, seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, thought this a fit time to ask him a question, before the House proceeded to dispose of a measure now in progress respecting the currency of Ire- land. He wished to know if it was in the contemplation of his Majesty's ministers to take any steps to improve the silver circulating medium of this country—he particularly referred to the depreciated state of the shillings and sixpences. His reason for asking this question now was, that at present, to his knowledge, a great importation of the silver coin of France was constantly taking place, and the silver thus brought into the country was forced into circulation as shillings and sixpences; and he thought it too much that the people of England should be placed in a situation that compelled them to receive the depreciated currency of another country, at a loss of at least 10 per cent. He recommended the adoption of a measure to remedy this evil, similar to that which had been resorted to some years ago, which had furnished the nation with a supply of good copper coin. The same course which had been pursued on that occasion, might successfully be acted upon at present, and he would propose that the attendant expense should be met in the same way. It was his opinion that the expense of reforming the silver coin would not be felt more by the nation, than that to which they had been subjected when the new copper coinage was first produced.

was sure his hon. friend would be disposed to believe that ministers would not at all repine at having their attention drawn to this important subject. The evil referred to was one which it would be most desirable to remedy. He felt this; but at the same time he also felt that the question as to the state of the silver currency, was one of greater difficulty, as well as greater importance, than that which had formerly been brought under the consideration of government, when a change was contemplated with respect to the copper. The copper monies in circulation had only been regarded as tokens, and were not, like the silver coin, issued according to a regulated standard, by law established. Before a change in the silver circulating medium were attempted, his opinion was, that it would be proper to restore our currency of gold. Without this, he could not hope for any great benefit from an alteration of the silver; but, the circulation of gold once restored, it would be of great importance that the silver should be recovered from the depreciation into which it had fallen. In this situation of things, the best expedient that had been thought of, was to use Bank tokens, and this had remedied some of the inconveniences complained of; but the whole could not be altogether removed, till the circulation of gold was restored. Without being able to reform our own silver currency at present, he thought it might be practicable to prevent foreign money from circulating in this country. This, on giving some attention to, the subject, he was inclined to think might be effected. On this head he should be happy to receive any additional hints from his hon. friend, or from other hon. gentlemen, and he was sorry, that, in the present instance, he could not pledge himself to any course of action, fill the question had received further consideration.

thought Bank tokens, representing shillings and sixpences, would be of great service in the present situation of the country; and he now gave notice, that if some such measure were not brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would shortly submit a proposition to that effect to the consideration of the House.

presented a Bill to amend the laws now in force for regulating the Importation of Corn; and the same was read the first time. On the motion, that it be read a second time on Friday,

requested to know whether it was the intention of the right hon. gentleman to make any alteration, which might give an opening by which the differing parties might have a chance to meet in their mutual endeavours to establish that which each thought for the public welfare. He wished sincerely to ascertain, whether a mediatory measure could not be agreed upon, by which the present jarring ideas of gentlemen on either side might be brought more into unison. He was not a man who would lend himself either to popular fear or popular favour; but in a question of such vast importance, he would certainly be happy to see the House come to some kind of accommodation, by adopting some of the lower prices, instead of adhering obstinately to those higher ones, which had certainly been voted by great majorities. He threw out these suggestions for the consideration of the right hon. gentleman opposite, whose personal credit might be said to be at stake in this proceeding.

replied, that it was obvious that in the present stage of the proceeding nothing could be done as to the sum which should be made the protecting price. He had already stated that sum which, to the best of his judgment, appeared most likely to effect the object in view. If, when the Bill was committed, the committee should prefer anther sum, they were perfectly competent to adopt it: but not having himself heard any thing during the late discussions to induce him to change his opinion, it could not be expected that he should recommend the adoption of any other sum than that which he had already named. As to the question of personal credit, he did not consider his personal credit at all at stake in the present question. He had undertaken the duty personally, a painful one to him, of bringing the subject forward; it was for parliament to determine upon it.

said, that there had appeared on the preceding evening a feeling in the House favourable to 76s. being named as the protecting price. Had such a proposition been submitted to the House then, he thought it very likely to have been agreed to. He thought it might be well to make that the price at which corn might be imported, or to make 72s. the price, with a duty attaching to the foreign corn brought into the country.

could not allow that there was a popular opinion or fury against the Bill. On the contrary, he was persuaded that the general sentiment, even in commercial towns, was in favour of the measure, particularly in those towns in the midland counties, which he was in the habit of visiting, and in which it was generally believed that some measure on the subject was absolutely necessary. He denied that the sole object of the Bill was to meet the feelings of the agricultural interest: its grand aim was to prevent those great fluctuations of price to which corn had for some years been liable, by giving such a stimulus to the growers would induce him to employ his capital in the creation of a regular and adequate supply.

said, he had voted on the preceding night for 80s. as the protecting price, but he had only voted for this in opposition to the 72s. which had been proposed. He stated this, that his conduct might not be considered inconsistent if he voted for any price between them, that might be proposed in the progress of the Bill.

thought that the sug- gestion of the worthy alderman was entitled to great attention. He had already expressed his own opinion, which remained unchanged, although he was willing to bow to the superior judgment of the House. But he could not avoid saying, that, in his opinion, a bounty on the importation of corn, when the price was high, would be by far a more preferable measure, than the one embraced by the Bill.

denied the truth of the assertion made by an hon. gentleman, that in mercantile towns the general opinion was favourable to the proposed alteration.

contended, that, as the measure stood, there was but one opinion upon the subject, and that was an adverse one. No petition had been put into his hands by his constituents, because, aware of the general hostility towards the proposed alteration, and of the conciliatory disposition of his Majesty's government, they did not conceive that such a petition could be requisite. In a short time, however, petitions would be poured in, not only from Lancashire, but from all parts of the kingdom, against the Bill. Although be would not take the sense of the House upon the present motion, he pledged himself to let no other stage of the measure pass without doing so.

thought that if the protecting price were 75s. or 76s. it would meet with the approbation of the manufacturing and commercial interests.

said, it was pretty well known to ministers that a strong feeling against this measure existed in the country. In some parts of Lancashire it appeared rising to an alarming height. The general irritation would not be allayed by hurrying the measure through the House. He thought it would be but decent to give time for petitions to be presented for and against it. This was a sufficient argument for not proceeding to the second reading on Friday. He therefore moved, as an amendment, that the Bill should be read a second time on Friday se'nnight.

said, he had that very day received a letter from his constituents at Coventry, in which they stated, that after the very numerous petitions poured into the House against this measure in the course of the last session, they could not, but with difficulty, bring themselves to believe, that the same House of Commons would seriously attempt to bring forward the same measure at the present period, much less that they would attempt to hurry the Bill through the House. Finding, however, that they had been mistaken on that head, he might rely on it, there would be one or more petitions from that great manufacturing city, fully expressing their opinions against any such measure being adopted at present; and they had no doubt, but they should be joined by every manufacturing town and city in the country. For his own part, he should be glad to know whether this measure really emanated from his Majesty's ministers as composing the government of the country, or whether it was the measure only of a single individual of their body. This question, if viewed in its proper light, should be taken as a matter of private business, like an inclosure bill, a canal bill, &c.; and in every such matter of mcum and tuum, ministers had in general thought it proper to withdraw themselves—to stand aloof, and to leave the parties concerned in the premises to contend the matter among themselves. But, in the present instance, government had interfered with their overwhelming interest, and had joined the landholders with all their might, to enable them to carry a measure, which, if so carried, was neither more nor less than levying an extraordinary tax on the major part of the community. This was, in his opinion, highly unconstitutional, and contrary to the practice of the House; for it was taxing one set of his Majesty's subjects, for the benefit of another set, instead of the good old principle, that all should be taxed alike, allowing for their different gradations in society. If we must be taxed to the amount of forty millions, let it be done equally, in a fair, open, and bold manner; but do not let particular classes be penned up like sheep in a fold, to be fattened, or leaned, or starved, according to the will and pleasure of ministers and their adherents.

observed, that if he thought the effect of the present measure would be to raise the price of bread, he would not support it. It was impossible that the agricultural interest could be so stupidly ignorant as not to perceive that their good was intimately connected with our commercial prosperity. The object the landed proprietor must have in view was the general prosperity of the country; and short-sighted, indeed, would that policy be, which was calculated to depress any class of the community. Instead of this measure raising the price of bread from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d., he was convinced the higher the protecting price was, the lower would the average price be to the consumer.

thought that this measure would not have the effect of rendering the people dependent on the land-owners for their food, as was contended by the hon. member for Coventry; but that it would have the effect of making them independent of all foreign supply.

rose to express the satisfaction he should feel, if any proposition for adopting a medium price between 72s. and 80s. should be made by the noble lord who had alluded to this subject (lord Lascelles), or some other great landed proprietor. Such a proposition would come with a better grace from one of the landed proprietors, than from any person connected with commerce or manufactures. They had already sufficiently proved their power in the House, and he hoped they would now also shew their moderation. Unless some measure of this kind were to be brought forward, he would support the amendment.

