presented petitions from Lieutenant Rowland Milner; Mr. John Bee, gunner; and Lieutenant Bryant, all of the Royal Navy, complaining of their names having been erased from the Navy List, and deprived of their half-pay, and praying for inquiry. The last petitioner stated, that any charge that would subject him to such harsh treatment must be the result of conspiracy; and he only sought for an opportunity to establish his innocence.

was much gratified in being enabled to inform the honourable and gallant Admiral and the House that circumstances had been brought to the knowledge of the Admiralty which satisfied them that the charges against Lieutenant Bryant were wholly without foundation, and consequently that his name would be restored to the list.

said, that this fact showed the necessity of the parties being brought face to face before such extreme measures were resorted to.

, before the House went into a Committee of Supply, was desirous of asking a question of the Government. Towards the end of the last Session a Bill was brought in for the purpose of consolidating the offices of treasurer of the navy, paymaster of the army, and master of the ordnance. They had now arrived at a late period of the present Session, and on the last day for bringing forward the supplies, and he perceived by the army and navy estimates, that all provision for these offices was omitted. What he, therefore, wished to ask was, whether any estimate on the subject would be submitted to the House, and whether the salaries of those offices had been paid on the 5th of July, and, if so, out of what fund were they defrayed?

was understood to say, that the arrangement to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, was one that required much consideration; and was not yet completed. He apprehended, however, that they would be ready in a few days and then they should be immediately laid before the House. With regard to the payment of the salaries of these officers there was no estimate submitted for the purpose in the Army, Navy, or Ordnance Estimates, because the Treasury thought it would be better that provision should be made for the charge in a separate estimate. It was the intention of the Treasury to submit such an estimate to Parliament, and they had hopes that they would have been able to consolidate the three offices in sufficient time to enable them to submit this Session as short an estimate as possible for the purpose. In consequence, however, of their not being able to finish the arrangements for the consolidation of the offices until the present late period, it was impossible for them to lay such an estimate before the House. The parties holding the situations had been paid their salaries up to the 5th of July, and it was true, that no vote of the House had been taken on the subject. It was conceived by the Treasury that it would be a great hardship on these parties if they should be kept out of their salaries through no fault of their own, and therefore an order had been issued for their payment out of the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Baronet should have the correspondence with the Treasury on the subject laid before the House if he chose to move for it. He (Mr. F. Baring) was sure that the House would not consider that anything wrong had been done, though no formal vote of the House had been taken on the subject.

said, that though he should not call for the correspondence with the Treasury on the subject, he must remark that when Parliament was sitting no money ought to have been issued except by a vote of that House. A supplementary estimate should have been brought forward in this case. He was sorry to find that these regulations would not be laid upon the table of the House in sufficient time to have a discussion on them this Session. He was the more sorry for it, as they affected an office which he, in common with a late treasurer, had great trouble in regulating. From the statement of the hon. Gentleman, however, he gathered that no opportunity for discussing them this Session would occur.

rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice on this subject. He should endeavour to be as brief as the importance of the subject would permit him—a subject of the highest interest to the great cause of humanity, and of immense importance to our colonial possessions in the western world, and to a large body of our most respectable merchants at home, who had embarked 70,000,000 dollars in the Mexican dominions. What, let him ask, would be the consequence if the United States should be suffered to wrest the Texas from Mexico, and to take possession of it? Would not Cuba and the other Spanish possessions in the gulf of Mexico then soon fall a prey to the United States? Some weeks ago, in answer to a question from him (Mr. B. Hoy), as to whether the noble Lord had had any correspondence with the Mexican Government on the subject of the establishment of the slave-trade in the Texas, the noble Lord said, that if the Mexican Government should prevail in the present war in Texas, he had no doubt that the laws of Mexico against the slave-trade would be carried into effect, but that the case might be different if the other side should succeed. Now, he (Mr. B. Hoy) would contend, that whether the Texas should remain a province of Mexico, or should revolt and become a portion of the United States, it would be still equally bound by the treaty which it had entered into with this country, as a portion of the Mexican dominions, to prevent the carrying on of the slave-trade within its territory. He could quote abundant authorities on that point; he would quote the authority of the noble Lord himself in the first instance. The noble Lord himself, some nights ago, in answer to an observation from him, in reference to Holland, said, that there could be no doubt that Holland was bound by a treaty which it had made with this country, when Holland and Belgium were united. The war now carrying on in Texas was a war not for independence, not for liberty, but positively for slavery. That was the object for which the Texians had revolted. To confirm this, the hon. Member read an account of the proceedings of a public meeting held at Brasoria, on March 17, and quoted the resolutions passed, one of which declared that, "Necessary and effective measures should be promptly adopted for securing, in a proper manner, all negroes against the means of doing injury to their families, and placing all in a state of every possible safety." The laws of Mexico prohibited carrying on the slave-trade, and if this revolted province should remain a portion of the United States, and should, as such, proceed to carry on that abominable traffic, it would directly violate a treaty made with this country. The press of America had long taken the part of the Texians, and had spread the most exaggerated statements against the Mexicans, It was evident that, the independence of Texas once established, that province would soon be added to the federal union of North America. The number of States in the union had originally been but thirteen; they were now increased to twenty-six; and there could be no doubt, that if Texas were added to the union, the basis of the connexion would be to establish slavery, and the slave-trade, permanently, in that province. He begged to ask the noble Lord (Palmerston) if, within the last ten days, he had not received an application from the Mexican Government to use the good offices of this country, to remonstrate with the United States against the violation of treaties, and the various aggressions of the southern states, on the dominions of Mexico. The hon. Member, in support of this view, read extracts from an article in the Times newspaper, and from speeches of Mr. John Quincy Adams, to shew the importance to America, in a commercial point of view, of annexing Texas to its territory, and to prove the intention of the United States Government to effect the union. It was now for that House to consider whether, after the enormous sums expended in abolishing and putting down slavery, it would render the whole of that expenditure useless, and allow slavery to take deep root in situations with respect to which this country, had both the power and right to interfere in suppressing it. Let the House bear in mind the cost to which already Great Britain had been put in repressing the slave-trade. The expense of the establishment at Sierra Leone was annually 40,795l..—the support of captured slaves 25,000l.—the expense of the Commissioners, 16,000l.—the expenses of twelve vessels stationed off the coast of Africa, 60,000l. and for eight or ten vessels in South America and the West Indies, 25,000l. more. These expenses were annual, and still continuing charges upon the country. The several items amounted to 166,000l. If to these payments was added the interest upon the 20,000,000l. given to the West-Indies, with the grants to Spain and Portugal, and the head-money formerly paid to the navy, to the amount of 484,000l. per annum, the whole annual expenditure of this country for the suppression of the slave trade was about 1,100,000l., calculating the interest at about 3½ per cent. Even now, despite this expenditure, such was the state of Texas, that the slave-trade had of late years increased. In the last year, 1835, no less than eighty vessels had left Cuba with slaves; and a calculation had reached him, that not less than 13,000 slaves were thus annually introduced into Texas and its neighborhood. With these facts before it, would the House consent to further protection being given to the system at which humanity shuddered? But supposing the independence of Texas to be established, and that it formed part of the United States, let the House consider what vast commercial advantages the latter would gain over this country. By that junction, the United States would be brought within six weeks sail of China. Neither ought the importance of the possession of the mining districts by America, be lost sight of by this country. The mines of Texas were of immense value—one alone having produced not less than 30,000,000 dollars. Unless Mexico was assisted, as she ought to be by this country, she would be so weakened as soon to become an easy victim to the ambition of the United States of America; and his (Mr. B. Hoy's) ob- ject, therefore, was, to induce the House to address the Crown for the due fulfilment of an existing treaty, in which Great Britain bound herself to co-operate with Mexico. He contended, that the employment of the word "co-operate" showed that this country ought to afford every species of assistance to Mexico, not only by remonstrating in an amicable manner with the United States, but by sending out a naval force to assist Mexico against Texas, and to prevent aggression by the United States. He entreated all who felt a real and a zealous interest in the abolition of slavery, to join with him for this purpose; and he maintained that no time ought to be lost by this Government in remonstrating with the United States. The Texians were men of many nations, in the lowest scale of morality, and interested as speculators in carrying on the slave-trade. He concluded by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying him to direct, that such measures may be taken as may seem proper to secure the fulfilment of the existing treaty between this country and Mexico; and to prevent the establishment of slavery and traffic inslaves in the province of Texas, in the Mexican territory."

