I repeat this, my lords, not loosely or generally, from the persuasion which every true British subject must entertain, that a great country like this, will always find the means of protecting itself, when its safety, its interests, or its honour, are really endangered: but I say it, from the opportunities, which my situation gives me, of examining such a question in detail; and I aver, that if any circumstances should render it either necessary or advisable for this country to engage in war, I should feel no difficulty in finding the means to support it, without materially impairing any of the great sources of our prosperity."

Mr. Brougham in the one House, and earl Grey in the other, immediately intimated their opinion, that the explanation, which had been given of the conduct of our ministers, was by no means satisfactory but the more minute discussion of the subject was necessarily delayed, till the members had time to examine the diplomatic correspondence.

On the 16th of April, lord Althorpe moved for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the act which prohibited British subjects from engaging in foreign military service, and the fitting out, in his majesty's dominions, without the royal licence, vessels for warlike purposes. It was opposed on the ground, that, in the actual circumstances of Europe, such an alteration of our law would be an act of partiality in favour of Spain. It was rejected by a majority of

216 to 110.

On the 24th of April, the formal debate on the Spanish negotiations took place in the House of Lords. It was opened by lord Ellenborough, who proved, by a

detached examination of the correspondence, that France had been dishonest and insincere in her professions, and that the line of conduct pursued by her, was unjustifiable in itself, and disadvantageous to this country. Then assuming that the insincerity and mischievous policy of Villèle and Chateaubriand, were imputable as faults to Mr. Canning and lord Liverpool, and that we could have arrested France in her career without involving ourselves in hostilities, he sprung to the conclusion, that our government had not acted with sufficient vigour. He finished, by moving that an address should be read to his majesty, offering the thanks of their lordships for the communication of the papers relative to the late negotiations-expressing their regret that the endeavours of his majesty's ministers to preserve peace had been ineffectual; and at the same time representing that the course of negotiation had not, in the judgment of their lordships, been calculated to support the honour and interest of the nation; that their lordships had heard with indignation the speech of the king of France; and that it was their opinion that more prompt and decided measures on the part of his majesty's government might have prevented war.

Lord Granville moved an amendment, expressing the concurrence of the House in the principles laid down on the part of his majesty with respect to interference in the internal concerns of independent nations, and their satisfaction at the manner in which they had been applied during the late negotiations; lamenting, that the efforts to preserve the peace of Europe had not been successful; and declaring, that they should be

at all times ready to give their cordial support to such measures as might be necessary to vindicate the honour of his majesty's crown, and the interests of the country. The address was supported by lord Holland, earl Grey, and the marquis of Lansdown; who declaimed very eloquently against France, and in praise of Spain. It was not, however, easy to gather, what was the precise nature of their charge against the ministry. Their voice was not for war; and yet it was not for peace. War was to be avoided, but we had not gone sufficiently near to it; peace was to be maintained by us, but we had not sufficiently endangered it;-such was the purport of the desultory observations, of which the debate was made up on the part of the opposition Peers.

The amendment was supported principally by lord Harrowby, the duke of Wellington, and lord Liverpool. The proposed address, they contended, was altogether unintelligible; it was not for peace, and yet it was not for war: and the supporters of it could not condemn what had been done, unless they were prepared to assert, that, we ought to have gone to war rather than permit the invasion of Spain. If such was their view of the case, why should they shrink from avowing that principle? The ministers had determined on neutrality: were they wrong in that choice? That was an issue which might fairly be tendered to them, if their opponents would venture to do so; but, if, upon that point, the policy of this government had been correct, it was impossible to throw any blame on them in respect of the details or issue of the negotiations. To have menaced war, when we

did not mean to make it, would have been at once hazardous and degrading: and it would have been absurd, when conciliation was our object, to have used such language as was calculated to irritate. Upon a division, the numbers were-Contents-present, 96; proxies, 46-142: Not-contents-present, 29; proxies, 1948: majority in favour of the amendment, 94.