On the Speaker's ordering strangers to withdraw, previous to a division, there appeared a disinclination on the part of several members to divide.

declared, that those he represented were unanimously against the measure, and stated it to be his determination to take the sense of the House on the question now under consideration.

said, he had never yet taken any part is this question; but having come to the House on another business, he was forced to take some part now. He could not help thinking that a delay of one week could not affect the question, and might be of great benefit. He had not yet formed an opinion on it one way or another, but possibly by Friday se'nnight he should be able to make up his mind.

said, if he thought that any considerable number of persons, from the attention which they might give to this question in the course of another week, would be enabled to form more mature opinions respecting it than they could at present do, he should have no difficulty in voting for the amendment; but, believing that the subject had been already ably, amply, and extensively discussed, and knowing that it had also been agitated last year, he could see no utility for any fur- ther delay. He wished to say one word as to the petitions which had been laid before them. No man could pay greater deference to the opinions of the people than himself, and no man was in general more disinclined fo take a part contrary to their wishes: but he conceived the way in which these petitions ought to be interpreted was this: the House were called on in them to decide according to the best of their own judgments; for if any other consequence was to be given to these petitions, he knew not what the House were delegated there to do. With the utmost tenderness for the feelings of the people on every subject which deeply agitated them, he was sure there was no question in which they could form less accurate opinions than on that at present before the House. It had been said, that this was a question between the landed interest and manufacturers. If there was a person in the House who could view the question in that light, he would take it upon him to say, that he was not only one of the most perverse, mischievous, and unfeeling, but also one of the most ignorant of mankind. [Hear, hear!] The interests of the two classes could not possibly be separated, for they could not go on without the assistance of each other. He believed that every man had already made up his mind one way or another on the subject, and he did not suppose there were one half dozen members whose opinions would be altered. The sooner the question was set at rest the better; and the people would ere long be convinced, that the government which had proposed, and the persons who had supported this measure, had done their duty to them by attending to their true interests.

supported the amendment.

conceived that the House could not come to a decision on this question before knowing the most correct principles on which the averages might be ascertained. He hoped, therefore, the measure would not be hurried through the House.

was against any further delay, as the general sense of the House had been fully expressed upon the principle of the Bill.

said, an hon. and learned gentleman had asserted that this question had already been most ably, amply, and extensively discussed, and that there were not half a dozen members whose opinions would be changed. This was a pretty stout assertion. In the divisions that had already taken place, not one half of the representatives of the people had yet voted on the question; and he would take upon him to say, that many members who had attended had not yet voted, from which it was reasonable to infer that they had not yet made up their minds. But this, surely, was a strange argument to be made use of in that House. When fighting the battles of the constitution and the people, with his hon. and right hon. friends around him, it was never argued, when there was a majority on any measure affecting the interests of the community, that that was a reason why no farther time should be given for its consideration. He lamented that the hon. gentlemen, on whose bench he so seldom appeared, but with whom he had formerly had the honour and the happiness to vote, were so changed as they now appeared to be. A something seemed to have come over them, and to have obscured their sight on this occasion, for which he could not account, but which he could not but deeply regret, as it precluded him from acting with them. He strenuously opposed the Bill, and urged the propriety of the amendment.

remarked, that though he was inclined to support the amendment, he must make an observation on the speech of his hon. friend who had just sat down. That hon. gentleman had thought proper to attack the whole bench of opposition, whom he professed his intention of leaving, at the same moment that he gave them credit for the best motives and the most liberal opinions. He could only say, that whenever the hon. gentleman might choose to return amongst them, they would be very happy to receive him; and, in the mean time, he hoped that in all his attacks upon them, he would be as ready to eulogize their principles as he had that night shewn himself, at the moment of abandoning their connexion. As to the question before the House, he thought it advisable not to make a show of precipitation, where no precipitation could be intended. There was no occasion for any hurry; and therefore, though he must allow that to him it did not appear that fixing Friday next was any extraordinary urgency of the business, yet he conceived that a delay could not but be useful where dispatch might be liable to misinterpretation.

The House divided:

The Bill was accordingly ordered to be read a second time on Friday.

rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the conduct of general Smith and sir James Duff, and of submitting a motion upon the subject to the House, pursuant to his notice. He commenced by observing, that whatever good or evil might arise from the discussion, it must be attributed to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose recommendation had induced him to submit his opinions in the form of a distinct motion. It had originated in various questions he had felt it his duty to put to ministers regarding the instrumentality of certain agents of this government at Cadiz and Gibraltar, in forwarding the designs of the infernal Inquisition, now re-established in Spain. In order to explain, palliate, or justify the conduct of general Smith and sir James Duff, certain documents had been laid upon the table, in opposition to which a statement had been published in one of the public journals, which denied many material particulars. He had required of ministers an explanation or reconcilement of these discordances, when the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared, that he much doubted whether earl Bathurst, in whose department the subject lay, was bound in duty to require from general Smith, the governor of Gibraltar, and from sir James Duff, our consul at Cadiz, any further details, to reconcile or confirm the contradictions. Until that day, said he, Mr Whitbread did not think that there had been a man in the House or in the country, who would have attempted to vindicate or to palliate the conduct of the parties so disgracefully concerned. General Campbell (whose authority had been cited by general Smith as a precedent for his conduct in this transaction) being dead, and sir James Duff, from age and infirmity, sinking fast into the grave, until he was recommended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward a distinct declaratory resolution, Mr. Whitbread had intended to have dropped the matter, thinking that the notice that had already been taken of it would be a sufficient warning for the future, and something like an adequate punishment for the past. He was now, therefore, only acting with the consent of the other side of the House, and he hoped by common consent to obtain a declaration that would release Great Britain from a most weighty imputation upon the part she had taken with regard to the unfortunate subjects of Old and New Spain. From the moment that Ferdinand 7 entered Spain, an impression had prevailed (not unnaturally, considering the events that had occurred), that this country gave its approbation and countenance to the measures of the government formed under the restored king. It would be recollected that general Whittingham, an officer bearing an English commission, and who had been instrumental in the defence of Spain against her enemies, and who had shared the proud glories of Barrosa, was the man who commanded the army, that, on its march into Madrid, subverted the govern, agent of the Cortes, for the establishment of a tyranny more horrible and ferocious than the bloody reign of Robespierre, and completed an act of royal ingratitude the most signal among all those many acts of ingratitude with which history branded sovereigns. All Spain firmly believed, that were it not for English money, Ferdinand could not maintain his despotic system against the virtuous indignation of his subjects. It was that that had enabled general Whittingham's army, marching with perfidy inscribed on one side of its banners, and tyranny on the other, to effect the overthrow of the infant liberties of their country. Yet he found, that on the 10th of May, 52,617l. had been advanced to general Whittinghatn for the services of that army; services which had set Ferdinand on the bloody throne which he occupied, and from which it was probable he would speedily be hurled. The people of Spain had besides seen the duke of Wellington, their deliverer, who had received all his titles and honours and rewards, that had been heaped upon him with a hand of lavish liberality by the Cortes, on the enthronement of Ferdinand, at his feet lay down those dignities, and from his hand again receive them. They had beheld the British ambassador at Madrid, without instructions from home, hasten to acknowledge the re-instated Sovereign of Spain, whom at a distance the suffering nation had adored, until by nearer approach they had been able to discern his deformities. They had seen the British Cabinet seconding the designs of this new government by the arrest of obnoxious individuals, who had given offence to the new tyranny by formerly having maintained the superiority of the Cortes. With regard to the New World also, the acts of ministers in this country had confirmed the apprehensions of the friends of freedom in Spain and its colonies, if colonies or dependencies they could now be called, that would inevitably be independent, if the efforts and prayers of all good men could be effectual. They imagined, and truly, that England, far from remaining neuter in the struggle between Old and New Spain, had actually supplied to the former arms, ammunition, and clothing for the expedition that was again to subjugate the latter. Connected with this subject was the arrest of the four individuals at the time general Campbell was governor of Gibraltar, who were now rotting in the dungeons of Ceuta; and the conduct of general Smith with respect to the individuals whose case was now particularly before the House, had not a little confirmed the opinion prevailing in Spain, that the unhappy natives were abandoned to a fate they had so little merited.—The hon. gentleman then adverted to the documents laid upon the table relative to this question, and particularly called the attention of the House to the conduct of the under secretary of state (Mr. Goulburn), who only yesterday had communicated to parliament an important paper, which, however, was an after-thought, a new discovery of an old convention in 1794, between general Rainsford and the Spanish governor, respecting the delivery of deserters, smugglers, and heinous offenders. It had, in fact, nothing to do with the present question, and had never been referred to by lord. Bathurst, in the correspondence, as palliating or justifying the conduct of general Smith and sir James Duff. Mr. Whitbread then proceeded to read to the House the letter of lord Bathurst to general Smith; dated July 24, 1814, calling for a statement of the facts relative to the arrest of M. Puigblanc, M. Correa, and others, and expressing a hope that the representation made respecting his conduct was not correct. Well might the noble lord indulge in such a hope, for until the Alien Act passed, of which such improper use had been made of late, it was the boast of this country that freedom flourished whereever the British flag was displayed. The hon. member went on to detail the particulars in the dispatch of general Smith, and the contradictions given by M. Puigblanc with regard to his entrance with his companions into Gibraltar, under fictitious names; the truth was, that they had been provided with passports under the authority of the governor of Cadiz, in their own names, and countersigned by sir James Duff; the British consul. One of these passports Mr. Whitbread produced to the House, which had been given to Don Miguel Cabrera, an individual who had escaped to this country. Learning, however, of the proceedings at Gibraltar, and dreading the operation of the Alien Act in this country, he had fled from this land of freedom, this asylum of distress, as it had been in former times triumphantly called, to France, hoping there to receive that protection which in England he could not obtain. The truth was, therefore, that M. Puigblanc did not enter Gibraltar under any concealment; they had the permission of the British and Spanish authorities: sir James Duff knew it, and yet, soon afterwards, repenting of what he had done, in the teeth of his own act, and in defiance of his own knowledge, he had been guilty of the perfidy of making this false pretence to general Smith, for the arrest of these unfortunate persons. The consequence was, that M. Puigblanc and the companions of his flight, from the fury of their inquisitorial persecutors, were arrested and delivered to a Spanish commandant, and in irons were conveyed back to Cadiz, where M. Puigblanc was formally tried, and acquitted of the offence charged; at the same time, however, he was informed that he must yet remain, to be tried before another tribunal—the In- quisition. Having little hope that he should escape from the fangs of that inhuman monster, after writing a memorial to government (which was entrusted to sir James Duff, but which Mr. W. believed never arrived), the British consul consented to his escape to England; and in this country he shortly afterwards arrived, to make known the persecution to which he had been made an innocent victim. The hon. member then went more into detail of the contents of the papers upon the table, repeating the accusation against the British consul, that he had been guilty of gross perfidy towards those to whom he had given his official protection; and against general Smith, that he had forfeited the plighted faith of the country, which until now had been the protection of the injured, and the assertor of the rights of the oppressed. Fortunately all the engines of the Inquisition had not at that time been again set at work, and M. Puigblanc made his escape, with which sir James Duff did not think proper to interfere, and he was now in England, where he and all his countrymen might live at ease, notwithstanding the apprehension which the conduct of the governor of Gibraltar had given rise to. Such was the effect of free discussion, that in spite of the disgraceful powers of the Alien Act, in Great Britain they were safe—in Great Britain they were free. M. Correa, who had been denounced by sir James Duff on the Robespierrian principle, as a friend to persons who had traduced the British name—as soupconn éd'être suspect—was, in fact, no author, nor had ever published any thing. He had risen to the rank of captain in the Spanish service, and had performed eminent personal services in execution of the commands of the duke of Wellington; he had two sons who were taken prisoners by the French while fighting in the defence of their country, in whose cause they had received, one eleven, the other four wounds. He, when he saw the measures pursued by Ferdinand, thought that a man who had fought as he had done, had a right to remonstrate to him. He accordingly addressed a temperate letter, in which he begged him to consider, that to assume despotic power was not the road to insure his own happiness or that of his subjects, and implored him to accept the limited monarchy, and the constitution of Spain. For this crime he was tried and sentenced for 10 years to the galleys, and here he was now expiating that offence. But if any of the patriots of Cadiz, with the fires of the Inquisition dancing before their eyes, were asked, whether they would prefer the situation of Smith or of Correa, they would exultingly accept the sufferings of the latter; for the chains of Correa might be broken, but those of general Smith and his associates could never be loosened. Another circumstance was developed in the correspondence before the House, which would shew that he had not formerly proceeded on a slight foundation. Among the papers before them, was a letter from earl Bathurst to sir James Duff, inquiring whether he had been active, as was reported, in preventing the escape of persons who had incurred the displeasure of the Spanish government. The answer was, that it was the practice of the ambassadors at the Spanish Court not to suffer aliens to go to any part of his Majesty's dominions without passports, and that he had recently renewed the order on that subject, which had been in existence, and directed it to the masters of merchant vessels. To explain this proceeding there was another letter produced, in which the under secretary of state for the home department cut no very great figure. It was a letter from John Hiley Addington, esq. to E. Cooke, esq. stating that it was not deemed proper by lord Sidmouth that persons should be allowed to enter the kingdom without passports from our ambassadors at the different courts, and the consuls, and that it was not thought proper that such passports should be granted to objectionable persons, and begging Mr. Cooke to move lord Castlereagh to take proper measures for informing the foreign ministers on the subject. Now, on what authority was this direction given, before the passing of the Alien Act, the powers of which had been, as he was prepared to prove, grossly abused? There was pot any power to prevent strangers from entering this kingdom; and he should consider it an unjustifiable assumption of power until better informed on the subject. Why, too, was this regulation made in 1813, when the Alien Act first passed in 1794? What peculiar circumstances were there now to call for such a regulation? But was sir James Duff to think that the members of the Cortes were the persons against whom this regulation was to be exercised? those members of the Cortes who, a year or two ago, were hailed with acclamations from all ranks—to whom all offices were open —while now they could not obtain audience from secretary, or under secretary, or clerk, with exalted head. There was a question, relating to the exercise of the power of the last Alien Act, which he should take that opportunity of mentioning. It was the practice of the government not to allow any foreigner to remain in thins country, unless he had a passport from the ambassador from his country, at this Court. A Portuguese of the name of Corraja, who came to this country, and could not get a passport from the chevalier de Souza, the Portuguese ambassador, was by an unjustifiable exercise of the Alien Act, seized and sent to Lisbon: he passed from Lisbon to the Brazils, and laid his case before the Prince Regent. He took his trial, and was acquitted, and loaded with honours. What, then, would have been the fate of M. Puigblauc, if he or his associate had reached this country before the expiration of the last Alien Act? He hoped the under secretary of state would explain the conduct of the government as to this Portuguese, and relieve the fame of his noble relative (lord Sidmouth), and the character of the country, from imputations so foul as those which had been cast on them.—Mr. Whitbread then proceeded to notice the letter of Mr. Stedman, one of the persons who were instrumental in procuring the arrest of the obnoxious Spaniards at Gibraltar, on which he animadverted with great severity. Nothing, he observed, could be more ardent than the joy and exultation which this man expressed, when, like a jackall, he had discovered the prey which those lions were hunting. They had heard of familiars of the Inquisition—let Mr. Stedman but leave Gibraltar—let him cross the lines and proceed into Spain—and there could be no doubt but that the alacrity he had shown on this occasion would be rewarded with immediate employment. The hon. gentleman concluded by expressing his earnest hope that the House would adopt the Address he should have the honour of proposing. Indeed he thought it impossible that they could separate that night without expressing the feelings of indignation which they entertained at transactions of so atrocious a nature, which tended to render suspected the character which this nation had heretofore borne for justice and good faith. He then moved,