seconded the motion, and said that the deep interest which he had long taken in the question induced him to say a few words. From the time of his mission to Mexico, he had observed that it had been the fixed determination of the United States, by fair means or foul, to obtain possession of the province of Texas. Hon. Members might, perhaps, not be aware of the importance and value of such an acquisition. That territory contained upwards of 120,000,000 of acres of the finest land: it was watered by several navigable rivers, having their embouchures in the gulf of Mexico; and on its coast were to be found many harbours, superior to all others in the adjoining territories, and the possession of which would give them a complete command of that gulph. When Mexico became an independent state, her government agreed to abolish slavery in its dominions. He could answer for the fact that during his residence in that country the treaty was most rigidly enforced, and at present he would take upon himself to say that there were not more than twenty slaves in it. Ever since the erection of Mexico into an independent republic, the United States had cast most covetous eyes upon the province of Texas. He had observed a curious proof of it during his residence in Mexico, when, through their agent, Mr. Poinsett, they took measures for the purpose of obtaining such a party in the Mexican Congress as would consent to allow them to have the Texas for a certain number of dollars. This endeavour failing, the United States had had recourse to other means; they encouraged all the refuse of their population to overflow the boundary line between the United States and the Texas, and to take possession of the lands of the latter. This was done; the lands of Texas were occupied by subjects of the United States, a Texian Land Scrip was created, and the Stock became the subject of speculation in the markets of New York and New Oilcans. No Texian had any interest in it. The territory was in the hands of some ten, fifteen, or eighteen thousand adventurers—men recognising no laws, and seeking for nothing but the means of turning their land to the utmost account. When he was in Mexico there had been in communication with Mr. Poinsett, upon the subject of the occupation of Texas, an American, who was now the President of the new Texian Republic—a man of talent certainly, but utterly devoid of principle. As a further proof of the connection of the United States, he would state that Mr. Forsyth, a Member of the Cabinet, was reported to be a very large owner of Texian land. Thus it appeared that Texas, being undeniably a country belonging to Mexico by solemn treaty, and being uninhabited, the Americans had created a population in it, and instigated that population to declare itself independent; and the Committee of foreign relations in the Senate then came forward with a solemn report, ushered in by Mr. Clay, gravely discussing the absolute necessity of recognising the independence of Texas—a State which they had created from the offscourings of the population of their own Western States, and which they had encouraged in every way, by furnishing supplies of men, arms, and munitions of war, to sever itself from Mexico. There were two considerations which ought to weigh with them in discussing this question. The first was the question of general policy—whether it were advisable to allow the United States to pursue a system of aggrandisement without any endeavour on our part to check them, and to allow the extension of their territory to the Rio Bravo and the Gulf of Mexico, in such manner as to obtain for them the absolute command of that Gulf; for certainly the acquisition of Texas would give them that command, and would enable them with half a dozen privateers to shut us out entirely from our present trade with Mexico, leaving us no route whatsoever by which to maintain a commercial intercourse with that country save that leading round Cape Horn to its western coast. Upon the importance of that trade, not only in reference to its present actual amount, but in reference also to the large probable increase which it would undergo, it was unnecessary for him to dwell; it was growing more extensive every day; nor could he see any definite limit to its increase in future years. Our connection with Mexico was rendered, too, more intimate by this circumstance, that we possessed a large capital invested in mining adventures in that country. It was impossible, then, to contemplate without anxiety, events having a tendency, apparently, to sever from the Mexican State a most valuable portion of its territory, and to place our trade with that state at the mercy of a commercial rival. The noble Lord must be aware that in 1825 there had been a somewhat similar project, on the part of the United States, to obtain possession of the island of Cuba. There were at that time in Cuba three parties, severally wishing for a connection with England, France, and America; the mutual jealousy of the three countries, however, prevented any one of them from taking possession of the island, and they came to a solemn treaty—notes having been actually interchanged by their respective Governments—that neither England, France, nor America, should interfere with Cuba, but that it should be left in the possession of Spain. The other consideration of which he had spoken, as one which ought to have weight in the discussion of the question, was the consideration of moral feeling which must influence every Gentleman acquainted with the condition of Society in the Western States of the Union, and every Gentleman aware of the incalculable misery which the system of slavery, there prevailing, inflicted upon so many millions of human beings. The question to be decided under this view of the subject was whether, for the purpose of maintaining that demoralizing system, they would allow the annexation of the territory of Texas to the United States. In a pamphlet recently published upon the subject in the Union, a great fear was expressed as to the consequences of such an event on the part of the non-slaveholding States; for doubtless the House must be aware that the States were at present divided into two great parties, the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States; that a struggle had been for some time carrying on between them in the national Legislature, and that the parties were now pretty equally balanced. The result of the annexation of the province of Texas would be the creation of nine additional slaveholding States, with eighteen Representatives in the Congress at Washington; and that circumstance would put an end to all hopes of doing away with a system which formed the most degrading feature in the whole frame of the United States. He thought that the subject was one which deserved the most serious consideration of his Majesty's Ministers, and on that account he earnestly supported the motion.