The debate on the conduct of our cabinet in the negotiations relative to Spain, commenced in the House of Commons on the 28th of April, and was protracted through that and the two following nights. The unusual length of the discussion was occasioned in a great measure by the circumstance, that Mr. Canning, from whom the formal and complete defence of our policy was expected, did not rise in the course of the first two evenings;-a delay, which, on his part, was supposed to arise from a wish to be preceded by Mr. Brougham. The speeches from the Opposition side of the house were on this occasion more than usually deficient in argument, and were far from being adequate either to the importance of the subject or the interest which it excited. The assailants seemed afraid to come to close quarters with the ministry whom they accused: they railed at the continental sovereigns, deprecated war, and complained of what had been done: but they neither ventured to make specific charges, nor to define explicitly the course which ought to have been followed.

Mr. Macdonald opened the debate by moving :-"That a humble address be presented to his majesty, to inform his majesty, that this house has taken into its most

serious consideration the papers relating to the late negotiation, which have been laid before them by his majesty's gracious command; to represent to his majesty that the disappointment of his majesty's benevolent solicitude to preserve general peace appears to this house to have, in a great measure, arisen from the failure of his ministers to make the most earnest, rigorous, and solemn protest against the pretended right of the sovereigns, assembled at Verona, to make war on Spain on account of her political institutions; as well as against the subsequent pretensions of the French government to deny that nations can lawfully enjoy any civil privileges but from the spontaneous grant of their kings; principles destructive of the rights of all independent states, which strike at the root of the British constitution, and are subversive of his majesty's legitimate title to the throne: further, to declare to his majesty the surprise and sorrow with which this house has observed that his majesty's ministers should have advised the Spanish government, while so unwarrantably menaced, to alter their constitution, in the hope of averting invasion; a concession which alone would have involved the total sacrifice of national independence; and which was not even palliated by an assurance from France, that, on receiving so dishonourable a submission, she would desist from her unprovoked aggression: Finally, to represent to his majesty, that, in the judgment of this house, a tone of more dignified remonstrance would have been better calculated to preserve the peace of the Continent, and thereby to secure the nation more effectually from the hazard of

Mr. S. Wortley moved an amendment in the same words as that which had been carried in the House of Lords.

On the first evening of the debate, the address was supported, among others, by Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Baring; the amendment, by lord F. Gower, Mr. Bankes, and Mr. H. Sumner. Mr. Wilberforce accorded to the cabinet a qualified approbation. Though he could have wished to have seen a higher moral tone preserved in our diplomatic papers, ministers, he thought, had manifested a sincere desire to preserve the peace of Europe, and to prevent the unjust aggression against Spain. But they had fallen into a mistake not uncommon with persons who had to deal with unprincipled men. Knowing that such men were bound by no ties of moral rectitude or justice, they had put in operation such a policy as they thought would best answer the purpose of their negotiations: whereas, they ought to have relied on those high principles which had hitherto pervaded, and he hoped would long continue to direct, the councils of this country. He regretted, that they had not said from the first, not only that we would not co-operate, but that it was contrary to the principles of the British constitution-contrary to the principles of justice, and to the common rights of humanity-that France should persevere in her designs against Spain. But there was one point which had not, he thought, been sufficiently attended to in the course of the present debate. It was this. The desire of ministers being to prevent the war, they

were bound in the pursuit of that object, not to use language, which might, by exciting in Spain the hopes of assistance from this country, induce her to refuse such concessions, as were at once compatible with her interests and her honour, and would take away from France the very shadow of a pretext for the violation of her independence. In his conscience he was persuaded, that his majesty's government had intended fairly and honestly; and, though they might have erred, through their too great anxiety for the interests of the country, in not preserving that firm tone, which with perfect consistency they might have held, still he could not concur in the motion of censure which had been proposed.