"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to thank his Royal Highness for the communication made to this House, in compliance with their former Addresses, of the correspondence which has taken place between the earl Bathurst one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state, sir James Duff; his Majesty's actual consul at Cadiz, and major-general Smith, lately in command of the fortress of Gibraltar, touching certain Spanish subjects who had taken refuge in that fortress, and were delivered up by major-general Smith fo the Spanish authorities, together with the papers accompanying the same:

"To express to his Royal Highness our entire disapprobation of the transactions disclosed by those papers, which this House considers to be injurious to the honour of the nation, contrary to that spirit of hospitality to foreigners by which our laws are distinguished, unjustifiable on the part of the civil and military officers concerned, and signally cruel towards the unhappy persons in question:

"Earnestly to request his Royal Highness that he will cause to be expressed to sir James Duff and major general Smith, in the strongest terms, the displeasure of his Royal Highness at their conduct, and to take such measures as may be necessary to prevent, in any case, the recurrence of such acts:

"Above all, to implore his Royal Highness to cause the most efficacious steps to be taken to obtain the liberation of the persons who may be still confined, in consequence of the asylum they had sought in the British territory having been violated or refused by any British officer."

, in a maiden speech, opposed the motion. He argued that the hon. mover had taken a most exaggerated view of the subject. It was true, that sir James Duff had apprised general Smith of the departure of certain persons from Cadiz; but it was not a fact, that he had called upon general Smith to give them up. The particular situation in which general Smith stood, ought to be taken into consideration. At the time the circumstance took place, he had been a very short time governor of Gibraltar, to which situation he was appointed on the death of general Campbell. Soon after, he received two letters, one from sir James Duff, the other from the governor of Cadiz, stating that persons guilty of offences against the state had entered the garrison. These persons were asserted to have gone into Gibraltar under feigned names. M. Puigblanc, he knew, denied this. But it appeared, even from his own statement, that he did not enter the garrison properly. He did not, as he should have done, go before the town-major, and procure from him a proper passport; but he had come in with a permit. He thought, in such a case as this, judgment ought to take place of feeling; and that the hon. gentleman should not have indulged in invectives against general Smith, on the mere authority of a paragraph in a newspaper. Sir James Duff, against whom so much obloquy was levelled, was an individual upwards of 80 years of age, during one half of which he had filled the situation of consul at Cadiz, in a manner that gained him the respect and esteem of the inhabitants. The hon. gentleman said, he was in that city a few years ago, and such a mad enthusiast for the patriotic cause he never saw. He could not, therefore, consider him such a mere tool of arbitrary power as he was said fo be. He meant not to defend the conduct of general Smith, but some allowance ought to be made for the discretion necessarily confided in the commander of a garrison. As they were likely to hear no more of similar transactions, an end having been put to them by the letter of lord Bathurst, he thought there was no necessity for passing so severe a censure on general Smith, and sir James Duff; as that which was contained in the proposed Address.

defended the conduct of sir James Duff, who had merely informed general Smith of facts necessary for him to know, without giving an opinion as to the course be should pursue. He allowed that general Smith had gone a little too far, though his conduct was palliated by the agreement with the Spanish government, and the manner in which Correa and Puigblanc had entered the garrison.

said, that as general Whittingham's name had been introduced into this discussion, he thought it necessary to say something in his vindication. General Whittingham was not only a British subject, but a Spanish officer. He had been made colonel for distinguished services at the battle of Baylen, which made the Spanish general Castanos recommend him for promotion. What was an officer in the Spanish service to do in the circumstances in which he was placed? He had a commission given him by the Cortes, but it was in the name of the King. Having received an order from his supe- rior officer, general Elio, to march in a certain direction towards Madrid, what could he do but obey the order he so received? How was he to know that the object of the march was to overturn the constitution? As to the statement of his having received 52,000l. from this country for raising a corps, he knew well that general Whittingham had pointedly refused any appointment which should be connected with the receipt of money, and that it was only by accident that he had received this sum, which was immediately handed over by him to another. General Whittingham had left a very lucrative profession in this country, with no other object than gaining military reputation. Besides his services at Baylen, he had equally distinguished himself at the battles of Medellin and Alcala. He had been ten years in the Spanish service, and he believed that no British officer would say, that under the circumstances in which he was placed, he could do any thing else than obey the order given him by his superior officer.

observed, that though he should not follow the hon. mover in the wide range he had taken, he should remark that the patriotic government had taken as decided steps towards Spanish America as the present government of Spain had done—steps which had produced more fatal results. He allowed that general Smith had been unfortunately guided in his conduct, but the House should not judge harshly. Sir James Duff was an old and meritorious servant of the public, and had only guarded general Smith against some persons of doubtful character. He contended that sir James had done no more than his duty in making the communication to general Smith; and with respect to general Smith himself, he having succeeded by an unfortunate accident to the command of that fortress, felt, perhaps, a more than ordinary responsibility imposed upon him in the discharge of his duty. The hon. gentleman said, he was desirous of relieving the character of general Smith from the charge of having falsified the facts as they had occurred; and if the hon. member who made the motion had exerted his usual sagacity and acuteness, he thought he would not have dwelt so strongly upon that point as he had. The hon. member admitted that Puigblanc entered the garrison with a permit signed by the Spanish consul; and he would put it to the hon. gentleman whether he could for a moment suppose it desirable, that in a fortress so peculiarly situated as Gibraltar was, the Spanish consul should be the judge of who was and who was not fit to enter it. The usual practice of that garrison was, that all persons arriving at it, should present themselves before the town-major with their passport, which he communicates to the governor or commander-in-chief, who issues his permit for their residence on the rock. When it was found, therefore, that the individuals in question had entered the garrison in a manner that contravened the standing rules of the place, and under fictitious names also, as he (Mr. G.) had reason to believe they did, general Smith was certainly called upon to take some notice of such a circumstance. His reason for believing that they entered under fictitious names was, that general Smith, in reply to a second letter from lord Bathurst, requiring him again to recollect that particular circumstance, persisted in the declaration that he had found them there under fictitious names. Mr. Stedman, in his letter to the Spanish consul, stated that they were so discovered, and that statement was made at a moment when he could not suppose the fransaction would ever become a matter of inquiry, and when it must have been perfectly indifferent to the Spanish consul whether they were residing there under fictitious names or not. From that combination of circumstances, therefore, it was a fair inference, in his opinion, that Don Antonio Puigblanc and Don Miguel Correa, did pass themselves into the fortress under false names. In conclusion, he should certainly oppose the motion of the hon. gentleman, on the ground that though general Smith had certainly acted with a great want of caution, yet, his conduct having been so long before that House, and having undergone a censure which, in the opinion of the hon. member himself, was sufficient, no further proceedings seemed to be necessary. A repetition of the evil in future was not likely to occur; and to adopt the motion of the hon. gentleman would only be to give useless pain to individuals, who had acted more from erroneous impressions than from intentional dereliction.

