not by the declared will of the people, but
by the bayonets of foreigners. Now, he contended, that not-
withstanding the breach of fidelity committed by Don Miguel,
there was proof sufficient of his holding his power by the will of
the people. This, indeed, was the only question to consider—
did the people of Portugal, or did they not, approve of Don
Miguel as their sovereign? What were the facts? The second
city in the country had been for several months in the posses-
sion of Don Pedro. Had any of the constituted authorities,—
had any orders of the state,—liad, in short, any class of the peo-
ple declared yet in his favour? Neither temptation nor oppor-
tunity were wanting for such a display. Don Pedro was, in

fact, supported alone by the aid transmitted to him from Eng-
land and France. (Hear, hear.) What, then, under those cir-
cumstances, would be the consequence of his success? Should
that event occur, then, indeed, it might be said that the inde-
pendence of Portugal had become a mere phrase; for he would
be seated on the throne, not by the consent or support of the
people, but by the bayonets of foreigners. (Hear.) Let the aid
he derived from our forts and arsenals be withdrawn from him,
and he would be immediately compelled to leave the country.
The best feelings, the pride, the honour of the Portuguese,
revolted at the attempt to impose his rule over them by foreign
aid; and, if the attempt proved successful, indignation would,
for ages to come, be universally felt throughout the nation. If
his Majesty's ministers, in their anxiety to secure the peace of
Europe, had thought fit to interfere in the internal affairs of
Greece and of Holland and Belgium, what right had they to
interdict Spain from interfering in those of Portugal, especially
since they had not themselves maintained a like neutrality
How much more right had not Spain so to interfere upon the
principles of intervention avowed by his Majesty's ministers ?
For how much snore dangerous to Spain the continuance of
hostilities in Portugal! Why, he would ask in conclusion, was
not Don Miguel recognized two years ago, when the whole peo-
ple of Portugal were satisfied with his sway? What the vote of
the house might be on the present question he did not know.
For himself, disapproving as he did of the policy pursued by
government with respect to Portugal, deeming it both unjust
to the Portuguese people and dangerous to this country; and
thinking, besides, that the success of the favoured party would
be fraught with still more danger and injustice, he should refuse
to give his assent to the propositions brought forward that night.
(Loud cries of "Hear.")
Lord J. Russm,L, in explanation, said he never denied the
right of the Crown to interfere to prevent the levying of men
for foreign service, but only expressed a doubt of that right
being practicable of enforcement in many instances.
Lord P I,NIKUSTON said that it was singular the hon. mem-
bers who opposed the proposition should object to the coming
to a decision on the question on the ground of a want of in-
formation, since no such tenderness or compunction had been
shown in another place when the selfsame question was dis-
cussed. To come, however, to the subject more immediately
before the house, he believed that it was the fact that the per-
sonal character of Don Miguel was the reason which induced
the late government to order, in the first instance, our ambassa-
dor from Lisbon, and afterwards to abstain from renewing
friendly relations with Portugal. The right hon. baronet had
said that, in 1830, the time had arrived for the renewal of those
relations. But was there not a great difference between the state
of things in that country then and since ? There was then no
civil war, and the authority of Miguel was recognized. But how
did he acquire that authority? In the capacity of lieutenant
to his lawful Sovereign, he illegally assembled the Cortes, and,
in defiance of every principle of honour and good faith, got
himself proclaimed Sovereign. When, after Wards, the civil
war arose, it was in the power of his Majesty's government to
adopt the cause of Donna Maria if they had thought fit, for it
was an admitted principle in the law of nations that when a
civil war arose in consequence of there being two competitors
to a crown, any foreign nation may espouse the cause of either
of the parties it pleased. But they had come very early to a
different decision, not certainly with the view of conciliating
the neutrality of Spain, for long before the expedition sailed
from the Brazils government had upon general principles, and
not to secure a particular object, made up their minds to the
course of policy they had pursued. When shortly afterwards
a Spanish army assembled on the frontiers of Portugal, the
government did say to the Court of Spain, if you interfere in
the contest by carrying arms into Portugal, we will revoke the
decision to which we have come, and take the part of Donna
Maria. It was for the purpose of watching the movements of
Spain that Lord William Russell was subsequently sent out to
Portugal. The greatest difficulty was experienced in enforcing
the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, because it re-
quired proof which it was almost impossible to obtain, except
from the parties themselves against whom the act would operate.
(Hear.) The government had not done anything or omitted
to do anything inconsistent with the character of neutrality
which they had assumed. The principle of the present go-
vernment was non-interference in the affairs of other countries,
and all that they required was, that other nations should them-
selves pursue the same system of abstinence. Much had been
said in depreciation of the adoption of a course which)was
likely to bring about a collision between the two branches of
the legislature. He admitted that it. would be a great misfor-
tune if such an event should occur; but at the same he must
say that the affair had not originated in that house. (Hear,
hear.) It could not fail to be known to the promoters of the
decision which had taken place elsewhere, that it was in oppo-
sition to the general feeling, not only of the House of Com-
mons, but of the country.
Col. EVANS and Sir SAMUEL 'WHALLEY supported the mo-
on, and on a division the numbers were—
For the motion . • • . . 361
Against it . • • . . . 98