If at the beginning of the observations he should make upon what had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. B. Hoy) opposite, and from his hon. Friend, the Member for St. Alban's (Mr. Ward), he stated that he did not feel himself at liberty to agree to the motion for an address to the Crown upon, the subject to which the hon. Gentleman's motion referred, he trusted that neither the hon. Member nor the House would imagine that that was any proof that he did not feel the full importance of the subject, or that the Government was not as much animated as he was by a sincere desire to put an end to those evils to which mainly the proposed address related. But he thought, and he trusted before he concluded, he should satisfy the House that such an address would be at the present moment in some respects unnecessary, and in other respects premature. The observations made by the hon. Mover, and those by his hon. Friend (Mr. Ward) appeared to divide themselves, properly speaking, into two different branches, one relating to the political part of the question, the other to the separate topic of the trade in slaves. With regard to the political branch of the subject, undoubtedly the possibility or the probability of the province of Texas being added to the United States of North America would be a subject which ought seriously to engage the attention of that House and of the British public. But with regard to that question he did not think that the events which had yet occurred, afforded any ground to think that there was at present any such probability of a result of that kind as to call upon that House to agree to an address to the Crown with respect to it. The present state of the province of Texas was this:—That whereas a revolt had taken place in that province; a Mexican army had been dispatched for the purpose of putting it down; that their first operations were greatly successful; but that a portion of the army having incautiously advanced considerably before the main body, was surprised by a portion of the Texian force, routed with great slaughter, and the President, who happened to be with that part of the Mexican army, taken prisoner. But he (Lord Palmerston) thought the House could not infer from that single event what would be the ultimate issue of the war now going on in Texas. It was probable, that the resistance of the people of that province might prevail against the authority of Mexico; but, on the other hand, the advantage of numerical superiority was at present possessed in a very considerable degree by the arms of Mexico; and by the latest accounts that had been received, it appeared, that the Government of that country were making great efforts to increase and equip their army. He thought, therefore, that Parliament was not at that moment in a condition to infer from what had happened, what would be the probable result of the struggle. With respect to the conduct of the United States of North America, although he was aware, as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman, and by his hon. Friend, that individuals in those States, bordering on the province of Texas, had given great assistance to the revolted population; yet, if they looked to what had been the conduct of the responsible government of the United States, they would find in the message sent to Congress by the President, at the beginning of the Session, the most unequivocal declaration, that the government of the United States would take no part in the war then raging between Mexico and her revolted province; and they would further find, that orders were issued by the government to enforce the laws of the United States, and to prevent its subjects from mixing themselves up in the dispute. He had too high an opinion of the honour and good faith of the government of the United States not to believe that it would act up to the declarations it had made upon the subject; and he thought, therefore, that such circumstances ought to arise before it would be fitting on the part of that House to send to the Crown any address bearing upon the political branch of the question. Now, with respect to that part of it which related to the trade in slaves, the hon. Gentleman had remarked, that in the correspondence between the Government at home and its agents abroad, which had been laid upon the table of that House, with regard to the progress or diminution of the trade in slaves, nothing appeared bearing upon the trade supposed to exist in the province of Texas. That was very true; and the explanation of it was, that the British Government had no agent resident in the province of Texas; and it was but lately that they had received from the British Ministers at Mexico any representation bearing upon the illicit trade which was supposed to be carried on in Texas. Now, it would undoubtedly be a very great evil, and be very much to be deplored, if the course of the civil war, be it what it might, should lead to an extension or to a renewal of the system of slavery. That was unquestionably a subject well deserving the attention of the House; and if the House were of opinion, that the Ministers were indifferent to the matter, or not disposed of their own accord to bestow upon it their most vigilant attention, and to do everything which might be in the power of the Crown to prevent such an evil, it would undoubtedly be its duty to admonish the Government upon the subject, by adopting a similar proposition to that now offered by the hon. Member for Southampton. But he assured the House, that the Government required no such stimulus to induce it to perform its duty upon that point; and he trusted, that that which it had already done, and that which it was in the course of obtaining, would be accepted by the House as a proof that it was as anxious and as active as the House could wish, endeavouring, to the utmost of its power, to put down the trade in slaves in every part of the world where it was at present carried on, and to prevent its springing up in quarters where it did not at present exist. But if the House considered what the effect of the progress of events in the province of Texas might have on the matter, he did not think there was any remarkable danger of an encouragement of the slave-trade being the result of the civil war between that state and Mexico. It was evident, either that Texas would be recovered by Mexico, and become again subject to the laws and authority of that country, or assert its own independence and become a separate state, or, having freed itself from Mexico, it might choose to attach itself to the United States. If the authority of the Mexican Government were established, then the laws of Mexico would again come into operation in Texas, and then, as far as internal administration was concerned, there would be no more encouragement to the slave-trade in that province, as a part of the territory of Mexico, than in any other part of the world. But in reference to anything that the Government of Mexico could do at the present moment, it was perfectly obvious that, whilst its authority was thrown off by Texas, and it was unable to rule or to make its laws obeyed in that province, it would be in vain for the Government of this country to apply to Mexico to put down the trade in slaves which might be carried on in that rebellious part of their territory. In the second place, if the province of Texas should establish its independence, it would then be for the Government of England, in addressing itself to the new state, to enter into such negotiations as would induce it to contract with England a similar engagement for the suppression of the slave-trade to those already entered into by many, and he hoped soon to be able to state by all the civilized nations of the world. If, in the third place, at any future and distant time the Texian province should become a member of the United States of North America, then undoubtedly there would be some danger that at least from other states of the union, slaves might be introduced into that particular province; but there would, he thought, be no real danger of slaves being brought there either from the coast of Africa, or from any of the islands of the West Indies. If there had hitherto been any importation of slaves into the province of Texas—and in candour he was bound to state he believed there had—he believed that they came chiefly from Cuba and from the neighbouring islands in the West Indies; he had not heard of any cargo having been received direct from the coast of Africa. With respect to the importation of slaves from Cuba, that was part of a larger question, which he trusted had now been satisfactorily disposed of. The House was aware that the British Government had concluded a treaty with Spain for the suppression of the slave trade, containing what he thought and believed would be most effectual provisions for putting an end to that trade under the flag of Spain. That treaty had only recently come into operation, and the statements which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. B. Hoy) had referred to, of the transfer of slaves from Cuba to Texas, related to an antecedent period. The House knew, that some years ago the Government of France had entered into a treaty with Great Britain, by which a mutual right of search, subject to certain limitations, was conceded by the one country to the other; and containing other arrangements for the more effectual suppression of the trade in slaves. What had been the result? Prior to that treaty, the slave trade had been carried on to an enormous extent under the flag of France; but from the moment that the treaty came into operation, he did not believe a single slave ship had sailed under French colours. England had now concluded a similar treaty with the government of Spain. Previous to the conclusion of that treaty, and almost up to the moment at which he was then speaking, the flag of Spain had been extensively used for the purpose of carrying on the trade in slaves. But he trusted and believed, that the effect of the provisions now entered into by this Government, which, in the case of France had been effectual, would have an equally effectual operation in putting down the trade which had hitherto been carried on under the flag of Spain; and that the enormous traffic in slaves which had been carried on in Cuba, in defiance of all the remonstrance of the British Government, would speedily be put an end to, and with it that minor branch of the same disgraceful trade which had recently been partially established in Texas. There was, however, another flag which had been still more abused for the purposes of the slave trade than either of those he had yet mentioned—he meant the flag of Portugal. The papers which had been laid on the table of the House contained a painful enumeration of the abominations which had been carried on under that flag; and hardly a week passed without his receiving fresh accounts, the last still exceeding the previous one, of the enormities committed under the colours of Portugal. But he was happy to state that a negotiation with that country, for the purpose of concluding a treaty precisely similar to that concluded with Spain, had been brought so nearly to a conclusion, that he hoped before many weeks elapsed he should receive it signed. If he were not disappointed in that expectation, he trusted that his Majesty's Government would succeed in putting down the slave trade under the flag of Portugal, in the same manner as it had already succeeded in putting that trade down which was carried on under the flag of France, and as they were now in the course of putting down that carried on under the flag of Spain. There then remained the flag of Brazil, which, in spite of the treaty upon the subject, was still in some degree applied to the purposes of the slave trade. The government of Brazil, however, had now signed two supplementary articles, containing the essential stipulations without which their former treaty had not been effectual for the purpose for which it was intended. These were what were called the equipment and the breaking-up articles, without which it was found that any treaty upon the subject of the slave trade was completely nugatory. If the British Government succeeded in obtaining the accession of these different governments to its views, it would have the satisfaction of knowing that it had united in one common cause, for the purpose of putting down the slave trade, almost all the maritime powers whose flags could be abused or prostituted to the purposes of that disgraceful and inhuman traffic. But Government had gone still further; it had made propositions to the governments of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, which powers had not, hitherto, agreed to any treaties upon the subject. They had lately consented to treat upon it, conjointly with the governments of France and England; and before long he trusted we should obtain the sanction of those three great powers, in addition to those he had already mentioned. He said, therefore, that the question of slavery in the province of Texas was a small and comparatively insignificant branch of a much greater and more extensive question, and if Ministers succeeded, as he trusted they would, in carrying their objects and views into effect with respect to the general question, the House, he thought, might be pretty easy as to any encouragement to the slave trade in Texas. If, indeed, they should find, after all their treaties had been concluded, that there still continued to be an importation of slaves into that province, it would then undoubtedly be the will and inclination of the Government, as it would unquestionably be its duty, to take such immediate steps as the circumstances of the case should seem to require, and to endeavour, by every means in its power, to put an end to any abuse that might spring up in that quarter. Upon the political ground, he submitted it would be premature for the House to address the Crown to take any steps with reference to the war now carrying on in the province of Texas; and with regard to the slave-trade part of the question, he ventured to submit, that it was not necessary for the House to take any such step as that proposed by the present motion. If the House thought it an unnecessary step to address the Crown upon a point upon which the Crown and its advisers appeared already to be ready and willing to act, the adoption of a motion of this kind would, in fact, amount to a censure on the conduct of the Government, which he would be bold enough to say it did not merit, and which he did not believe it to be the intention of the hon. Mover to convey. Before he sat down he might state that it was his intention, before the expiration of the present Session, to submit to the consideration of the House a Bill immediately connected with one branch of the subject now under discussion, namely, the slave trade; and the statement he had just made would, he thought, sufficiently explain the necessity for him to do so. Of the different treaties of which he had spoken as being in a state of progress, he confidently hoped they should obtain the completion within a few weeks after the termination of the present Session of Parliament; but the House well knew that these treaties could not be carried into execution without the sanction of Parliamentary enactment. In order, therefore, to prevent the delay which must necessarily take place between this and the next Session of Parliament, he should be disposed, with the permission of the House, to bring in a short Bill of a limited duration, and by which the Crown should be empowered, by an order in Council, to give immediate effect to any treaties which it might conclude with foreign powers for the suppression of the slave trade, without waiting for a specific Bill to carry each into practical effect. If such an authority were given, it would save considerable time, and would enable the Crown more effectually and more speedily to carry the object of those treaties into effect.

expressed his belief that if the Americans should obtain possession of Texas, which had been truly described as forming one of the fairest parts of the world, a greater impulse would be given to the slave-trade than had been experienced for many years. If the British Government did not interfere to prevent the Texian territory from falling into the hands of American slave-holders, in all probability a greater traffic in slaves would be carried on during the next fifty years than had ever before existed. The war at present being waged in Texas, differed from any war which had ever been heard of. It was not a war for the extension of territory—It was not a war of aggression—it was not one undertaken for the advancement of national glory; it was a war which had for its sole object the obtaining of a market for slaves. He would not say, that the American Government connived at the proceedings which had taken place; but it was notorious that the Texians had been supplied with munitions of war of all sorts by the slave-holders of the United States. Without meaning to cast any censure upon the Government, he thought the House had a right to demand that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs do adopt strong measures to prevent the establishment of a new and more extensive market for the slave-trade than had ever before existed. The noble Lord ought immediately to open negotiations on this subject, not only with the Mexican, but with the United States Government, which latter had always professed to be anxious for the extinction of the slave-trade.

said, that after the statement made by the noble Lord, he should not feel it necessary to press his motion; but at the same time he must observe that unless some step were speedily taken to prevent it, there would be established in Texas a state, of which the governors would be man-retailers, and the main body of the population slaves.

thought, that the political importance of the subject had been a good deal lost sight of in the stress which was laid upon the question of the slave trade.

remarked, that so long as Texas remained a part of the Mexican empire, and as long as Great Britain did not acknowledge its independence, so long the Government of this country had a perfect right to enforce all the treaties at present binding on Mexico, against Texas. Supposing Texas to become independent, it would then be in the power of Great Britain to acknowledge its independence or not, at such a period and on such terms as to Great Britain might seem right and proper; and he apprehended that the Government of Great Britain would be slow, indeed, to recognise the independence of such a state, unless accompanied by a declaration that it would desist altogether from any encouragement or prosecution of the slave trade. If, on the other hand, the province of Texas should attach itself to the United States of North America, then, of course, it would immediately become subject to all the treaties which existed between this country and the Government of the United States for the prevention of the slave trade.