spoke to the following effect:

Mr. Speaker;—Important as I originally conceived this question to be, it has received a great accession of importance from the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House, who has made an elaborate apology for the conduct of general Smith, and who has expressly justified that of sir James Duff. When the acts of subordinate officers, which disgrace the honourable name and generous character of Britons, by violating the most sacred rights of hospitality, are thus anxiously excused and extenuated, by an hon. gentleman holding a respectable office, it becomes a question, whether these acts be adopted and made their own by the government of Great Britain. In cases so atrocious, impunity is avowal. Lukewarm censure is a cowardly confession, that we have neither the honesty to condemn, nor the boldness to justify crimes. It ought not to be the choice of ministers, although it be often the destiny of advocates in a desperate cause, to cover defence under the disguise of palliation, and to seek the the advantage without incurring the odium of a justification of the crimes of their clients; Shall we proclaim to Europe, by rejecting this address, that we consider this barbarous breach of a hospitality, sacred among savages, as hardly deserving of the mildest censure? Shall a British Consul prompt, and a British general perpetrate a violation of the rights of suppliant strangers, at which an Arab Sheik would have shuddered; and shall we hear of nothing but excuse and apology, and tenderness, and lenity, towards the authors of this indelible national disgrace?

The hon. gentleman complains of my hon. friend, for having spoken of the character of the Spanish government, which he thinks foreign to the question. What, Sir! In a question relating to the surrender of prisoners, is the moral character of the government to which they are surrendered, a matter foreign to the decision? I will not say that it is absolutely decisive of the question, because I believe, that the merits of no government could have justified such a surrender. But, certainly, the demerits of the government may form its highest aggravation. Is there no difference between surrendering prisoners, to fair trial, or to barbarous oppression? to judges, or to murderers? to the Dey of Algiers, or to the King of Great Britain? Is not the practice of mutually surrendering common offenders, wherever it prevails, founded on that degree of confidence, which the civilized nations of Christen- dom reasonably feel in each other's justice, and in the expectation, justified by experience, that such common offenders will be fairly dealt by, and punished only if they are guilty? The whole deference of the courts of one country for those of another proceeds on the same principle, and would be unwarrantable without it. What respect would any European tribunal affect for the judgments of courts at Morocco? In proportion as any government of Christendom degenerates into a resemblance to Morocco and Algiers, the propriety of surrendering the most common culprits into their hands, becomes doubtful, and the guilt of betraying to them political fugitives, is aggravated a thousand-fold. It might well be questioned, whether a government that had just re-established the Inquisition had not forfeited all claim to be treated as a member of Europe; and if we were considering the surrender of a felon to such a government, we might reasonably fear, that under pretence of a charge of theft or murder, he was in truth to be tried for the imaginary crimes of heresy or witchcraft.

I believe, Sir, that I may venture to lay it down, if not as a part of the consuetudinary law of nations, at least as agreeable to the usage of good times, that though nations may often agree mutually to give up persons charged with the common offences against all human society, civilized states afford an inviolable asylum to political emigrants—I lay aside what may have occurred since the French Revolution. None of the irregularities which it may have produced on one side, or provoked on the other, are worthy of being quoted as examples, or, indeed, mentioned for any other purpose than to be avoided. In the century which preceded that Revolution, which were the good times of Europe, I may venture to challenge any man to produce an example of a deviation from this humane usage. If we are desirous of returning to those good times, we can only do so by resuming the usages, and re-establishing the principles which made them good. None of its usages was more salutary, none of its principles more venerable, than the inviolable right of political asylum.

The surrender of common offenders is evidently the case provided for in the convention just laid before the House, between the governor of Gibraltar and the commander of the Spanish lines in 1794: it provides for the delivery of deserters, smugglers and felons; and though it afterwards employs more general words, it is evident that their generality is restricted by the instances which are enumerated, and by the nature of the case. No convention entered into by a foreign governor can be construed to extend to political accusations. It would be an act of the most extreme presumption and audacity for him to attempt to stipulate for the surrender of persons labouring under such accusations; they might, for aught he knew, be persons with whom his government had already formed just and legitimate connexions. So limited, the convention of 1794 is no exception to the doctrine for which I contend: it is no breach of the law, or departure from the approved usage of nations, however much it may be doubted, whether it did not stipulate to do, what cannot be done without a violation of the law of England.

Having thus stated the general principles, and having briefly shewn that the convention of 1794, brought down to overwhelm us, implies no deviation from them, and affords no colour for the present transaction, I must now review, as shortly as I can, the facts of the case: and I must say, that I should have willingly forborne to animadvert on the conduct of sir James Duff; out of consideration for his own age and services, and for the respectable feelings of his relation, my hon. friend (sir H. Dalrymple Hamilton), who addressed the House on his behalf; but I am compelled, with whatever reluctance, to relinquish that course. One hon. gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) has declared, that sir James Duff has only done his duty; another hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) who addressed the House, I believe, for the first time, with so much promise of talent, and with an occasional embarrassment so graceful in a case where his noble father was even remotely interested (though I must interrupt my course to say, that the noble lord is, perhaps, the only public person in the whole transaction against whom no party can insinuate the least blame); that hon. gentleman complains of 'exaggerated statements' against sir James Duff. The conduct of that gentleman might have been covered by his infirmities and by his merits. The defence of it by his respectable relations would naturally be sacred from attack; but when it is thus sanctioned by public authority, it must be freely discussed.

About ten days after Ferdinand the Seventh had denounced vengeance and proscription against every Spaniard who dared to exercise his reason, or to prefer law to lawless despotism; when he had made known his resolution to re-establish civil and religious tyranny on the ruins of that unwisely constructed, though generously conceived, edifice of liberty, on which alone his own title to sovereignty could be rested; Don Antonio Puigblanc, a learned and virtuous man, professor of Hebrew in the University of Alcala, conscious of having committed the now unpardonable crime of writing against the Inquisition, determined to seek safety by flight to Gibraltar, when he naturally expected that from such a charge he should find an inviolable refuge under the dominion of a hospitable, powerful, free, and Protestant nation. For this purpose he obtained a passport from Valdez, the governor of Cadiz, which, on the 14th of May was counter-signed by sir James Duff. On the 15th he sailed for Gibraltar, where he arrived in the evening, and landed next morning. On the 16th, 7th, and 18th, he and his friend appeared publicly in every part of the fortress, met and exchanged the customary civilities with the consul of their nation, having landed and entered the fort by a permit given to them in exchange for their passport, and having given their names to the inn-keeper with whom they lodged, to be given by him to the town-major, according to the custom of fortified places. But on the 16th, a few hours after sir James Duff had countersigned this passport, he secretly dispatched a letter to the government of Gibraltar to defeat its effect, and to violate the security for which he had so lately pledged the national faith. In order to ensure the violation of his own passport, he points it out as a means of detecting the very persons whom its professed to protect. The possession of this solemn promise of security was to be the mark by which the destroyers were to distinguish the victims.—A British consul informs a British governor that he may recognize the proper persons to be arrested and delivered up, by their having entered his fortress with a passport guaranteed by British faith.—On the evening of the 18th, the governor, alive to such honourable and generous suggestions, arrests the unhappy victims of their confidence in a British passport. His secretary, Mr. Stedman, who seems to delight in such missions, and to be worthy of them, offers the prisoners to the Spanish consul, as persons who had entered the fort under fictitious names, without adverting to the secret dispatches from Cadiz, and notifies their apprehension to sir James Duff as a consequence of his dispatch, without any allusion to the supposed fictitious names. They were sent under an English guard (I shudder at uttering the words), and humanely received by the Spanish commandant at Algesiras, who, with tears in his eyes, executed that sad duty which sir James Duff, and general Smith, and Mr. Stedman, had so eagerly and so joyfully undertaken. He expected, no doubt, never to hear of them more; but he was miraculously disappointed. After an imprisonment of four months in the dungeons of Cadiz, these men, pronounced to be such dangerous criminals by sir James Duff, were declared to be innocent by the tribunals of their enemies. They had sought refuge in a British territory, from oppression by the Inquisition—they found refuge from the barbarous treachery of Englishmen, in the justice of Spanish tyrants. Don Antonio Puigblanc, after having escaped the fires of the Inquisition and the betrayers of the suppliant, has reached this island, and now listens to the narrative of his wrongs.

On the part of sir James Duff it is said, that he granted the passport before he knew the dangerous character of these poor gentlemen, that he was bound to send the information to Gibraltar as soon as he discovered it, and that his letter contains only information, without suggesting imprisonment or surrender.

The slightest examination of dates and circumstances overthrows this defence. What new information respecting well-known persons could sir James Duff have collected in a few hours? The crime of Mr. Puigblanc was a publication of two years standing. He contributed to abolish the Inquisition in 1512: "The very head and front of his offending has this extent, no more." Could sir James Duff have been ignorant of this great crime when he granted the passport? He who had resided forty years in Cadiz, he who took so active a part in Spanish politics, he who is represented as such an enthusiast in the cause of Spain, who felt such enthusiasm for the government of the Cortez, and who is ready to transfer his enthusiasm to every succeeding govern-friend He who is become so much a Spaniard in head and heart, as to despise our English and Protestant prejudices against the Inquisition! Could he be two years ignorant of a celebrated work against that tribunal, published in the city where he so long resided, and where he had performed so conspicuous a part? He does not even impute any new offence to Puigblanc: the crime was known to himself as well as to the public when he countersigned the passport, which he almost instantly employed clandestine means to violate.