Majority in favour of the motion 263
FISHERY LAWS. . .

Mr. H A I.COMB then moved for a select committee to inquire
into the state of the laws regalating the fisheries in the British
Channel. His object was to improve the present distressed
state of the fishing trade, by removing those legal restrictions
which fettered it, and favoured the foreign fisherman.
Mr. RUTHVEN moved as an amendment that the enquiry be
extended to Ireland.
After a few words from Mr. A. Johnstone, Mr. Ruthven with-
drew his amendment, and the house divided on Mr. Halcomb's
motion :
For it.... 53 Against it.... 21 Majority ....29
On the motion of Mr. RICE, returns were ordered of the num-
ber and places of joint stock banks in England and Wales.
Mr. PEASE inquired whether it was Lord Althorp's intention
to introduce any bill or bills in pursuance of those ulterior mea-
sures to which he had adverted, as affecting joint stock banks
and private banks, at the time he brought forward the bank
charter question; to which his lordship replied, that it was his
intention to bring in two bills during the present session, one
to regulate the Bank of England, and another to regulate joint
stock and private banks.
Adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FRIDAY, JUNE 7.
The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition from Folkestone
against the 19th clause of the Local Jurisdiction Bill.
The Duke of GRAFTON presented a petition from Lincoln,
praying for a repeal of the malt duty.
The Duke of RUTLAND presented a petition from Leicester,
for the abolition of slavery.
Lord SUFFIELD presented several petitions against slavery.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition from the
clergy of his diocese against the Irish Church Reform Bill.—
Adjourned to Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRIDAY, JUNE 7.
The gallery was opened at a quarter past twelve with a very
thin attendance of members.
Upon the bringing up of the Kentish Town Road Bill,
Mr. HOME complained of the inconvenience and expense oc-
casioned to the parties passing a private bill through the house.
Fifteen new clauses had been added to this bill m the other
House of Parliament to concede to the opinion and wishes of a
single individual there, and he thought the time had arrived
when an understanding ought to be come to between the two
houses on the subject. (Hear.) The simplest way would he
to introduce a clause into every road bill like the present, mak-
ing the 15 clauses of the Geneial Turnpike Act applicable to it,
and by that means the expense of £4 or £5 for the insertion of
each Clause would be avoided.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said he was resolved to adhere to the de-
termination he had expressed of counting out the house when
so much negligence was manifested in the attendance of hon.
members on the presentation of petitions.
Mr. HOWARD suggested the inutility of such a proceeding,
as there were evidently more than 20 members present.
The SPEAKER remarked, that although 20 members were
sufficient to constitute a house at the early sitting, there must
be 40 to keep it.
The house was then counted, and there appearing to be but
30 members present, the house was accordingly adjourned.