doubted whether the subsisting treaties between this country and the United States would be of sufficient force to put down the slave trade in Texas, supposing that province to attach itself to the federal union.

rose, pursuant to a notice long standing upon the order paper, to move for a return of "all officers, of whatever rank, who have been deprived of their half-pay without their consent, or the investigation of a court martial, from the year 1790 up to the present period, with the alleged reasons for such deprivation: also a return of any persons whose half-pay has been restored to them subsequently to such deprivation, with the alleged reason for such restoration." He was induced to make this motion because, as the House knew, the subject, having been frequently brought under its notice, several instances of great hardship, in which officers of long service had been deprived of their half-pay without any alleged cause, or at least without any proper inquiry.

objected to the motion, both as a soldier and a Member of that House. Until another commonwealth was established in this country he hoped never to see the discipline of the army subject to Parliamentary control.

was decidedly opposed to such a motion, as it was calculated to injure the service materially. The Government had undeniably the power to dismiss officers on full pay by calling in the aid of a court-martial. Officers on half-pay could not be compelled to undergo the latter ordeal, but the power of dismissal remained the same. He would not consent to parade a list of all the cases and causes of dismissal for the last forty-six years; but he had no hesitation in stating that, as far as he knew, no officer on half-pay was ever dismissed, except for conduct unbecoming a gentleman and a soldier. If the hon. and gallant Member thought that any particular individual in the list of half-pay officers were really aggrieved, let him bring the case before the House, and he (Mr. Wood) would undertake to give him every information the nature of the case admitted of.

thought that the hon. and gallant Officer would have done better if he had confined his motion to specific cases, especially as the hon. Gentleman (the Secretary for the Admiralty) had shown no disposition to deny proper and constitutional inquiry. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not press his motion.

said, that having recently troubled the House more than he liked, or was consistent with his general habits, he should not now have attempted to occupy its attention had it not been, that the matter which he had to communicate was of such importance, that the sooner it was made known before the Parliamentary recess the better. Soon after he last noticed the subject of female emigration to Australia, in which he had to contend alone with the Government and the hon. Gentlemen connected with the Emigration Committee, he received an intimation from an hon. Member of that House (the hon. Member for East Cumberland) that, had he been present, he could have corroborated his (Mr. Walter's) statements, by information which he had himself received.

If the hon. Member is about to show any reason why I should not leave the Chair, it is well; but I wish it to be understood no motion can now be made.

resumed.—At the time when he was interrupted, he was about to state, that he had communicated with the hon. Member for East Cumberland who had informed him that he could confirm the statements which he (Mr. Walter) had made. That hon. Gentleman had since been good enough to supply him with the information in question; and he (Mr. Walter) hoped, that if the Government would not listen to it in that House, it would still reach the ears of those poor creatures, who, out of that House, might become the victims of a system of imposition leading to their ruin—

(interrupting the hon. Member) said, that he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether, on the question for leaving the Chair, it was open to any hon. Member to raise a discussion respecting a matter of which no notice had been given?

On the occasion of going into a Committee of Supply, the House is aware that generally more than usual latitude is allowed. But undoubtedly it is very important that the forms of the House which are so essential to the protection of the people of this country should not be so used otherwise than except for a real and solid purpose; and I really must put it to the consideration of the House whether the raising of a discussion under such circumstances be or be not an interference with the course of business.

thought the House would agree with him that the matter was of very urgent importance. He would detain the House as shortly as possible. He would first read an extract from the letter, which would be authenticated by the hon. Member for East Cumberland. The whole account of the settlement to which he chiefly alluded, Van Dieman's Land, was as melancholy as could be conceived, and quite the opposite, he was sorry to say, of what the Emigration Committee had incautiously put forth. At present he would only speak of that most affecting subject, female emigration. The writer, whose letter was dated Hobart-town, October 26, 1835, says—"Oh! my dear Sir, if you knew one-half the misery and destitution that awaits the free females coming here, you would tell it where hearing would avail." He (Mr. Walter) wished the respectable writer were now in that House when he told of it, he would see how much the hearing of it availed. "Out of 268 who came out with me, I verily believe that there are not more than twenty who have any claim to a good name, being driven to the most wretched and loathsome debauchery; and, out of these twenty, I have been the only means of saving and placing many of the poor creatures. They have been glad to lie on my bare floors, and partake of such scanty food as I could spare from my large family. Here is neither credit nor pity for strangers. Whether the murder and extermination of the aborigines, or the exportation of defenceless females be more horrid to contemplate, is a question." Now, all this, (continued Mr. Walter) was independent of the accounts he had himself received and communicated to the House. But the public papers teemed with narratives of this dreadful kind, and censured the Emigration Committee in London for having put forth statements that the most satisfactory accounts of the emigrants had been received both from Sydney and Hobart-town. One good effect of his former motion on this subject had been, that the transportation of more females to Sydney was now stopped. The Committee had transmitted a formal notification to the Colonial-office to that effect, assigning the extreme immorality of the colony as the motive of their determination. Sydney, however, which was now to be abandoned, was, till very lately, the subject of as much praise as Van Dieman's Land; and a great number of females had been recently sent thither, notwithstanding the shocking account of its condition given last year by the chief criminal judge, who publicly stated that the commission of crime, and the punishment of it, seemed to be the main business of the colony. The Committee, however, still pressed the emigration of females to Van Dieman's Land, where, as they said, a very different state of society prevailed, and the entire state of the community was more moral and religious. He (Mr. Walter) utterly denied this statement. He must repeat, that it was only last year that the Committee declared their accounts from Sydney were as satisfactory as they now confessed them to be the reverse. With respect to Van Dieman's Land, the picture of that settlement was now fairly before the House. A shipload of the victims of these speculations was announced for sailing on the 22d of next month. Whether the charge of trafficking in human life and morals rested upon the Government, or the Committee, or both, was immaterial. Whatever their motives might be, it was very clear, from their own acknowledgment, that they had done much mischief. The Ladies' Committee at Van Dieman's Land entreated them to send out no more females under seventeen or eighteen years of age; and they complied with this injunction by directly advertising for girls of fifteen, spreading at the same time the most false accounts of the Elysian fields to which they were to be conveyed. A captain of an East-Indiaman, who was just returned to England, had told him that great numbers of these poor creatures had even got to Calcutta, where they infested the streets. Having said thus much, he should forbear animadverting further, in the hope that from this discussion the exportation of young females would be henceforward stopped.

said, that the occasion on which the hon. Member had chosen to make his statement on the question, namely, that the Speaker do leave the chair was so extremely inconvenient, that he should abstain from making a single observation on