It is perfectly vain to represent the letter of sir James Duff as any other than a suggestion to arrest and deliver up these unfortunate gentlemen: for what other reason does he enumerate and display their crimes? Why does he charge Mr. Puigblanc with the atrocious guilt of having attacked the Inquisition? Why does he charge another of them with the almost equally enormous offence of aiding an opposition paper?—So Stedman understood him, for he immediately wrote to inform sir James, that on the receipt of his letter they were immediately apprehended. He understood sir James so well as even to promise that measures should be taken "to discover and apprehend other persons of a similar description." The letter of the consul was, indeed, evidently concerted with that of Villavicencio, the new governor of Cadiz, who applied for the surrender of the victims, and who could have learned from the consul only "that some of them were provided with passports from a legal authority." And in a subsequent letter from sir James to Stedman, of the 24th, he completely admits this construction of his letter, by thanking the government of Gibraltar, in the name of Villavicencio, for having apprehended the fugitives and betrayed them into his dungeons.

Villavicencio, indeed, is capable of much. He was a member of the Regency under the Cortez; anti with a forwardness in servility, I believe unrivalled among his fellow apostates, he was the first and fiercest persecutor of his colleagues and brethren. But on the 16th of May he was only on his way to Cadiz, and he seems to have been entirely instructed and prompted in this affair by the British consul, the prime mover and instigator of the whole treachery.

I am obliged in this discussion to lay aside all consideration of the character and services of sir James Duff. Let his character be as pure and his services as eminent as his warmest friends can desire to represent them; they only aggravate the mischief of his conduct on this occasion. The more respectable he is as a public servant, the more will his acts be regarded as the acts of his country. And certainly if his character be so high, he can suffer little by the disavowal of one of his acts; it is the more necessary for the public, and the less injurious to him.

And now, Sir, I proceed to the case of general Smith, who has almost been given up. His conduct is too utterly indefensible to make any attempt at justification decent or safe. He is the immediate perpetrator of this treason against the honour of his country, and his guilt stands proved by his own narrative. But we are told that he has been sufficiently punished by the censure in lord Bathurst's letter. The truth is, that lord Bathurst's letter to general Smith is only an inquiry into the facts of the case, and a direction for his conduct in future. Lord Bathurst had too much sense and honour to pronounce any censure on his conduct till he had seen his own statement of it. We have that statement before us; and upon his statement we call upon you to censure and to disavow him. We are told that he was but a temporary commandant of Gibraltar, unlearned in the laws and usages of nations. But I am informed that he was long an officer in the garrison, and I am sure that no officer could deserve to command at Gibraltar for a day who did not feel an instinctive horror at betraying suppliants—who did not instantly perceive the wide interval which separates common thieves and murderers, from the members of an unsuccessful political party—and above all from those who fled from the tyranny of Ferdinand the Seventh.

It is said that much allowance is to be made for the rigorous measures to which the governor of a fortress may be reduced. I perfectly agree that military necessity will justify whatever it compels. But with lord Mansfield in the case of Fabrigas and Mostyn I say, let the necessity be alleged—let the necessity be proved. Let not the vague words necessity, and fortress, and military regulations, supply the deficiency of justification.

It is, indeed, contended, that these unhappy gentlemen were guilty of some breach of the regulations established at Gibraltar in their mode of entering that fortress. I deny the fact; but to cut short the dispute, admit it for a moment, and what is the consequence? That they might have been apprehended that they might have been fairly tried before a court-martial of that garrison, who might have sentenced them to such punishment as their offence seemed to merit, even to death, if they proved to be spies. I admit all this. But where ought the punishment to be inflicted? Certainly in the place where the offence was committed; in the place where the court had authority; in the fortress for whose security the example of the punishment was intended to provide. Where is the trial? Where is the punishment here? A breach of the regulations at Gibraltar might justify the apprehension of these gentlemen; but it never can justify their surrender. It has nothing to do with their surrender. The governor of Cadiz is not the provost martial of Gibraltar: he is not to punish breaches of its regulations. The surrender is the unanswerable and odious part of the charge. It is therefore vain to speak of regulations, or of military necessity, or of the rights of a military governor. General Smith did not exercise these rights: the necessity is not even pretended. It is not in the dungeons of Cadiz that a breach of the regulations of Gibraltar is to be punished.

"But they entered the fortress under fictitious names." Now, Sir, this is a serious fact. It is publicly denied by Don Antonio Puigblanc. He charges general Smith and Mr. Stedman with intentional and deliberate falsehood, for the base purpose of blackening the fugitives whom they had betrayed. He accuses general Smith with having invented this falsehood to palliate his treachery, and with having repeated it, with a knowledge of its falsehood, three months afterwards to the Secretary of State. God forbid that I should impute falsehood to a British officer till he had been heard in his own defence. I heartily pray that general Smith may be able to refute a charge so deeply affecting his personal honour. But thus much I Must say, that it is a charge which he cannot pass over in contemptuous silence with safety to his character. It is my duty now to state the facts which imperiously demand a decisive explanation; and I will take it upon me to affirm that when they are stated, no man in this House will doubt, that if general smith does not immediately implore a court-martial for the vindication of his honour, it will be impossible for the guardians of the honour of the army to avoid an inquiry whether his name can remain on its honourable list. The conduct imputed to him is that which, of all others, is most unworthy of an officer and a gentleman; and though I trust he will prove his innocence, I am bound to say that the accusation rests on grounds which absolutely require snch proof.

When it is said that these gentlemen entered Gibraltar under fictitious names, the first question which naturally occurs is, why? Had they any reason to doubt that the British territory would continue as in all past times the sacred refuge of the oppressed? Did they not know that we had received the fugitives from Philip 2 and the duke of Alba? Had they not heard how, even under a superstitious tyrant like their own, this nation had welcomed and cherished those who fled from the persecutions of Louis 14, the confessors and martyrs of the Protestant faith; that admirable body of exiles who more than repaid every land which they visited, by the example of their piety and virtue, as well as by the subordinate advantages of art, and industry, and wealth? Had they observed in our recent history any mark of degeneracy from ancient virtue? Did we belie the character of our ancestors, in our reception of that other body of emigrants from France, who, flying before a bloody tyranny which profaned the venerable name of a Republic, found here security and friendship, and left behind them a spotless reputation? What calumniator of this nation could have infused into them a distrust of a British fortress? What could prompt them to insult our character, by the supposition that disguise was necessary to avoid our treachery?

By what infatuation could they destroy the safety of the passports which they had carried with them? These passports were granted to them only the day before, under their real names. When they obtained them they must have intended to use them, and consequently to enter Gibraltar under the real names mentioned in the passports. What motive can be conceived for their desiring to reject the security afforded by the passports, and choosing to enter a foreign fortress, where military regulations are and must be rigidly enforced, Without any official protection, and with the extremely dangerous circumstance of a fictitious name? And this, too, after they had proclaimed at Cadiz their names and destination for Gibraltar, and when, (according to their own statement, which, if it he false, may be very easily refuted,) they gave in their passport on: their arrival, and thus supplied the means of detecting the fictitious names. If they thought a fictitious name a better protection than a British passport, why did they solicit the passport? why did they not destroy it? why did they put it into the hands of the public authorities at Gibraltar? I must own that I cannot explain any of these circumstances.

But farther, it is extremely observable that in Mr. Stedman's letter to sir James Duff of May the 19th, this remarkable circumstance of fictitious names is totally passed over. Considering the tone of the letter, it would have been natural to have said, "Though the villains had your passports, yet they were afraid to trust to them, and came here under fictitious names." No allusion to what is now said to be the very reason of the arrest. "I had the honour to receive yours of the 16th last night, and immediately laid it before the commander of the forces, who promptly issued orders for the apprehension of the persons named, and I am happy to inform you that in less than two hours Puigblanc and Correa were made prisoners." These are the words of Stedman; and I defy any man to say that in their natural signification they do not import that the letter from the consulate was not the true and the sole cause of the apprehension of these gentlemen.

General Smith indeed in his letter to lord Bathurst of the 31st of August says, that "a short time after the receipt of sir James Duff's letter, a report was made to him that two persons answering the description, had, by fictitious names, made their way into the place." A most fortunate coincidence indeed between the report and the letters, and the more wonderful because from Stedman's words we should have concluded that no time passed, and certainly that no event so remarkable as the discovery of the fictitious names had occurred between the arrival of the letters and the apprehension of the fugitives. But unfortunately it opens another difficulty. These persons had entered the fort on the morning of the 16th; they lived at a public inn they they frequented the common walks; they had been seen by the Spanish consul. How came the report of the entry of two strangers on the morning of the 16th, to be for the first time made to the governor on the evening of the 18th? Here indeed difficulties crowd upon us. Urrutia, the Spanish consul, on the 19th demands them by their true names, and appears never to have heard that they shad assumed any other, till he is informed of it by Mr. Stedman's answer. How did he learn their real names if they had not appeared at Gibraltar under them?

But why should I waste the time of the House I It is manifest that if the assumption of fictitious names were true in point of fact, it could not be the true cause of the detention; this we have on the confession of Stedman. He concludes thus the letter of the 19th already stated: "I have received some information relative to Lopez and Don Miguel Cabrera; and if they are here, I hope they will soon be discovered. I am to inform you that measures are taken to discover and apprehend any other persons of a similar description." Did Lopez and Cabrera enter under false names? It is not even pretended; yet they too were to be arrested: or if they had, was the same disguise assumed by the undefined multitude whom this restorer of general warrants describes as 'persons of a similar description,' whom he had taken measures 'to discover and apprehend?' It is apparent that this plan was to convert Gibraltar into a vast Bow-street for Ferdinand 7, and that the consulate of Cadiz were by perfidious passports to betray fugitives into his toils again. If the fictitious names could justify the apprehension, what have they to do with the surrender?

Indeed I should have thought this circumstance of false names not to be deserving a long discussion, if it had not given rise to a most grave charge of intentional falsehood against a general officer in the British army, and if I were not most conscientiously convinced that it is the duty of his Majesty's government to inquire judicially whether general Smith can retain his commission, and to ascertain whether Mr. Stedman can continue to fill any station in his Majesty's service.

For part of the conduct of sir James Duff, the part of it which has probably produced the most wide-spreading mischief, and for much of the spirit which breathes through his words and actions, I am sorry to say that I think there is some excuse, if not justification, in the instructions which he received from the government of his country. This is the most important part of the melancholy and disgraceful transaction before us, and I must entreat the serious attention of the House to it.