The house resumed at 5 o'clock.
Mr. O'CONNELL, in moving for a return of the number o,
writs sealed and issued in the Courts of King's Bench and
Common Pleas and the law side of the Court of Exchequer
during the last year for the recovery of tithes, stated, in pur-
suance of the promise which he had made last night, the name
of a clergyman who had been guilty, as he said, of great op-
pression in the collection of tithes; it was the Rev. Mr. Sulli-
van, of Kilronan, in the diocese of Lismore.
Mr. A. BARING deprecated the practice of entering into the
discussion of matters which were not regularly before the house,
but he must say that much of this irrelevant discussion was
occasioned by the bad arrangement of the public business in
that house on the part of his Majesty's ministers. No person
knew when the most important matters for discussion were to
be brought forward. Here was the great question of Irish tithes,
about which the people in Ireland were meeting in arms, and
yet there was the noble lord opposite sitting quietly at his case (a
laugh), and no man knew what course he meant to take with
respect to it; yet the noble lord had an order of the day on the
hook for the second reading of a bill for the commutation of
tithes in England, where the people 1, ere not fighting on the
subject, whero the bill would do little good one way or the
other, and where he believed the people cared nothing at all
about it. That measure could therefore be very safely kept till
the next year. Would it not be much better now, in nearly
the middle of June, to bring forward a measure which was
much more pressing, and which, though few persons cared any-
thing about it, would also occupy the time of the house at some
length ? He rose for the purpose of asking the noble lord, for
as yet nobody knew what he meant to do, Whether he meant to
press the English Tithe Commutation Bill this session, or
whether the noble lord intended to bring forward the ques-
tion respecting Irish tithes, and when
Lord ALTIIORE said that, as usual, the hon. member who had
just sat down took the opportunity of making a severe attack
on his Majesty's government In answer to the hon. member's
question, he would say that it was his intention to persevere in
the present session with the English Tithe Commutation Bill,
and also to bring on the question respecting the Irish tithes.
Ile had a notice of motion on that subject for Wednesday last,
hut as there was no house it fell to the ground. It was,' how-
ever, his intention to bringit on on Monday next, and on that
day he would move, in a committee of the whole house, certain
resolutions as to the tithes of 18.31, 1832, and the present year.
The hon. member (Mr. Baring) complained of the arrangement
of public business in that house by ministers ; but if the hon.
member would consider what had been done in the house, and
the state of the order book, he would see that it was imposs:
for ministers to get on faster than they had done. When the long
discussions into which the house had been so constantly led on
matters which tended to no practical result, were taken into
consideration, and when it was also considered that ministers
had only two clays to bring on the public business, so as to have
the precedence of the other business on the paper, it would be
seen that the fault of not going
on faster with the business was
not theirs. He would repeat that it was his intention to perse-
vere with the English Tithe Commutation Bill,—to move the
resolutions respecting the Irish tithes on Monday,—and after
the discussion on the subject of colonial slavery should have
been gone through, to goon with the Church Temporalities
• (Ireland) Bill.

EAST INDIA CHARTER.
Sir It. PEET, wished to know from the right hon. gentleman
opposite whether he meant., during the present session, to bring
forward the question of the East India Company's charter?
It was a most important subject, and it was necessary that
those who were interested in it should be acquainted with the
intentions of Government.
Mr. C. GRANT answered, that the subject would not cniy
be brought forward this session, but that he should open tlia
question on Tuesday next

COLONIAL SLAVERY.
On the motion of Mr. Stanley, the house resolved iteelf into
a committee of the whole house to take into consideration the
resolutions for the abolition of slavery, which had been laid on
the table by the right hon. gentleman on the 14th of May.
Mr. BERNAL, the chairman, having read the second tesolu-
tion—" That it is expedient that all children born after the
passing of any act, or who shall be under the age of six years
at the time of passing any act of Parliament, for this purpose,
he declared free—subject, nevertheless, to such temporary re-
strictions as may be deemed necessary for their support and
maintenance."
To this resolution amendments were moved by Mr. Hume