I understand from those who are more versed than myself in the business of this House, that the most suitable time to bring forward questions of this description is on the moving of the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply, the more especially so when the subject itself has a direct reference to the manner in which the funds of the country are expended. I am, too, considerably strengthened in my position by the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Berkshire, which certainly did not appear to be very closely connected with the money transactions of the country. I rest my vindication of the course I am taking partly, therefore, upon this ground, and I shall persevere in my observations, although I am forbidden by the rules of the House to make any specific motion upon the subject. We have expended a large sum of money for which, as far as I can understand, there is no guarantee whatever in the hands of the Government. We have supplied considerable stores of arms and ammunition to Spain, and I shall be glad to know from the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any steps whatever have been taken by the Government to secure a reimbursement of our expenditure? The sum expended by us, as appeared by the returns laid upon the table of the House some months ago, amounted to 400,000l. or 500,000l.; since which, according to the accounts in the public papers, a considerable additional expenditure must have been incurred in arms and ammunition, independent of the increased naval force sent to the north of Spain to act as auxiliaries to Colonel Evans. My intention was to have submitted to the House a motion for a return of the number of men and marines now serving upon the coast of Spain, as well as the number of ships employed there, that we may know how far the treaty has been maintained or infringed in so doing, for the Government has thought proper to send out 600 or 700 marines in addition to those already on the station, who, although nominally attached to the Castor, have all of them been acting on shore, which, of course, must entail a greater expense upon this country than if they had continued on board the vessel to which they are attached afloat, or if they had remained in garrison, as they have hitherto been, at Portsmouth. Upon this ground alone, therefore, there is a grievance to be remedied to which I am justly entitled to call the attention of the House previous to going into a Committee of Finance. Since the period at which I submitted a motion to the House on this subject we have received much increased information relative to affairs in the northern parts of Spain, from which certainly it would appear that our intervention has exceeded the limits of the treaty, and has ended, too, in nothing but disappointment, both to this country and to the parties more immediately engaged in it. Let us for a moment look at the stipulations on it. The original object of the treaty I presume was to eject Don Carlos from Portugal. What are now called the additional articles, at that time had no existence. They were not added to the treaty until he had gone to Spain, and succeeded in taking up that, as it seems, impregnable position which has served him hitherto as a barrier, behind which he has been able to bid defiance to the united armies of England and Spain. We stipulated in the additional articles, when they were added, that ours should be simply a naval intervention and it seems to have entailed upon this country an expense of an almost unlimited nature, for where are the limits? We have increased our naval force on both sides of the Peninsula, and what at last is the object of this intervention? It is to prevent any supplies from reaching Don Carlos from the sea, on the supposition that but for our increased force he might make himself master of some of the ports on this side of the Peninsula—the king of France on his part guaranteeing to prevent the transit of stores or ammunition by the passes of the Pyrenees. Notwithstanding all this I believe it is beyond a doubt that Don Carlos has received supplies from that source. Now I put it to the House whether, having sent such a force as this, it is consistent with the terms of the treaty that they should be permitted to be used ashore, under the directions of General Evans, when they happen to be inoperative at sea? We might send out, if this is the case, under the name of naval assistance, every division of our marine force—the whole of the 10,000 men of that gallant corps might be nominally attached to a ten-gun brig and landed to be employed in defending the military entrenchments under the command of General Evans, or any other commanding officer of the Queen's troops, and the country might still be told that the men sent out in our steamboats were under the command of Lord John Hay, assisting as a naval force, while, in truth, they are landed on the coast, and placed as a military force, under the command of Lieut. Colonel Evans; and England might be told that we were still acting under the terms of the treaty. It may be said, that they are used strictly as a naval force; but it is well known that they were present both at St. Sebastian and at Fuentarabia, acting as an infantry corps; and what is to prevent their being used in the same manner in an attack upon Durango, or any other place in the interior of the country? Will the noble Lord say, that this is not a virtual infraction of the treaty, by which we are bound to succour the Queen of Spain by the intervention of a simple naval force? The Emperor of Russia and king of Prussia, together with the kings of Naples and Holland, have not made themselves parties to any such proceeding; they have not recognised the authority of Queen Isabella—they are not at war with Don Carlos. Is the King of Great Britain at war with him? The question has been several times put in this House, and it has never yet been answered. When the King of this country does go to war he should do it in the same manner his illustrious pre- decessors have done it, that is, by an open declaration of hostility. Now, in what position do we put Don Carlos? He is the chieftain of a large portion of the Spanish people, who are devoted to his person, and I suppose to his principles, reigning as he virtually does, not only in the mountains of Navarre and Biscay, in Alava and Guipuscoa, but now extending the influence of his cause to Catalonia, to Castile—nay, to the Asturias and Gallicia. Call him, if you please, at least, a mountain chieftain, you attack him without any declaration of war against him; and has he not a right, let me ask, therefore, to consider you as marauders on this his acknowledged territory? You talk of the blood-thirsty decree of Durango, and no one can be more indignant at such an atrocity than myself; no language can convey the execration I would pour on such a fiendish declaration as that was. But who set him the example? Who but the allies of his Majesty the King of Great Britain, a circumstance which of itself would form a sufficient excuse to his Majesty's Government for withdrawing from the unfortunate treaty into which we had entered. It was meant to be acted on by men of honour. You might have said, with just indignation, "We entered into a treaty with you, which was meant to be observed in that spirit of good faith which belongs to a great nation, but not to be maintained by the assassins of Barcelona and the monsters who slew the mother of Cabrera. If you carry on your war on that atrocious principle we will dissolve the contract, we will adhere to it only as long as it is conducted as a war of principle, and according to the laws which are acknowledged by all civilized nations; we will not be the abettors of murder, or the panders to bloodshed." But, Sir, I was touching on a point relative to Russia and Prussia. They are not at war with the mountain chief but the queen of Spain is. We are, as it has been said before, quasi belligerents, we are quasi at war—but not according to the usual principle of belligerents. What is the meaning of all this mystery? Are we prepared, as allies of the Queen of Spain, to tell Austria, Russia, and Holland, that they shall not trade with those ports which may be in the hands of Don Carlos? Because, if we are not, in what position shall we be placed? Our vessels which are sent to prevent supplies from reaching Don Carlos will be inefficient for the purpose unless we are prepared to make a declaration of war against those Powers, in case they attempt to enter into commercial relations with Don Carlos. They have a right to enter into communication with the insurgents if you like to call them so; and what will be the conduct of Great Britain under these circumstances? Suppose during the contest, which I believe to be unrivalled since the sanguinary but not more murderous contest of the Theban Brothers—suppose the continental Powers who have not signed the treaty were to acknowledge Don Carlos, what line of policy is the noble Lord prepared to pursue? Every difficulty which may arise would have been avoided if we had never affixed the seal of Britain to the unfortunate document I have mentioned. Had we not intervened in this fiery struggle until we were called upon to do so by a position of affairs disgraceful to humanity we might then have justified our interposition by a plea that would have been met by the applauses of civilized Europe. I remember on a former occasion I listened with great attention to the speech made by the noble Lord, fraught with the courtesy and generous and gentlemanlike urbanity which is the characteristic of the noble Lord. He said we had interfered with Greece and Belgium, and he asked us to contemplate the blessings we had poured on those countries. Is he satisfied, let me ask, with those we have showered upon Greece? Have we not had a nation recently before us which exhibited the bankrupt nature of its financial position? Are we content with the mode in which they have husbanded their pecuniary resources? I will not enter into the question of Belgium, nor the feelings I entertain of the efforts of the great Powers to stop the effusion of human blood. We stopped the murderous career of Mahomet Ali. I do not mean to say that your subsequent negotiations may not at any time ruin your previously sagacious and praiseworthy efforts. But look to the force of the Carlists; are they now an obscure body of soldiers—a mere band of mountain insurgents? Do you not acknowledge that those whom you styled formerly barbarous hordes, however ignorant of the technical rules of war, on most occasions have fought like men who bled for freedom, and with such constancy as you might have expected from trained and disciplined soldiers, so much so that you acknowledge that had it not been for that opportune arrival of the Salamander and Phœnix, the Carlists would have driven in disaster and disgrace the auxiliaries into the sea. You have given them credit for per- sonal bravery; you have deemed them worthy of consideration by the evidence you yourselves have given of the efficiency of the attack, and the credit you claim from it. General Evans himself endeavoured to animate his own troops by the example of the enemy. Now, Sir, one word upon the reconnoissance en force which we have heard so much before Fuentarabia. I own I know little of these military manœuvres; but this at least seems evident, that if it was a reconnoissance en force it was likewise a retreat enforce. Of that there is no dispute on any side. Assuredly too it was a very close examination of the place with, I imagine, the intention of taking it if possible. The General evinced great anxiety to make himself master of the town, and, not having done so, I must own is entitled to the credit of retreating in very soldier-like order—with the sacrifice of some portion, it is true, of his men and his provisions. But why were we kept in a state of darkness as to whether his Majesty lost any of his troops in this affair? We are told that his majesty's marines retreated, and that the flag which had hitherto waved so proudly per mare per terram, and which had hitherto struck terror into the ranks of the adversary, was withdrawn from the field in conjunction with his Majesty's Allies. I have received a communication from Behobia, in which the writer, a man of undoubted veracity and character, says, that he was a witness of that scene, in conjunction with the French officers from Bayonne; and he states, in emphatic language, that it nearly broke his heart to listen to the jeers with which that retreat was accompanied by those spectators. I regret to see that smile on the face of a gallant Member opposite. He, doubtless, knows from experience the rapture of victory—doubtless, he has never known the pain of defeat. Now, what, in truth, has been the effect of this intervention? We have poured out our blood and treasure—have they strengthened the cause of the Queen? Has it not rather exhibited the real weakness of her position. Have we not within these few days been informed that the advances of the Carlists have been so rapid as even to disquiet the solitudes of La Granja? What are you prepared to do? Will you send more marines? Are they to act at a distance from the coast? If so, where is the virtue of your treaty? Now let me allude to an order recently issued by General Evans, relating to the application of the punishment of death to British subjects. There are several versions of that document. But what right is there vested in General Evans to affix the penalty of death to any individual serving with Don Carlos? The Act of Parliament (the Foreign Enlistment Act) makes it a misdemeanour. General Evans makes it a capital offence—death, forsooth, may, if he pleases, be the penalty he chooses to dispense to those taken in arms; but will he follow the atrocious example he so strongly deprecates in others? Will he seize the sword of vengeance to perpetrate a deed of massacre on his fellow-countrymen in arms? Surely there should have been some communication from the Government of this country to that General, showing him that in this country we understand no such principle as he has promulgated. But, Sir, he will not shed their blood—he will not doom himself to share in the execration which has attended the atrocities of the Carlists. No doubt the order did attract the attention of his Majesty's Government, and had I been permitted to make any motion I should have moved for the correspondence on that subject. If we refer to the history of the country, how stands the claim of Don Carlos? As the law originally stood, I own that the Queen might have succeeded to the throne; that was altered to the Salic Law, which has been from that period the rule of the monarchy. Ferdinand repealed that law on the persuasion of one who seldom pleaded in vain, the fair and fond partner of his throne. But is there not, on the face of the transaction, something that is unfair to Don Carlos? He conducted himself at Madrid as a faithful subject of his brother. He entered into no intrigue. He withdrew to Portugal. It is true he claims the throne as the legitimate successor of the Bourbons, and he came into Biscay saying—"I am here not only as your monarch, but as the vindicator of those invaluable and constitutional rights of which you are robbed by the decrees of the Queen's government." They combat, then, under such a leader with the fervour of men who have dear-born rights to vindicate of their own, as well as the hereditary privileges of the king that they adore. Do you expect to drive him from his mountain fastnesses by your war vessels and your marines? As an effective force it is ridiculous—but, as it affects the moral greatness of this country, it is, I fear, of no mean magnitude. You will combat without effect—you may be forced at last to withdraw with dishonour. I say such an intervention is not called for by the treaty—it is undertaken, under such an aspect of affairs, as induces me to believe that it is fraught with ultimate disaster. I wish the noble Lord would indeed pacify the Peninsula. Did we consult the Greeks or the Turks when we thought proper to stop the mad indulgence of their envenomed passions? You intervened at Navarino. You told the king of Holland that the voice of England should be heard. You admitted at last of no argument. You had indulged in protocols, indeed—but at last you spoke as became Great Britain. Are you doing so now? If you are sincere in your wish to tranquillise that unhappy land, why do you not endeavour to act in unison with those powers who will willingly, perhaps, extend "in fœdera dextras." You have placed yourselves in a false position with those nations. Should they choose to intervene on the side of Carlos, and you act with the spirit of Britons, the issue of the contest may be most disastrous to the welfare of this country. But by perpetuating such a contest as this you will prove yourselves a curse when you might have been a blessing to that afflicted country. Do not allow them an opportunity of robbing us of the glory which is consecrated on that soil by the childish display of force which is only calculated to exasperate those who are strong, or to exhibit in more painful colours the weakness of the feeble. We were told Mendizabal was to prove the miracle of prosperity; he was to turn the Pactolus of Spain into the royal treasury; the troops were to be paid by the money of those who declined to be belligerents; an army of one hundred thousand men was to be raised, two-thirds of whom were to be an army of reserve. Where is it? where is the boasted repletion of the treasury? Those who did not join the conscription were to be personified by a pecuniary representation quite as agreeable perhaps in all probability as the corporal presence. But Mendizabal has vanished—the same breath that made him has unmade him, and the same intrigue of the Camarilla which raised him to that eminence laid his greatness prostrate by its influence. Matters are more desperate at Madrid than ever. But if Don Carlos come to the throne where will be your loans—where will be your security for the advances you have made under the treaty? Surely those persons, not only at home but abroad, who have embarked their money in the advances of those wars have a strong claim on your attention. If the noble Lord will make advances to the powers of Europe he may then pursue a course which will throw the protection of their influence and our own over those important transactions. Let the noble Lord make an effort. If Don Carlos proceeds as he has hitherto done, he may reach Madrid. How then, do you imagine, will he treat those who have supplied the instruments of war to those who were the enemies of his throne, although it may be said, in truth, that, in administering those weapons to his foes, we have in reality armed his followers—for it is notorious that the muskets of Carlism bear the satisfactory indication of British manufacture? You have straightened his arm, and you have encumbered his enemies, your allies, by your assistance. This is all done, too, for a liberal government—a government which does not hesitate to transport your unoffending subjects in the dead of the night, without appeal, without an hearing, or a reason, to the frontiers of their country, because, forsooth, they use the privilege of Englishmen, and are imprudent enough to speak the truth of what they have witnessed in the capital. The government is a liberal government—the queen is a liberal sovereign—the ministers are paragons of liberality; yet such is their conduct to the subjects of their ally, the King of Great Britain. I again beg to say, that I hope I may rest my vindication for the step I have taken on the grounds I have previously advanced. We lavish half a million on an enterprise in which we have no interest that could induce us to exhibit such a careless profusion. We refuse to make concession to the difficulties of our domestic financial condition. I know the noble Lord will deem this discussion worthy of his deep attention. I am sure he will give me credit for having brought it forward conscientiously; and I hope nothing has escaped me, even in the warmth of the investigations that can produce a moment's pain to a single individual who is interested in this contest. I have given, I hope, the praise that is due to those who have fought in defence of the principles they may sincerely entertain. I have not detracted from the merit of those who have exhibited their readiness to lay-down their lives for the King and the liberties they love, and have bled with a consistency and an undaunted firmness worthy of the name of Spaniards, whose early days are hallowed by the remembrance of great and glorious achievements.