On the 6th of May 1813, instructions were transmitted from the office of the foreign secretary of state to all his Majesty's ministers, consuls, and vice-consuls, requiring that all persons proposing to embark for the British dominions should apply to them for passports, which whereever the character or object of the person seemed (to the minister, consul, or vice-consul,) to be objectionable, were to be refused.

Authorized and stimulated by these instructions, it is but too certain that the consulate of Cadiz refused even treacherous passports to many who sought to fly from their tyrants, and who were not yet disabused with respect to their long confidence in the inviolability of British territory. How many gentlemen of liberal education and condition, how many of those who led the resistance which saved Spain may, from such refusals, be now galley slaves at Ceuta, or languishing through the short remainder of their lives in a pestilential dungeon in the Philippines, we shall perhaps never know, These foul deeds are now involved in the impenetrable darkness which shrouds the Spanish monarchy. But when we see that the friends of liberty are treated as the vilest criminals, we may be well assured that at Cadiz alone, the number would be sufficient, if we could contemplate their present sufferings, to silence the stoutest champion of the consul and the governor—perhaps to alarm the authors of the instructions themselves.

Not content with those terrible powers, those powers unknown to our ancestors, unheard of in any other government calling itself free, vested by the Alien Act; they transfer their exercise by these instructions from the highest officers of the state, who execute them under the eye of the public, under the constant control of parliament, under every sort of legal and moral responsibility, to several hundreds of agents abroad; many of them obscure, many of them foreigners; where the abuse of their power can scarcely ever be known, where no public overlooks them, and no parliament has much chance of ever knowing their offences. By a clandestine instruction, which nothing but the accidental course of this investigation would have brought before the House, they confer the power of shutting the gates of national hospitality—of shutting the gates of mercy on mankind,"—upon every vice consul from Archangel to the southern extremity of Morocco! It is scarcely possible to imagine a discretion more likely to be abused—I certainly mean no disrespect to those who are charged with the commercial interests of their country abroad; nor is it really disrespectful to any body of men, to describe the temptations to which they are peculiarly exposed. From peculiar temptations, no profession or condition of human life is exempt. The consul or vice-consul is most commonly a trader in the port where he is established. Will he be quite sure to estimate impartially, the claims to a passport of a rival speculator in commerce? Will he easily grant a passport to him who desires to go to England to carry on a law-suit against himself, perhaps to complain of his oppressions to government, or to the criminal courts? By these instructions he is armed with authority to defeat the commercial speculations of his rivals, to shut the King's court on suitors or men aggrieved, to control the course of public justice. He may adopt the prejudices of his neighbours against an unhappy individual—he may be deterred from protecting him, by the vulgar clamour which he secretly despises—he may pay his court to the government of the country where he resides—he may ensure favour or the means of wealth from them, by driving back into their dungeons the suppliant who had implored permission to enter England—he may pay his court to unworthy English ministers by secretly oppressing those whose principles are obnoxious to them, but whose character is too high to be safely oppressed in the face of England. If such instructions had existed in the age of Louis 14th, can we doubt that many of those who were afterwards a blessing and an ornament to this country would have perished obscurely and miserably in the gallies? With such a pretext, is it credible that no consul would have paid his court to his own and to the French government, by the refusal of passports to the obnoxious Protestants? If they had existed in 1792, who will venture to say, that they might not have furnished cowardice, or malignity, or corruption, with a pretext for sending one more blameless head to the scaffolds of Robespierre?

What a shocking contrast does a late act of the government of France afford to this treachery of our governors and consuls, to the spirit of the instructions under which they acted, and to the anxiety so strangely manifested, to screen them from the mild censure of this address! General Mina, the celebrated leader of Guerillas, who had so greatly distinguished himself in the cause of Ferdinand the Seventh, was obliged on his restoration, like most of those to whom he owed his throne, to fly from the vengeance of that grateful monarch. Fortunately for him, he did not throw himself on the hospitality of the governor of Gibraltar—he did not appeal to the compassion of his allies and companions in arms—he took refuge in France, and he found a secure and respected refuge among those officers, whose blood he had so liberally spilt, but who felt and honored his velour. A Spanish agent (I hope not a diplomatic minister) had the audacity to order a commissary of police to arrest this gallant Spaniard in the city of Paris. The respectable person, who was then minister of police, communicated this usurpation of his Most Christian Majesty. That prince, in the spirit of the charter which he granted to his people (as long as they observe which, I pray that they may securely reign,) instantly dismissed the commissary of police, directed the Spanish agent to quit Paris in 24 hours, and gave the necessary orders for continuing the same honorable protection as before to general Mina. It is true that neither the government of France, nor any other that has any pretensions to liberty, possesses those monstrous powers over aliens, which can only be excused, if they be excusable, by unparalleled perils, and of which, as all shadow of peril is now past, I hope ministers will hasten to divest themselves.

Indeed, Sir, the question seems to me of deep and unspeakable importance. We shall be numbered among the accomplices of these men, if we refuse to disavow their crimes. The refusal of the House to censure them, the anxiety of ministers to excuse them, will confirm a most disgraceful and injurious suspicion, which, true or false, is already but too prevalent, that the secret influence of Great Britain is not neutral in the struggle between despotism and liberty in Spain; or rather, in the cowardly persecution raging in that country against the defenseless friends of liberty, and carried on by a monarch who owes to them his throne. Men in office may speak of these events with official reserve. This may be fit for them. But no inde- pendent Englishman conceals his indignation. AB Europe regards the state of Spain with shame and abhorrence, and heartily prays for the downfall of its government. No suspicion more generally injurious to the. British character could prevail, than that we secretly prompt or even connive at those acts which we dare not justify.

The veneration and enthusiastic attachment felt towards this country by the lovers of liberty and of justice, in other countries has long formed a more considerable part of our moral force than vulgar politicians may perhaps believe. They are our disinterested unsubsidized allies. Their opinion has exercised a constant though often invisible influence on the measures of government. During the greatest part of the eighteenth century their reverence formed much of our importance and dignity; detached from us in the American war, overwhelmed in the convulsions of the revolutions, it revived with tenfold force, under the pressure of military despotism, and had perhaps reached its zenith at the treaty of Paris.

God grant that the present and similar events may not since that time have robbed us of much of this honorable strength! It was founded on the spotless faith of this kingdom. It was founded on the inviolable asylum of her sacred territory. It was founded above all on that noble system of wisdom and justice the free constitution of England; which made us observant of faith and hospitable to the oppressed; the school of every virtue, the source of the inferior benefits of wealth and power; the model, the pride, the hope, the consolation of the human race. When our national faith is now mentioned, I must hang down my head with shame and dejection; it is bartered for Alexandria; it is bartered for Savoy; it is buried in the same grave with the independence of Genoa. Our territory is no longer a city of refuge; our flag is no longer the symbol of security and the badge of hope to the eye of the oppressed exile. A British consul has become an alguazil of the Inquisition, and a British general has become a galore for Ferdinand 7; while the desponding friends of freedom begin to apprehend, that whatever remains of attachment to the laws of their forefathers may still linger in the bosoms of the people of England, her ministers have learned from familiar acquaintance rather to fear than to love liberty.

said, that notwithstanding the very elaborate speech of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down, it appeared to him that the question before the House lay in a very narrow compass. The hon. gentleman, who had brought forward the motion, had with great can dour and justice declared, that he was satisfied that the secretary of state had shown every disposition to remedy the mischief, and to repair that breach of hospitality which the commanding officer at Gibraltar had, from an erroneous conception of his duty, committed. He had declared that he should not have made this motion, conceiving that general Smith and sir James Duff had already been sufficiently punished, if something which had fallen from his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had not made a further discussion necessary. He was ready to admit, that the conduct of general Smith could not be justified, and he asserted that his hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn) had not attempted to defend it; he had merely endeavored to show the misconception under which that officer acted, and to prove that for that misconception he had already been sufficiently punished. Indeed, he thought the subject had been so ably discussed and elucidated by his hon. friend, that he should not have thought it necessary for him to trouble the House, if it had not been for some extraneous matter which had been introduced by the hon. mover, and by the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down, and which he felt it impossible to suffer to pass without notice.

The hon. gentleman who brought forward the question, had thought proper to enter into a discussion upon the present state of Spain, and to animadvert in severe and harsh terms upon the conduct of king Ferdinand and upon his government. The hon. gentleman had also added that impressions had gone abroad that the government of this country had assisted the king of Spain in the conduct which he had pursued since his return. He begged to observe, that he was at a loss to conceive what good the hon. gentleman supposed could arise from such animadversions, upon, and such language towards, an ally of this country. Whatever the House or the ministers might think of the conduct of the Spanish government, nothing that they could say or do, could prevent the sovereign of an independent country from governing his own dominions as he pleased. No men could deplore the conduct of the Spanish government more than his Majesty's ministers did; but when gentlemen asserted, that the king of Spain and his ministers stood alone in that country, that the people were inimical to king Ferdinand, and disapproved of his conduct in annulling the Cortes, he assured them that they were entirely mistaken; and it was important that he should, by stating a few historical facts, set them right upon that subject: he begged, however, in so doing, to guard himself from the supposition, that he, or any of his Majesty's ministers, approved of the conduct which he was about to describe; for he assured the House, that if ever the time should come when the whole of the conduct of his Majesty's ministers, of our ambassador in Spain, and of the commander in chief in that country, could be made public, it would appear, that nothing had been left undone that could be done by advice or representation to prevent those events which every one must deplore.

But the hon. gentleman should not run away with the opinion, that there was but one sentiment in Spain respecting the Spanish government. Upon the return of the king of Spain to his dominions, he went to Valencia, and the hon. mover had expressed his regret that the British ambassador, sir Henry Wellesley, had gone thither to meet the king. The hon. gentleman had not, indeed, blamed that conduct, but he had lamented it. The hon. gentleman, however, should recollect, that sir Henry Wellesley was sent as ambassador to king Ferdinand, in whose name the cores and the regency carried on the government, and that therefore, when the king returned to his dominions, it was the duty of the British ambassador to pay his respects to the sovereign to whom he was accredited. But, when the king arrived at Valencia, he was met by the general officers of his army, and by a great variety of other persons, who all implored him to put an end to the then existing government, and to remove the cores. Throughout the whole of his journey he heard nothing but the same language of detestation at the government of the regency and the cores. He regretted very much that such should be the case, but the fact was so. The king arrived at Aranjuez on the 11th May; his proclamation annulling the old government was dated the 4th of May, and issued at Madrid on the 11th; and on that day a part of the members of the cortes were put in prison. What followed? On the 13th, the king set out for Madrid. Upon that occasion, the whole population of the country assembled; they took the mules from his carriage, and he was drawn from Aranjuez to his capital, amidst the enthusiastic acclamations of the largest assemblage of the people that had ever been known in Spain. If, therefore, gentlemen thought that the conduct of the king in removing the cores was unpopular in Spain, they were completely mistaken. He wished that the people of Spain felt as the people of England did; but it should be recollected, that as the latter would not suffer any foreign nation to interfere with their internal government, so, on the other hand, it was rather too much for them to say, that they had a right to dictate to another people what sort of government they should have, and to revile them because they did not think and feel like Englishmen. He lamented therefore, he repeated, that gentlemen thought it right to animal very in such strong terms upon the Spanish government; it could answer no good end, and might tend to shake our alliance with that government—[Hear, hear! on the Opposition side of the House]. He begged gentlemen to consider that it was no unimportant matter whether Spain was thrown into our scale or into any other.

