THE SPEECHES OF THE RIGHT HON. SIR ROBERT SPAIN-THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR. SIR ROBERT PEEL (in reply to some questions put by Mr. Sheil, as to whether the Earl of Aberdeen had written to Madrid, expressing his concurrence in the proceedings of the French government, in reference to the course it had pursued with regard to the presentation of M. Salvandy's credentials, and whether, if the noble earl had acted in that manner, he had afterwards expressed any different opinion) stated that he cordially concurred with the right hon. gentleman, in lament. ing that any necessity should arise for making reference in that House to debates and discussions in popular assemblies in other countries. In order that he might properly explain the course pursued by the British government, with respect to the matter alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, it would be necessary for him to enter a little into detail. Whatever opinion the government might have entertained or expressed on the subject, it had not had the slightest practical influence on the course pursued by the Spanish government with reference to M. Salvandy. That government had taken its course on its own sense of duty before the opinion of the British government was received at Madrid. The question was then disposed of, and therefore the expression of the opinion of the British government had had no practical bearing on it. M. Salvandy, the French ambassador at Madrid, was accredited by the King of the French to Queen Isabel. The British government heard with great regret that, at a critical period, a difference of opinion was likely to arise between the governments of France and Spain, that might lead to the interruption of all diplomatic intercourse. The British government, therefore, felt it to be their duty, actuated by a sincere feeling of interest in the affairs of Spain, to tender their advice to the Spanish government with respect to that possible cause of difference. There had recently been in Spain an attempt on the palace of the Queen-an attempt to seize her Majesty's person. There had been considerable excitement and disturbance in some of the provinces of Spain. The sense-the deliberate sense, in his opinion-of the people of Spain, was in favour of the existing government, and this had given energy to the government, and enabled them entirely to suppress those attempts. The British government, however, thought it would be unfortunate for Spain if, shortly after this excitement, the diplomatic intercourse between France and Spain should be suspended. The British government had very recently made proposals to the northern courts, particularly to Austria, earnestly recommending that they should recognise the existing government of Spain, for the purpose of giving stability to that government, and, through that, to encourage the people to apply themselves to those pursuits of industry and ordinary occupations of life, for which a state of tranquillity was so favourable; and the British government entertained serious apprehensions that if 159-VOL. IV. there should be, on the ground on which they feared it might take place, an interruption of the diplomatic relations between France and Spain, their efforts to procure the recognition of the existing government might fail. The British government, therefore, expressed an opinion to the government of Spain, that it might be possible to reconcile this difference. The question arose on the 59th article of the constitution, which declared that the regent should exercise all the authority of king, in whose name the acts of government should be published. The British government suggested to the government of Spain, that it might be possible that an arrangement of the following nature should be made, which should reserve to the regent of Spain the whole of the authority which that constitution intended to devolve on him, and yet respect the royal dignity in a matter which the British government thought right to consider one of ceremony and etiquette rather than of a substantial character. The British government, therefore, suggested an arrangement of this nature:-M. Salvandy being accredited to the queen, and not to the regent, the British government proposed that the letters, of which M. Salvandy was the bearer, should be delivered to the queen in the presence of the regent; but that any act of authority connected with the reply to those letters should be performed by the regent, and that any answer delivered in the name of the queen should be delivered by the regent. The course thus suggested was somewhat similar to that pursued in the cases of Greece and of Brazil, when the sovereigns were minors. In the case of Greece, letters of credence were delivered to the infant sovereign in the presence of the regent, and handed by the king to the regent. In the case of Brazil, the regent issued a decree, requiring the letters of credence of foreign ambassadors to be delivered to him in the absence of the king. This assumption on his part was resisted by the courts which had accredited ministers to Brazil, and an arrangement was made, by which, in that case, the letters were delivered to the regent in the presence of the king. But before the advice tendered by the British government could be received by the Spanish government, the latter acted on their own construction of the constitution of Spain. He believed that, in giving that construction to the article of the constitution, they acted with perfect sincerity. The government, and he believed the Cortes, resolved, that it was inconsistent with the constitution that the queen should receive the letters of credence, and even that acts of ceremony should be performed by the regent. The British government never questioned the perfect