In the second evening, the chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Peel took a share in the discussion. If it could be shown, said Mr. Robinson that the entering upon a war, abstractedly speaking, was a mere matter of indifference to this country, or, that we could gain by such a step, then was blame to be attributed to his majesty's ministers. But, if it was once admitted, that peace was our policy, the next inquiry was, whether, in the late negotiations, his majesty's ministers had taken the course best calculated-first, to prevent any war; and, their efforts to that effect being unavailing, whether they had used their best endeavours to prevent our participation in it? His majesty's ministers were called to account upon this occasion, not for having unnecessarily plunged the country in war; not because they had not taken the necessary steps to preserve the peace of this country; but because they had not taken

what were considered the necessary steps to prevent a war between two powers-between whom there existed causes of irritation, which had a strong tendency to involve them in hostilities.

One complaint was, that, during the late negotiations, his majesty's ministers had not assumed that high tone of remonstrance which became the government of this country. Now, it appeared to him, that there was some difficulty in clearly defining and understanding what was meant by a "high tone of remonstrance." Some members might imagine it was to be found in the angry and vehement declamation of the noble member for New Sarum (lord Folkestone): others, that it ought to be couched in the violent invective and bitter sarcasm of the member for Winchelsea (Mr. Brougham); while a third would, perhaps, be of opinion, that it was to be discovered in the refined and epigrammatic satire of the mover of the original address. But, under such conflicting opinions, how were they to come to a decision? It was true, that nothing was more easy than to deal out the harshest terms, the grossest invectives against foreign powers; but, would any hon. member assert, that it would be right to pursue a similar course in diplomatic negotiations? While he maintained that our language to our allies should be that of persuasion rather than of menace, did he admit that this country had made no remon strance against the aggressions of France? Did he admit that ministers had not forcibly pointed out to those allied powers the dangerous consequences likely to result from such a course of proceeding, and had not decidedly opposed themselves to the projects of those

powers? No. The conduct of his majesty's ministers had been of a nature diametrically opposite; in proof of which, he referred the House to the two last paragraphs of the confidential minute of lord Castlereagh on the affairs of Spain, addressed to the courts of Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, in May, 1820.

Another complaint, said the chancellor of the exchequer, was, that we committed a very great mistake in not having, at the termination of the Congress at Verona, said to the allied powers, Well, as we cannot induce you to give up your views on this question, we have nothing more to say to you." Why this, I think, is a matter very doubtful. Was it better for us to say to them, "We will have nothing more to say to you in the present state of things;" or to say, "Shall we make a last attempt to bring about a reconciliation ?" I cannot undertake to say (for I am not quite so prophetic as the author of the address, who has undertaken to say so), what the future event of all these proceedings may be; but this I say, that, if any chance of averting that war by the continuation of our good offices and mediation should offer, it was our duty to avail ourselves of it. It was our duty to do so, with a view to the happiness and interest both of Spain, and of France. To the charge, further, that England had advised Spain to modify her institutions, Mr. Robinson replied, that, if Spain had not desired the interference of Great Britain, and called for her advice, it might not have been right, under the circumstances, for England to have tendered her suggestions. But, England was called upon to act, and called upon by

Spain; and the question was, whether the advice she gave was, under the circumstances, deserving approbation or censure? England stood, as it were, between two persons, strongly opposed to each other, both of whom had applied to her. England, as the third party, saw, from the nature of the dispute, and from the temper of the parties, that there was no chance of reconciliation, unless some concession was made. Concession she clearly saw was the price to be paid for reconciliation. England advised nothing disparaging to Spain→→→ nothing that could sink her character or encroach upon her independence. England advised Spain not to yield to any threat of France, nor to depart from the high tone of independence which it was ne cessary for her honour and security to maintain; but it was one thing not to yield to any demand of France, and another thing to listen to the amicable and friendly suggestions of Great Britain. Spain, however, rejected the proposition as inadmissible, and the negotiation terminated. England during that negotiation never advised Spain to do any thing that in the remotest degree would compromise her independence; and, least of all, did we advise her to yield to the monstrous principle contained in the speech of the king of France, which went to represent all free govern ments as mere waste paper, unless they proceeded from the mouth of kings. "It has been said," added Mr. Robinson," that we have been grossly deceived by the French government. Undoubtedly it cannot be denied, that the conduct of France has been such as to excite very great surprise on our part. But it is going a little too far to charge our government with having suf,