said, that the quadruple treaty was entered into for the attainment of great national interests; it contemplated the complete pacification of all the kingdoms of the Peninsula, and to have stopped at anything short of that, would not have been carrying it fairly into effect. As to the complaints that have been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the Castor having had too large a complement of marines, really I never heard any thing so preposterous: I have heard complaints of too small complements, but never yet did I hear it gravely objected, that a ship of war had too many marines belonging to her. I hope the House will support the Government in acting up to the treaty, and in doing every thing they can, to establish that which is in truth the main principle on which it was founded,—namely securing to the Queens of Spain and Portugal the peaceful enjoyment of their constitutional rights. When the hon. and learned Gentleman asks whether we are at war with Don Carlos?—I ask in reply, How can we be at war with Don Carlos? Do we recognise any such sovereign in Europe as Don Carlos? Do we not rather look upon him as an invader of the kingdom of Spain? The hon. and learned Gentleman referred in strong terms to the proclamation lately issued by General Evans. I think it was quite right and perfectly constitutional in that officer to represent to any Englishmen in the service of Don Carlos, that they were violating the law of treason in serving that person. I am not for applying, in such cases, the strict penalties of treason; but I do say this, it is a principle well known and universally acknowledged, "nemo potest exuere patriam;" and if an Englishman, having engaged in the service of Don Carlos, should put to death any of the troops in the service of the King of England, or of his allies, he does come under the law of treason, and is liable to the penalties affixed to that crime. General Evans does not pretend to enforce this law himself; his proclamation is in the nature of an advice, caution, or admonition to Englishmen in the service of Don Carlos, representing the danger they are in of incurring the penalties of treason to King William 4th if taken in arms against his subjects or allies. I repeat, I am one of the last who would desire to see the strict law of treason put in force, in these cases particularly, in a case so peculiar as that of Spain—a country in which as all who adhere to Don Carlos are accounted traitors to the Queen, and the adherents to the Queen are considered guilty of treason to Don Carlos, there must be a nation of traitors, for, of course, civilians are subject to the same law; and where there is a nation of traitors there can be no treason, for in its very nature, treason is an exception. We had, in 1815, many lamentable instances of misapplication of the law of treason; upon the accession of Louis 18th, military executions took place under that law, which threw a shade (if any thing could) upon the glorious achievements of that period. What did hon. Gentlemen opposite say to the atrocious, bloodthirsty murders that were perpetrated on the side of Don Carlos? Was there ever anything more abominable than the slaughters of Cabrera? Can you shew me anything equal in atrocity to the putting to death, by slow torture, English soldiers, taken in arms against Don Carlos? I defy you to find me any one case in the list of cruel and cold-blooded deeds committed on the Queen's side, which will equal that. Let me have permission to pass some compliments upon General Evans, after what has been said upon the opposite side of the House against him. I look upon the action in the neighbourhood of Hernani as one which will bear comparison with any that have taken place in Spain, since the Duke of Wellington quitted her shores. It presented a display of the characteristic bravery of British troops, not surpassed, I venture to say, since the glorious achievements of our army in the Peninsular war. It will do honour to this country, even if (as I do not believe will be the case) the cause of the Queen should eventually fail. Even the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite did justice to the Legion in this instance; but he did no more justice to it than was done by a foreigner—a gallant officer of the French army, Count Harispe, commanding upon the frontiers, who wrote a letter to General Evans congratulating him upon the glory which he and his companions in arms had won by the action of Hernani. The want of success to the Queen's army, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke, I ascribe mainly to the disgraceful misconduct of Cordova. That General is the first military commander who does not wish for victory. In the full tide of success he leaves his army exposed to the attack of its vindictive enemies, the small and reduced British Legion hastens to Madrid, and there consumes the precious moments in miserable trickery of political intrigues and cabals. Never was there more disgraceful, dishonorable conduct. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, when commenting upon the ill success attending the Queen's forces, ascribed it to the splendid victories or brilliant exploits of Don Carlos's troops, and he entirely left out of sight the disgraceful conduct of Cordova, to which, in my opinion, it is mainly to be traced, and I should be very glad to hear of his dismissal. Sir, I look upon the despotism which has long prevailed in Spain as the cause of all the defects in the Spanish character, and I sincerely hope, that when constitutional liberty is established, a new order of men will arise in that country. Until that happy period arrives, I, for one, will join in the sentiment so nobly expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Sir John Elley) upon a former occasion,—"Wherever Englishmen were, there shall be my heart, my wishes!" That was a noble, a truly patriotic declaration—worthy of the brave and distinguished officer from whom it fell. What a contrast does it afford—not, I am happy to say, to any sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, for he has spoken, at least, with respect of the British Legion—but to certain publications, the authors of which seem to wish nothing more ardently than its utter annihilation! I hope the Government will be supported by this House in the line of conduct they have hitherto pursued. I hope that they will be enabled to do everything necessary to maintain the real principle of the treaty, and to take a decided part, not—I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman—not going beyond, but in strict conformity with, the treaty, in effecting the complete pacification of the Peninsula.