The hon. gentleman had also said, that there were imputations against us for our conduct to New as well as to Old Spain; but surely nothing could justify Great Britain, being in alliance with Spain, to interfere between the mother country and her colonies, more than we had done in the time of the cores, when we offered our mediation, which was unfortunately not accepted. The hon. gentleman had also mentioned the duke of Wellington; he had, indeed, mentioned him as he always did, in a manner that must be gratifying to every one who felt an affection for that noble person; but the hon. gentleman seemed surprised that the noble duke, who had received his honors and favours from the cores, should have again received them from the king: but the hon. gentleman should recollect, that these honors were conferred in the name of the king, and therefore it was natural that the king should confirm the honors which had been granted in his name. He was ashamed to have taken up so much of the time of the House upon this part of the subject.

The hon. gentleman who brought forward this motion, and the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, differed essentially from each other in their views of this subject. The former (as he had before stated) was of opinion that general Smith and sir James Duff had already been sufficiently punished, and had only moved this Address to mark more strongly the sense of the House upon this transaction; the latter thought the conduct of general Smith quite atrocious: he disbelieved the statement of the general respecting the entrance of these persons into the garrison under false names. Upon that point he chose rather to give credit to M. Puigblanc, notwithstanding the statement of Mr. Stedman, who, when he wrote the letter before the House, could never suppose that this subject would be made public. The hon. and learned gentleman even thought that the conduct of general Smith should be made the subject of military inquiry. This was not the opinion of the hon. gentleman who brought forward this question. There was not one word to that effect, either in his speech or in the Address. The hon. gentleman who brought forward the motion, and the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, differed also most essentially with respect to the Convention entered into in 1794. The former was of opinion, that it was absolutely illegal, while the latter considered it as perfectly conformable to the law of nations. When two gentlemen of such distinguished talents and information differed so widely in opinion respecting that agreement, surely the House would make great allowance for an officer situated as general Smith was, recently and unexpectedly called upon to take the command of so important a garrison as Gibraltar. In his own opinion, the Convention of 1794 went rather farther than the law of nations would in strictness allow; but whether that was the case or not, general Smith knew that that Convention had been acted upon; and that be should have mistaken its meaning, could not, he thought, be fairly considered as so heinous a crime as the gentlemen on the other side had endeavored to represent it. That he had acted erroneously was admitted; but, surely, in determining the degree of censure to which he was liable, the House would take into consideration the animus by which he was influenced. It was impossible to suppose that he meant intentionally to violate his duty, and to expose himself to censure. What motive, what object, what temptation had he to act wrong? Let gentlemen look at the situation in which general Smith was placed, the character he had to maintain, and the responsibility under which he acted, and they must be convinced that his conduct could only be founded upon an erroneous conception of his duty. If, then, the House was satisfied, that that officer, though he acted wrong, acted without a bad motive, they would, he was sure, think that the letter of lord Bathurst was a sufficient punishment for the offence; because, to a gentleman of his rank, it was not only a severe censure, but a serious misfortune.

With respect to the case of sir James Duff, his hon. friend (Mr. Gouldburn) had put it so clearly that it would be a waste of time for him to enlarge upon the subject. Here was a zealous and active public officer, who thought that some suspicious persons were going into the garrison of Gibraltar, and he thought it his duty to apprize the governor of the fort. He did not desire that they should be taken up; he merely put the governor on his guard. Sir James Duff was a man of a mild and amiable disposition, and therefore, though he thought it his duty to communicate what he knew to the governor of Gibraltar, he did it in as soft a manner as he could. The same principle upon which he had contended that the case of general Smith ought to be determined, applied to that of sir James Duff: Gentlemen, he was sure, would bear in mind that sir James Duff was a man of above 80 years of age, near fifty of which he had spent in the public service. He had resided near 40 years at Cadiz, where no man was better known or more beloved. He was, indeed, considered as the father of the city. During the whole of his long public life, he had uniformly met with the approbation of his superiors. The present British ambassador in Spain, he knew, entertained the highest opinion of sir James, and his predecessor in that embassy (whom he had seen that morning) had spoken in the highest terms of him. It was, therefore, impossible to suppose, that a man who had passed so long a life with so unblemished a reputation, would intentionally misconduct himself.

The hon. and learned gentleman who had spoken last, had indeed admitted the high character of sir James Duff; but had drawn from it the most singular inference that it was possible to conceive. "If," said the hon. and learned gentleman, "sir James Duff had been a man of an indifferent reputation, his conduct might be passed over; but as his character through a long life has been most excellent, therefore punish him severely." And why? "because he can bear it." How would the hon. and learned gentleman feel, if having spent a considerable portion of his life in the public service, with an unpublished reputation,—how would he feel, if he were now to commit an unintentional error, and were to be told that he must be punished severely, and that he owed the severity of his punishment to the excellence of his past conduct? Was this sensibility—was it humanity—was it justice? Did not the hon. and learned gentleman know that in the same proportion as a man's character stood high in public estimation, would he feel the severity even of the slightest censure? From what source did the hon. and learned gentleman draw this new and extraordinary principle of distributive justice? was it in studying the law of nations, that he learnt this new mode of rewarding the long and faithful services of an old servant of the public? It appeared, that after the acquittal of M. Puigblanc, sir James treated him with the greatest kindness; feeling that he had done that gentleman an injury in one instance, he had eagerly seized the first opportunity of making atonement.

Upon the whole, though he disapproved of general Smith's conduct, and wished that the letter of sir James Duff had not been written, yet, thinking that they had already been punished sufficiently, he could not agree to the motion. There was one part of the address to which he had no other objection, except that it was not necessary—he meant that part which recommended application to be made for the release of the unfortunate persons remaining in confinement. He thought it unnecessary, because no gentleman could doubt that every effort would be made to procure their liberation.

knew one of the unfortunate individuals in question, and thought the House and the country much indebted to the hon. mover for agitating the subject.

vindicated his Majesty's government, particularly his noble relative, and explained several of the circumstances connected with the arrest of the individuals adverted to in the motion.

declared himself quite convinced of the guilt of general Smith and sir James Duff, and that the reprehension to which ministers had alluded was not a sufficient punishment for such guilt. If any officer had rendered services to the country, the thanks of a secretary of state would not be deemed a sufficient reward; and he could not conceive upon what ground it could be supposed that where an officer had degraded the character of the country, the censure of a secretary of state could be regarded as a sufficient punishment. The hon. member, therefore, concluded with expressing his resolution to vote for the Address; and if that Address called for a more severe punishment of the persons alluded to, he should support it with more cheerfulness.

was of opinion, that the sentiment expressed by the last speaker was one that came home to the heart and understanding of every individual in the House. No censure whatever, and of course no punishment, he would venture to say, had been passed on general Smith; and the only question was, whether the House would declare in their corporate capacity, what they received as undeniable in their individual belief? Sir James Duff might be deceived, or he might be in the hands of other persons; but the sense of his letters distinctly and specifically pointed out his participation in the whole of this proceeding. It was impossible for any man who examined this correspondence not to see that sir James Duff and general Smith were not to be separated in the consideration of this question. Who then were the persons who had become the victims of this misconduct? M. Puigblanc had been a professor of Hebrew in the university of Alcala. M. Correa too was an officer who had fought with his two sons for Spanish freedom, one of whom had received four, and the other eleven wounds, and was now languishing in the galleys of Cute, to fill up the dreadful measure of ten years of servitude. But it would seem that the cases of these unfortunate persons were not to be inquired into, lest we should lose the benefit of the alliance with King Ferdinand. What benefit could be derived from an alliance with such a despicable tyrant? It might as well be argued that we were interested in preserving terms of amity with the day of Algiers or with any of the states of Barbary, as with that usurper of the Spanish throne! [Hear, hear!] Yes, he would say, that usurper, who, when he had escaped from captivity in France, had violated the treaty which had restored him to liberty and independence, and overthrown the very body, the cores, who had contributed to save, and had returned to him a kingdom, of which he had been divested., At this moment, the very creature with whom we were so anxious to be on terms of amity was nothing more or less than an infamous usurper. But it was consoling to know, that the people of Spain were not quietly submitting to his yoke. From the best information he could obtain, he had reason to believe that the present situation of that country resembled the convulsive movements which precede a battle; and in proof of its disturbed state, he could say, that a letter could not now be received at Lisbon from Madrid, but through the medium of mountaineer peasants. Was this a proof that Ferdinand reigned in the hearts of the people? So far from it, this execrable wretch was hated and despised throughout the nation. The hon. and learned gentleman said, he was anxious that the House should give the most energetic expression to its feelings, in the hope that that expression, combined with the known sentiment of the country, and of all that was enlightened and good in Europe, might chance to reach not that insensible wretch Ferdinand, upon whom they could have no effect, but the people whom he so grossly ill-treated—in the cordial wish, also, he would avow, that such sentiments might excite the people of Spain to re-assert their rights, to depose Ferdinand, and bring the miscreant to condign punishment. [Hear, hear!] His conduct was an example of all that was servile in the beginning, ungrateful in the progress, and cruel in the close of that career on which he had entered. Servile to those in whose power he found himself, his ingratitude had been shown to his best benefactors, and his cruelty to those who had restored him to his crown, and his people to their independence. Why ministers should oppose the present motion he could not conceive. He was astonished that any difficulty should be thrown in the way of it, and thought that it was not possible the House could refuse to agree to the Address.

