CONTENTS OF VOLUME IV. A BRIEF CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE VARIOUS SUBJECTS ON WHICH ANNO 1842 Spain; the French Ambassador...Corn Importation Bill...Income Tax...Copyright... The National Petition; the Charter... Customs' Acts; the Tariff... Sugar Duties...Bribery at Elections... Captain Warner's Invention... War in Affghanistan...Distress in the Country...Lord Auckland...Repeal of the Corn-Laws...Election Proceedings...Public Bills; late and present Minis ters.................... 1843 The Address...Lord Ellenborough; Gates of Somnauth...Distress of the Country...Affghan War; Vote of Thanks... The New Poor-Law...Supply ...Commander-in-Chief sitting in the Cabinet...Church of Scotland...Lord Ellenborough's Proclamation...Peculiar Burthens on Land... Treaty of Washington...Suppression of the Opium Trade...British Museum...Import Duties; Commercial Treaties... The Budget...Abolition of the Corn-Laws ...Arms (Ireland) Bill...Sugar Duties...Postage Reform; Mr. R. Hill..... State of Ireland...State of the Nation... Opium Compensation...Slave-Trade Suppression. 1844 The Address...Stopping the Supplies... Vote of Thanks to Sir. C. Napier and 1546 The Address...Commercial Policy; Corn-Laws...Thanks to the Army in PAGES 1...127 138...299 301...423 429...564 567...709 717...733 1848 Disabilities of the Jews... The Income Tax...Navigation Laws...Sugar Duties... 1:49 Poor Laws (Ireland); Rate in Aid Bill...State of the Nation.......... 788...804 1 1:30 Agricultural Distress... Taxation of the Country...Supply; New Houses of Parliament...Lord-lieutenancy Abolition (Ireland) Bill...Affairs of Greece.. 822...840 THE SPEECHES OF THE RIGHT HON. SIR ROBERT PEEL, BART. 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 lamenting 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 expres sion 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. 2 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. |