said, that the hon. Member for Shaftesbury had not touched the cause of the evil. It was not that Cordova was treacherous—it was not that Carlism was feeble—it was, that the Spanish government had not the affections of the Spanish people. Let the history be reviewed since the death of Ferdinand. The first minister Zea, like every other minister that followed him, came too late for the wants of the country. He wanted to supersede a barbarous by an enlightened despotism; but no despotism was then possible in Spain—so he fell, as he deserved to fall. He was succeeded by Burgos—another clock behindhand. Burgos wanted to introduce a French centralization—a policy to which all the habits, all the associations, all the recollections of Spain are opposed. Spain is not a country of national, but merely of provincial feelings; Catalonia has nothing in common with Galicia, nor Andalusia with Biscay; Madrid has no influence with the capitals of other provinces except by recognizing their local habits; and Burgos hated the press, and fell, as he deserved to fall. Then came Martinez de la Rosa with his remedies—always too late, always insufficient, and inadequate. Next came Toreno, a little more liberal than Martinez, but he, like his predecessor, was frightened at the idea of giving to public opinion a representation—but that public opinion, without a representation, hurled him from his seat. Mendizabal's fate was the same; he had a great and a pure name—and what was his conduct? He followed in the same backward course as the rest; and, instead of seeking the support of a nation, asked for a vote of confidence—a miserable screen for weakness. And now comes Isturitz—. and it is the same story, the liberty of the press, and the liberty of the subject not secured—no local government—no really popular elections. Now, how can the House wonder that the insurrection is not subdued? The insurrection can be put down by nothing but liberal institutions. The constitution of 1812 was quietly making its way—producing peace and happiness, when that most atrocious of modern political iniquities, the invasion of Spain by the French Bourbons, overthrew the hopes of liberal Spaniards and of the enlightened portion of mankind. He had seen that constitution in operation, and the influence of that constitution, the recollection of its results, was still deep in the hearts of Spaniards. That constitution had covered the country with schools; it had introduced education into the villages—it had improved the towns—it had established a hundred newspapers—it was based on universal suffrage—it had shed no blood. There were only two principles at work in Spain which had in them stability or power. There was liberalism on one side and despotism on the other. What had been the policy of all the fleeting Governments which had succeeded one another? What but to establish a juste milieu, which should not be purely despotic nor honestly liberal. That policy must fail, and until the course of the Spanish government were the bold advocacy of a popular cause, it would not obtain, and deserved not to obtain, the support of the Spanish people.

did not believe that Cordova would be able to crush the Carlists. He believed that if General Evans had been at the head of 20,000 good English troops, well paid and provided, he would long ago have crushed them. But it was in Spain as it was in that House. He feared the Whigs were not very sincere in their love of liberty, and so "we poor Radicals," said the hon. Member, "when we propose any measures of real and substantial reform, are beaten by the united forces of Whigs and Tories. So in Spain, the forces of Don Carlos and the Queen combine in defeating any attempt to introduce a liberal constitution in Spain;" and he (Mr. Attwood) agreed with the hon. and learned Doctor, the Member for Kilmarnock, that Spain would never be tranquillised till a free constitution was set up upon the basis of representing the great mass of the people. As the country was now situated, it would not do for the Queen's Government to put down the Carlists altogether, they were necessary to keep the liberal party in check: and therefore the Queen's generals received secret orders not to crush them entirely. In such a state of things, with treachery in the camp, and intrigue at the Council Board, it was impossible that General Evans should succeed. The Governments of Spain were the bitterest enemies of liberty; and till liberty was established upon a secure foundation, Spain never would be pacified.

was most anxious that this question should be brought on before the prorogation of Parliament. It was one of the highest importance to the people of England. He was taunted before with want of information on the affairs of Spain. He had, however, read her history most attentively, and diligently watched all the proceedings since 1812. No man felt more anxious that the elements of a free Government should be found to exist there. That, however, was not the case. The clergy did not desire a free Government, and the gentry were attached to their ancient institutions. Spain, in fact, possessed no elements of a constitutional Government. They could not be forced at once upon a people—they must grow up by slow degrees. It was impossible for him to forget the 24th of June last, when they were told by the noble Lord (Palmerston) that Spain, with the exception of one province, was quiet, and devoted to the Queen. The noble Lord did not understand the character of the people of Spain when he signed the Quadruple Treaty, or he never would have signed it. It was said, the people of the Basque provinces rose in rebellion because they were deprived of their ancient privileges. Before ever those privileges were taken away there were 50,000 men in arms who opposed the Government, the moment they heard that Don Carlos was excluded from the Throne. They were attached to their clergy; the principle of loyalty was strong in their bosoms. Their feelings were powerfully excited by the outrages committed upon the clergy in 1820; and when they heard that Don Carlos was expelled the Throne they exclaimed, in a spirit of loyalty, like the Hungarians in the time of Maria Theresa, "Moriamur pro Rege nostro Maria Theresa." He thanked God that all the provinces of Spain were now ripe for insurrection in the cause of Don Carlos. Cabrera was active and enterprising, and while he must express horror at some of his acts, still it was but justice to say, that they were provoked by still more horrible atrocities. Gomez had traversed the Asturias unmolested and unopposed, and was now on his way to Gallicia, not meeting interruption from the people. So much for the general opposition throughout Spain to the cause of Don Carlos. There was no such thing as a democracy in Spain. A few demagogues persuaded the fools and dupes of the country, that they encouraged liberty, when in reality they were only usurping it, and seeking by its means their own ends. But how were their ends to be achieved? The Queen's army was unpaid; her civil servants were unpaid; and for the last four months not a dollar had been forthcoming to them. Cordova could not advance, because his army was in such a state as to be incapable of undertaking a mountain campaign. Half of his troops, moreover were Carlists, and ready for in- surrection at a moment's warning. He was charged with treachery; but he had no means of acting. He could not put an end to the war, because he found it was impossible to advance into the mountains. It was not possible to look at Spain as it now stood and not say, that the interference of England in its domestic concerns had by no means added anything to the national character of the country. England—or the Government rather—had not pursued a bold, manly, straightforward line, nay, it had not even acted with masculine vice. They had sought to settle matters by the force of moral influence, but that of this country had sunk so low since the noble Lord opposite came into office as not to be of any avail. Since the noble Lord had held the reins of power as Foreign Minister of the Crown the character and reputation of this country had gone down with foreign States to an immeasurable extent. To destroy the national power of Spain in the person of Don Carlos was impossible; it was vain to attempt it. And when he (Mr. G. Price) saw the treasure of this country wasted, and its honour spoiled in the effort, he could only thank God that he had no hand in it.