was willing to allow that an offence had been committed, in which both general Smith and sir James Duffs were implicated; but they had al- ready been reprimanded through an official channel. If the thanks of that House was the highest honour a public servant could receive, it Oust follow that its censure was the severest punishment; and, considering all the circumstances under which the parties had acted, he was not prepared to go that length. The conduct of the king of Spain, which had been introduced by the hon. and learned gentleman, was a topic quite unconnected with the present question. There might be people who liked the state of things now existing in Spain; nay, he believed a vast proportion of that people were friends to arbitrary government and the Inquisition: but did the hon. and learned gentleman mean, that because we liked neither the one nor the other, therefore we should drop all connation with Spain? It was most impolitic to compare that power with the dey of Algiers, and was calculated to loosen those ties which existed between the two countries. This government had never defended the arbitrary power that was domineering in Spain; but nothing could be more impolitic than by irritating language to throw that government into close alliance with France. With respect to the present question, he thought enough had been already done to satisfy the justice of the country.

stated, in explanation, that he did not think the alliance with Ferdinand of such importance, as to induce the House to suppress its indignation upon the transactions alluded to.

supported the motion.

said, that what he wanted was not mere personal censure. The House had a higher duty to perform, that of clearing the honour of the country from an offence committed by its public agents. He thought that an honourable retreat should be offered to sir James Duff; whose services had in other respects been great, and that general Smithshould be recalled. He did not feel that the honour of the country could be redeemed without some public act, and the address of that House would strengthen the hands of the Prince Regent's government in its applications for restoring liberty to those men who were in a state of suffering and confinement.

thought the manner in which the character of the Spanish sovereign had been that night treated extremely ill calculated to give weight to any such representations. The hon. and learned mover had extremely surprised him when he talked of the unexampled efforts which had been made by the Spanish patriots, when the constant practice of his friends on former occasions had been to complain of their apathy, and of the obstacles which they opposed to the success of the common cause. He would put it, however, to that hon. and learned gentleman's taste and good sense, whether it was becoming the conduct of a legislator, of a member of the British parliament, to talk of an allied sovereign as a wretch and a usurper? What would have been said here, if in any discussion which had taken place in the tortes, the sovereign of this country had been so branded on a question of domestic policy, as the sovereign of Spain had been that night? Would it have promoted harmony between the two countries? And yet there were not wanting questions of domestic policy in this country in which it was possible that the cores might have interfered. He would ask, also, whether such language was politic in regard to the interests of this country and its friendly connation with Spain?

explained. The House could not, he said, be indifferent to the conduct of public agents of this country, when they thought proper to assume the character of Alguazils.

said, that notwithstanding hat they had just heard, he felt it his duty thus publicly to declare, that for the person of Ferdinand, and the counsels by which he was directed, he felt nothing but contempt and abhorrence. There was no hope for Spain,—no hope that she could be of any service to the commonweal of Europe, if the government of Ferdinand lasted, if that contemptible and detestable tyrant was not hurled from his throne. The hon. gentleman said, that if he could rouse one man in Spain to resist him, he should think he was doing a service. For while Ferdinand's government continued, there was nothing to fear from her resentment,—nothing to hope from her friendship.

supported the motion. He trusted that at least steps would be taken by government to procure the release of the persons aggrieved, and thought the House ought not to separate without expressing their sense of the conduct of sir James Duff and general Smith.

, in reply, said, that he should be unreasonable, indeed, were he not contented with the discussion which lad taken place that night, in which the conduct of general Smith and sir James Duff, putting private feeling out of the question, had been universally reprobated. He denied that he had brought any charge against general Whittingham, who had distinguished himself so greatly in the brilliant action of Barossa. He had only said, that he thought it an unfortunate circumstance that that officer should have commanded the advanced guard of Ferdinand the Seventh, when he proceeded to overthrow the tortes. This tyrant dared not to have made his entry into Spain unless the British general had preceded him. He had also only said, that it was an unfortunate circumstance that the name of general Whittingham should have been coupled with money transactions. It appeared from the documents in his hands, that 52,000l. had been paid to his divisions of the army. [Here Mr. Hart Davies said, "not pounds but dollars."] The hon. member on referring to the papers, acknowledged that he was wrong, and the sum was 52,000 dollars. That however, he contended, mattered not—it was a sum of money. He had been asked if he would have had general Whiningham refuse to obey the orders given him? He knew not what he would have had general Whittingham do; but he would tell the hon. gentleman, what other officers had done—they had thrown up their commissions. In answer to what had fallen from a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Hiley Addington), who had expressed such anxiety to justify his amiable relation (lord Sid mouth), he would tell him that some most atrocious and disgraceful proceedings had taken place under the Alien Act. When that Act passed, his amiable relation sat in the chair of that House—after that he became prime minister—after that he became nothing—[a laugh]—after that he had been in and out, and in and out several times. With respect to the Portuguese gentleman who was stated to have been sent to the Brazils, the right hon. gentleman had said, it might have taken place during the holidays when he was away from town—he hoped the right hon. gentleman would be able to refute the charge; if not, he would bring the subject under the review of parliament. Adverting to what had been said of the impropriety of speaking against Ferdinand the Seventh, he hoped, it would be known to him, that his ty- ranny was not only censured by the opposition in that House, but by the ministry also. If what passed in the English parliament found its way into Ferdinand's palace, and he should say, speaking with reference to what the opposition might have said, "Oh! these are Jacobins and levelers; let us see what the ministers say in my defense!" he would find that his conduct had been arraigned by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Pole), in terms ten times more severe than any he had used. Mr. Whitbread said, he would still continue to speak against the tyranny of Ferdinand, and he could not but lament that he was not now employed, as he had been part of the time he was in captivity, in embroidering a muslin gown for the Virgin Mary, who, in consideration of receiving such a present, worked by his royal hand, had revealed to him in a vision, that he would one day be restored to the throne of Spain.^*—[Loud laughter.] Would to God he had continued all his life to work gowns and petticoats for the Virgin Mary, rather than that he should have returned to his country, to act a part in the bloody scenes in which he was now engaged. Mr. Whitbread then took occasion to notice the appointment of a right hon, gentleman opposite (Mr. Huskisson), which he contended grew out of another appointment (that of Mr. Canning), and stated the right hon. gentleman to have been left behind, a legacy to the present administration, by his dear departed friend the ambassador to Lisbon.

, that he had censured the conduct of Ferdinand 7, in terms like those which had been imputed to him.

said, he had not been one of those who approved of the abuse which at one time it was common to hear lavished upon Buonaparté; but, surely, it did not become those who had been most forward to condemn this, to speak as they paw did of Ferdinand 7.

^* The following extract from a "Sermon pronunciation en la grin function qui se cerebra en Cadiz, par Don Blaze de Ostoloza, capellan major de S. M. C. y su Confessor. Ed. 7°, en Burgos, de la imprinted de la Inquisition, 1814," will explain the above passage of the hon. member's speech. The confessor begins by giving a picture of the life of the king at Valence:

"The king," says he, "rose at eight o'clock, heard mass, breakfasted, made afterwards a party at billiards, entered his closet to read his letters or some portion of holy writ, embroidered at the tambour till two o'clock, at which time he took a short airing in a carriage—he dined on his return—made a short prayer, received his brothers, or those who were admitted to pay their court to him, supped, and before going to bed recited with all his household the Litanies, which he toned himself.

"An agent of Napoleon, whose impious presence he was forced to endure, employed all means of seduction to draw the infant from his holy occupations. He brought a troop of female dancers from Paris, and even his own wife, to endeavor to charm the king; but I perceived by certain signs (adds the confessor, whose words we translate literally,) that the breasts of these women, indecently exposed, were beginning to have a dangerous effect on the prince, who was ready to fall into the seventh deadly sin. I admonished him in time, and, like the slave of Potiphar, Don Ferdinand escaped these new sirens.

"The king was above all things incensed at the poverty of the chief altar of the parish of Valencia; and at there being in the Chateau, a play-house, while there was neither a chapel nor an oratory—while the people were luxurious in their furniture and feasts, and miserable in the decoration of their temples. The king embroidered, himself, a beautiful robe of white silk, with gold pallets and gold fringe, for the Virgin. He had raised a superb altar, gilt, and he sometimes served, himself, the mass at the feet of the Queen of the angels. The Queen of the angels was most sensible of these royal attentions, and manifested to him her content by many signs. It happened in particular, that one night an ecclesiastic of the district being overcome with sleep in the church, the Virgin appeared to him as coming out of the altar,—she advanced towards the ecclesiastic, made several turns round him, to display the elegance of her toilette, and said to him, sighing, that her son received the vows of the king in recompense of the fine robe that he had given her; that the Spanish princes would not remain long without being delivered; and that they must form an Order of the Holy Sacrament, with which all the chevaliers should be armed for his defense.

"The priest, much touched by this speech, awakened, and came to me to reveal the miraculous vision; but I answered by assuring him that the Holy Virgin had already said as much to the king himself—who in thanking her had promised, that on his return to Spain he would make her worship flourish over all the provinces subjected to his dominion."

said, neither the station nor the high tone of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) would prevent him from persisting in the course which he might think proper; and he thought it right to inform the hon. gentleman, that whenever he animadverted on any relation of his, he would not fail to animadvert on that conduct.

said he had no explanation to make.

The House then divided:

After the division was over, Mr. Hart Davis addressed himself, in the lobby of the House with much warmth to Mr. Whitbread, on the subject of the attack made by the latter on general Whittingham, in the House. Mr. Whitbread vindi- cated himself, on the ground that he had no personal enmity towards the general, and proceeded merely upon the formation which he had received. Mr. Davis replied with unabated warmth, alleging, that the information, from whatever source, did not justify so outrageous an attack upon a meritorious officer, and his relation. Mr. Whitbread persevered in the same ground of defence; and as Mr. Davis vehemently declared that this was by no means a satisfactory vindication, Mr. Wynn, who witnessed the dispute, and was apprehensive of consequences, immediately went into the House, and informed the Speaker of what had occurred. The Speaker immediately sent to desire that Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Hart Davis would return into the House. Both the gentlemen obeyed the call, and were addressed by the Speaker in the manner usual on such occasions, requiring from each an assurance that nothing farther should pass on the subject. Mr. Davis declared, that he reluctantly submitted to the decision of the Speaker. Mr. Whitbread observed that he should submit of course.