right of the Spanish government to place its own construction on the constitution; and, as he had before stated, the Spanish government had given its construction and acted upon it, before the advice of the British government had reached Madrid. The British government had suggested a different construction of the article of the constitution, solely from a sincere desire to promote the welfare of Spain, and because they were apprehensive of those results which had subsequently taken place; but they never questioned the perfect right of the Spanish government and authorities to decide the question for themselves. They were the supreme authority on the point, and the advice of the British government was offered before the construction of the article of the constitution by the Spanish authorities was known. With the construction given by them to their own constitution no other party had a right to quarrel; but the opinion of the British government had never changed on this subject. He knew not on what authority the right hon. gentleman opposite said, that Senor Gonzales had stated that there had been a change in the opinion expressed by the British government with respect to the construction of the article, that the act of ceremony on receiving the credentials might be performed by the queen. This was the suggestion offered by the British government, in ignorance of the interpretation that might have been put on it by the Spanish authorities, and the report-a newspaper report, he believed, of an allegation said to be made by Senor Gonzales, that the opinion of the British government had undergone a change, was without foundation and incorrect. Having given this answer to the right hon. gentleman, and admitting that he had drawn a just distinction with reference to his question, he trusted that the House would in future abstain, as far as possible, from referring to what transpired in angry debates either in the Cortes or the Chamber of Deputies; for nothing had a greater tendency to excite constant recriminations. After a short conversation the subject dropped. CORN BILL.-BURDENS ON LAND. The order of the day was read for the House to go into committee on the Cornimportation bill. On the question being put, that the Speaker do now leave the chair, Mr. Ward proposed the following motion :-"That a select committee be appointed, to inquire whether there are any peculiar burdens that specially affect the landed interest of this country, or any exemptions enjoyed by that interest, and to ascertain their nature and extent." SIR R. PEEL: I wish, Sir, to call the attention of the House to the time at which, and the circumstances under which, the motion of the hon. gentleman opposite is made. This is, I believe, the fourteenth night, we have been kept in discussion upon the Corn-law, and as yet we have not been allowed to go into committee. There are some hon. members on the opposite side of the House who differ from this bill, who object to the principles of this bill, who are adverse to the details of this bill, and yet who-seeing the large majorities by which it has been affirmed in this House, and considering that the sense of the House has been fairly and fully taken, -considering, also, that the trade of the country in general, and the corn-trade in particular, is affected and embarrassed by continual delay-seeing, also, that this bill is admitted to be a great improvement of the law, seeing that it is admitted to be a considerable mitigation of the existing evils, derived from the present state of the law -have come to the conclusion, consistently and most wisely as I think, that the sense of the House having been so unequivocally 'manifested, the sooner the advantages of the bill are reaped the better. The question for them to consider is, whether there be any prospect of overruling the sense of the majority of this House, and if there be not, whether, upon a comparison of evils and advantages, it is wise to go on with a protracted, and in the end, useless discussion. The hon. member had the whole of last session to consider his proposal: he knew the Corn-law must come under discussion, he had full and ample opportunity for proposing his committee, yet he permits us to have thirteen nights of discussion, five of which were upon a subject identical with the present-the preference of an absolute repeal over the proposal of the government-and yet, on the fourteenth night, the hon. gentleman comes forward and proposes, that the whole proceeding on the Corn-law be suspended, until his committee shall have made their report. What I call upon the hon. gentleman to do is, to adhere to his own notice. The object of giving these notices was not to mislead. The object is to instruct the House, and to inform it of the nature of the motion which it is intended to bring forward. But here the hon. gentleman, who has been spending his time in ransacking hustings speeches-who has been looking over all the debates of 1834, after thirteen nights of debate, with the country expecting that the House will at last decide what is to be the law regulating the importation-here the hon. gentleman comes down and occupies our time, not with reference to the existing debate, but with a recitation and comparison of all that the Duke of Buckingham has said, all that I have said, and all that other persons have said, in the year 1834. And this, the hon. gentleman thinks, will satisfy the impatience of the country! This, he thinks, will afford a gratification to the people, who are anxious to have the question settled and the law determined! He satisfies the country and gratifies the people, not by discussing the question properly before the House, but by leisurely reviewing the proceedings which took place six or seven years ago. I ask the hon. gentleman, who