began by observing, that the determination of the Spanish Car-lists, as described by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, certainly bore no resemblance to the course of debate which had been pursued that night; for whilst it was Stated by the hon. Member for Sandwich, that the Carlists were going direct to Valencia, he had wandered into the utmost diversity of topics, and touched not merely on those connected with Spain, but had travelled back into the affairs of Greece. We, continued the noble Lord, are like the Spanish Government, for in the words of the hon. Gentleman, "our treasures are empty, and we are anxious for supplies." My right hon. Friend near me (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) is like the state of Gallicia, as its: inhabitants have been represented by the hon. Gentleman, "quite steady, but ready to rise." If he were to consult his own convenience, and perhaps the wish of the House, he should have declined to enter into any discussion of the matters which had been introduced, but since he knew that the anxiety of the hon. and learned Gentleman who began this debate was not altogether without foundation, as his presence would be required elsewhere within a very short period, and as this was the last opportunity which he might have, consistently with his duty to his English clients, of saying any thing in favour of his Carlist clients, he (Lord Palmerston) felt, that it was not fitting in him to allow the observations of the hon. Gentleman, and those of the hon. Member for Sandwich, to go altogether unanswered. The hon. Gentleman who began the debate contended, that the Government of this country had not adhered to the stipulations of the Quadruple Treaty, for our marines had been suffered to serve ashore; and that our assistance had been carried beyond the limits within which we had been bound to confine it. It was also contended by the hon. Gentleman, that that Quadruple Treaty did not contemplate the expulsion of Don Carlos from Spain, but simply his removal from Portugal. He denied altogether the correctness of the interpretation given to that treaty by the hon. Gentleman. It was well known that the principle laid down by the parties to that treaty, was the pacification of the Peninsula, according to the purposes on which they had agreed. At the time of that contract, Don Carlos was in Portugal, and, therefore, their proceedings applied to the objects which were immediately to be accomplished, and they accordingly limited the steps which they thought it necessary to take to the expulsion of Don Carlos from Portugal. But afterwards, when he came into the northern provinces of Spain, it was only in accordance with the principles of the treaty that orther articles should be inserted in it to meet the altered position of circumstances. It was evident that this agreement could not have been made at the time that the treaty was originally entered into, but it was in accordance with the principles of the treaty, and had for its object to carry the principles of that treaty into effect, in accordance with the altered circumstances which then arose. Now what was the nature of our engagement? Our engagement was to supply the Spanish Government with arms, men, and, if necessary, to assist it with a naval force. Well, then, with regard to the supply of arms, that stipulation had been acted upon not only by the present Administration, but by that which had preceded the present Administration, and it was during the period that the latter held office that a communication took place between the Governments of England and Spain, by which Spain bound itself to repay whatever arms were sent her, and the English Government on the other hand agreed to postpone the demand until the finances of Spain would better enable her to meet it. The assistance, therefore, which England afforded to Spain, was not money but money's worth—principally consisting of arms and stores, which we had in our magazines. And, although, undoubtedly, it was such as to call for repayment, still it was not of that description which would justify the remark of the hon. Gentleman opposite that in consequence of this assistance the people of this country were not relieved from a large amount of taxation which the Government was now unable to forego. With respect to the charge made by the hon. Gentleman of suffering the marines to enter into a contest on the land, he thought that the hon. Member had himself furnished the best refutation to the accusation which he had made by mentioning that the motto which distinguished that force was "per mare et terram." He thought it right, however, to state that these marines were under the exclusive command of Lord John Hay, and were not subject to any orders of a general in the Spanish service. The hon. Gentleman had said, that he wished to know whether we were at peace or war. That question had been already asked on several occasions, and he felt so strongly that those who asked it seemed perfectly well able to answer it themselves, that he should leave it to pass without any observation but that his silence might be supposed to give currency to an unfounded insinuation. All those who were conversant with international law could easily perceive, that the Government of England were auxiliaries, but not principals, in the cause of the Queen of Spain. Don Carlos was in open rebellion against the Government of Spain, which was not only sanctioned by the sovereigns which have filled the throne of that country, but also by the mass of its inhabitants, being thus doubly entitled to respect and subordination. Don Carlos, too, on seeking to obtain the Crown, had (whatever good qualities might belong to his private character) carried civil war throughout the country, and spread fire, sword, and murder, by wholesale into the bosom of the country, and disturbed the peace and tranquillity of that nation of which he called himself the father. Well, then, our position was in perfect accordance with the principles of the law of nations as laid down by all writers on the subject, when, under the treaty, we took the part of auxiliaries without entering into a state of war. But the hon. Gentleman asked, if other governments took their share in the affairs of Spain that the English Government had done, what would have been the result? Why, it was a well known principle in international law that two powers might take different sides with respect to another country, without being necessarily brought to engage in a state of war. But let it not for a moment be conceived, from anything that fell—he would not say from the hon. Gentleman—but from anything that transpired in the course of that debate, and that happened by accident to be heard of elsewhere—let not, he repeated, any one be so deluded as to suppose that because this country was not a belligerent power, and therefore not entitled to the rights of a belligerent, that ships for the purpose of carrying supplies to Don Carlos would not be obstructed, because he could assure him that there were ships belonging to the Queen of Spain perfectly competent to intercept any supplies. It had been said, that the Durango decree which had taken place subsequent to the Eliot convention was caused by the conduct of the English Government. But the fact was, that the decree to which he alluded was in direct violation of the Eliot convention, and fully deserving the censure with which the hon. Gentleman opposite had stigmatised it, in language which was most becoming to him as a member of a free State. The hon. Gentleman here made some general observations on the order issued by General Evans, which showed that the hon. Gentleman had not read the order, or if he had, that he had not sufficiently attended to the meaning of the wording of it. In the first place it must be observed, that the order being one issued under the Spanish Government, the English Government was not responsible for it. That order stated, that British subjects found serving Don Carlos would, in his opinion, he guilty of treason, and would, in his opinion, be liable to the punishment of treason, as prescribed by the laws of the country. Now, he was not so much of a lawyer as to say what was the precise offence of which British subjects so situated were guilty. He thought, however, that no body would contend that when the King of England was by treaty allied with the Queen of Spain, it was fitting that Don Carlos should have amongst his adherents British subjects, and that this country should be said to have thereby adhered to its true and obvious engagement. The very mention of appealing to English law showed that General Evans did not contemplate doing anything with reference to those persons to whom his remarks applied in Spain. Indeed, the enacting part of the order, after talking of treason of English laws, resolved itself into this, that no verbal communication should take place between his picquets and the soldiers who had deserted from the British legion to Don Carlos. So that, after all, General Evans's order amounted to this, that it was expedient to prevent his men deserting, by not allowing them to speak with those engaged in the opposite cause. The hon. Gentleman had adverted in light terms to the affair of Fontarabia. He would not discuss the merits of that movement; but he would say, that if all the Queen of Spain's Generals had shown the same vigour, the same conduct, and the same prudence as General Evans on that occasion, the success of Don Carlos would not seem so certain as hon. Members on the other side would wish to make it. Having disposed of the hon. and learned Member's observations, he should next turn to those of the hon. Member for Sandwich. The argument of that hon. Member he could not, he confessed, understand. That hon. Member contended that such was the debased condition of Spain, that no hope ought to be entertained of her being able to obtain a free constitution. He must however say, that it was extremely desirable to have a free government in Spain, and the hon. Gentleman had not satisfied him that these were not the elements for effecting such an object. If the hon. Gentleman's argument were a sound one, it would go to establish the principle, that the more degraded and wretched a people were in consequence of bad government, the stronger was the necessity of making no effort whatever of raising them from their appalling state. The doctrine of the hon. Member—if he might be permitted to say so—was a revolutionary principle, for by it there was no alternative to a state of hopeless degradation, but violent convulsions and bloody revolutions. His opinion was, that the course adopted by England with respect to Spain was consistent with duty and sound policy. He held the alteration in the succession of the throne of Spain to be rendered perfectly legitimate, and to be sanctioned not only by Ferdinand, but by his predecessor and the Cortes, and afterwards adopted by the Spanish nation assembled under the regency. Well, was it, then, consistent with the interest of England, that this country should pursue the course which it had adopted with regard to Spain? This country had no hand in bringing about the present situation of the Spanish crown. It had not prescribed or dictated any sovereign to Spain, but had supported, so far as was consistent with its interest, the sovereign chosen by the Spanish nation. It would have been inconsistent with the true principles of the British constitution, and repugnant to the best practice of the English Government, for this country to have denied the validity of the change which had taken place, sanctioned as it was by all the constitutional organs of the Spanish nation. We had taken the only course which was consistent with our interests; and he did not think that in persevering in it we had exceeded the limits prescribed by the terms and spirit of the contract on which we had acted. Now, with respect to the assertion, that the moral influence of England had declined since he came into office, he thought it rather inconsistent with the host of assailants, which their policy had called up with regard to Belgium, Portugal, and Spain, that the power of England had, through the instrumentality of the present Government sunk to the lowest degree of insignificance. It was rather surprising, that the Government which the hon. Gentleman represented to be in so unfortunate a position should obtain so much countenance and respect from foreign countries, as to be made the arbiter of their disputes; and when we found two great naval Powers like France and America, each of them in former times opposed to us in war, and each of them supposed to be our rival in the arts of peace as well as in the pursuits of war, when we found them conceding to us the adjustment of their differences, he thought he might appeal with confidence to the single fact, in reply to the statement of the hon. Member for Sandwich, and say, that whatever was the estimate formed of them by the hon. Gentleman, or those with whom he communicated, France and America at least did not seem persuaded, that their "moral influence" had sunk to so low a state as the hon. Gentleman would have it believed. Without pretending to any military experience, he felt great confidence that, through that dispensation by which human affairs are governed, the cause of the Queen of Spain must eventually prosper. He could not bring himself to think, that a cause so sullied by cruelty and crimes as that of Don Carlos, whose object was to establish a despotism in Spain, and snatch from his unhappy country all prospect of improvement—he could not, he repeated, bring himself to believe, that it could ever enter into the arrangement of human affairs, under that supreme dispensation, to prosper under such a cause as this. He took up this view upon the same grounds, that when Don Pedro had no place whereon to rest his foot, save the ruins of Oporto, he had predicted, that by some means or other, his cause and that of the young queen, his daughter, must eventually triumph. That prediction had proved well-founded, and he now, with equal confidence, entertained a similar event in the case of the Queen of Spain.