has given so much time and attention to this subject, at least to make up his mind as to what his motion shall be. I came down to the house to-night, expecting that he would, at all events, adhere to the motion of which he had given notice. That notice of motion, no doubt, is a perfectly legitimate and fair one. It was in these terms :-"On the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair to go into committee on the Corn-importation bill, to move, That it is inexpedient to impose any duty upon the importation of foreign corn, until this House shall have inquired whether there are any special burdens peculiarly affecting the landed interest of this country, or any special exemptions enjoyed by that interest, and shall have ascertained their nature and extent." According to that motion, the issue fairly brought before us is this-shall the Corn-importation bill be postponed till this committee which the hon. gentleman would appoint shall have concluded its inquiries and made its report? I ask the hon. gentleman to stand by his own notice, and bring that question to issue. I ask him to claim leave of the House to withdraw the motion with which he concluded his speech, and adhere to that of which he gave notice. Let me understand, as I have a right to understand, whether the House of Commons is now of opinion that the Corn-importation bill shall be pursued to its completion, or whether it shall be suspended indefinitely, until the hon. gentleman's committee shall have reported. I ask the noble lord who sits on the hon. gentleman's right hand, whether it be not consistent with the usages of parliament, that I should ask the hon. gentleman to adhere to the motion of which notice was given upon the paper? The hon. gentleman originally gave notice for the appointment of a committee. It was competent to him to renew that notice. But, instead of doing so, he alters the terms of his motion, and expressly joins issue with me, as to whether I will assent to the appointment of a committee, or take the sense of the House upon the question, that no Corn-law shall pass until a committee of inquiry shall have reported as to the existence or non-existence of any special burdens upon the land. I say that, consistently with fairness, and with all the usages of parliament, he ought to bring forward the motion of which he gave notice. He had ample time to consider his course, and determine what it should be before he placed his notice upon the order paper. It is something perfectly novel for the hon. gentleman to give a specific notice of motion-not to offer one word of intimation to those opposite to him of his intention to change that motion-to make the whole of his speech without saying that he had altered his mind, and then, at the close of a long address, quietly to put into the hands of the Speaker, not the motion which the House, from his notice, expected from him, but another motion of a very different character. I will not now stop to inquire whether, in this stage of our proceedings, it is fitting or not that a committee should be appointed to consider this question. But this I say, that I for one will not consent to a suspension of the Corn-importation_bill until such a committee shall have been appointed, and have made its report. I separate the question of the fitness or unfitness of appointing a committee, from the question of whether this bill shall be suspended or not suspended. The appointment of a committee, considered by itself, may be proper or not proper, but I maintain it is not proper if adopted for the purpose of suspending this bill. Depend upon it, you will not carry public opinion and public favour with you, in the attempt to pursue this course of obstruction and delay. You knew last session of the intention of the government to deal with this question. I never taunted the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) for not stating exactly what were the burdens upon the land which he regarded as a justification of his proposal for placing a fixed duty of 88. upon the importation of foreign corn. What I said was this, that the noble lord would labour under the same difficulty as I did, in specifying the exact amount of burden upon the land, in consideration of which he proposed to give a protection of 8s. I was challenged to show why a maximum of 20s. was necessary to protect the landed interest. I said, that that objection would apply with equal force to any specific amount of protection that might be proposed, whether fixed or graduated. I rested the claims of the land to protection, not upon its peculiar burdens alone, but upon other grounds. I said, that protection to the produce of the soil had been afforded for the last 150 years— that large capital had been invested on land under that system of protection-and that nothing, therefore, in my opinion, could be more unwise, than to risk the disturbance of the interests embarked in agriculture, by the sudden withdrawal of the protection which had so long been afforded to them, under which the existing relations of society had, in a great degree, been formed, and in reliance upon which, so much wealth had been directed to the cultivation of the soil. You have a per fect right to differ from me in that view, and to tell me, that my opinions are mistaken. I said, that another ground for affording protection was, to insure the cultivation of the land, and such a growth of domestic produce, as should prevent the risk, the imminent risk, as I thought, if all protection were discontinued, of placing the country in a position of entire, unqualified dependence upon foreign countries for a supply of corn. To make insurance against such a calamity, I said, I thought it necessary to continue protection to a certain extent to our domestic agriculture. |