connexion and alliance mutual usefulness led to good offices on one side, and to confidence on the other; treaties imposed obligations, and conferred corresponding rights; and hence it is, that Portugal has always solicited and received the advice of England, as that of a friend, whose interests were identified with her own; and hence it is also, that England has been permitted to exercise an interference, and possess an influence in the councils of Portugal, which did not naturally belong to her, as regarding an independent state.

For proof of these assertions, I would refer the House to the treaties of Charles -1st, of Cromwell, and of Charles 2nd; to the war of succession; to the transactions of the eighteenth century; to the wars and treaties of the century in which we live from all which it will be seen, that it has been the practice and conceded privilege of England, to concern herself in a peculiar manner, in the affairs and destiny of Portugal.

But those who contend that it is the duty, and has been the practice of England, to withdraw herself entirely from all interference in the internal affairs of Portugal, and to stand aloof, a passive spectator of whatever there may happen, have they forgotten the transactions even of the last few years?

Have they forgotten our active and successful interference in 1807, to prevail upon the royal family of Portugal, to traverse the Atlantic, and transplant their royal stock to their South American dominions?

Have they forgotten the spirited interference, in 1824, of our then ambassador, Sir Edward Thornton, against the proceedings of the Portuguese government towards its own subjects, an interference which was attended with complete success.

Have they forgotten that by the urgent advice of that same our ambassador, the seat of the Portuguese government was transferred to a British line-of-battle ship in the Tagus? and that on the quarterdeck of an English man of war, with our hardy sailors as his pages in waiting, and our menacing guns as his guard of honour, the king of Portugal received the homage of his subjects on the celebration of his birth-day; and from that self-same palace of council, issued a proclamation to his people, and gave out his decrees banishing the queen from court, depriving Don Miguel of his command, and ordering him to

absent himself from Portugal ? But call this, I suppose, was no interference in the internal affairs of Portugal! Invert the case, put London for Lisbon, the Thames for the Tagus, and then let me ask you if this is interference or not. area Jusz

I pass by the bringing over the constitution of 1826 from Brazil to Lisbon, by an English ambassador, Sir Charles Stuart; because, although that circumstance was considered by many of the Portuguese, unfortunately, as it has since turned out, by them so considered, as an indication that the British government had interfered, to procure for them the advantages of that constitution; yet it is well known, as has just been stated by my right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, that the selection of Sir Charles Stuart to bring over that charter was the accidental choice of the Emperor Don Pedro himself; and that the Portuguese nation were indebted for that gift, so valuable, if they had known how to prize and preserve it, solely and entirely to the spontaneous liberality, and uncounselled wisdom, of that enlightened sovereign.

But have we forgot the active and successful interference of England, to bring about a separation of the crowns of Portugal and Brazil, and to obtain the abdication of the crown of Portugal in favour of Donna Maria; an interference founded upon a just regard to the interests of England?We should indeed do well if we could forget this interference, since we have been so backward to make any the slightest exertion to recover for Donna Maria that crown, which, in accordance with our advice, her father had placed upon her head.

But if this interference on our part, may be thought by some, to impose upon us a kind of honourable obligation, towards Don Pedro or Donna Maria; on the other hand, there were circumstances of interference on our part, personal to Don Miguel himself, which gives us, with respect to him individually, something like an absolute right, to require him to desist from that course of tyranny and usurpation, which he has pursued, since last he set foot in Portugal.

I allude to those conferences, to which the right hon. member for Knaresborough has already adverted, and which took place at Vienna, in October 1827, between the ambassadors of England, France, Austria, Portugal, and Brazil. To the

tion, without imposing some temporary restraint upon his personal liberty; and any such restraint, it was understood, the British troops would think it their duty to prevent. The consequence was, that so long as the British troops remained, resistance would have been unavailing, and by the time they embarked, Don Miguel had made it impossible. Miguel thus contrived to make the British troops, who had been sent out for far different purposes, the protecting shelter, under cover of which he dismissed his constitutional ministers, removed his constitutional officers, changed his constitutional magistrates, and prepared the dissolution of his constitutional chambers; and thus, all those means of resistance were paralyzed, which, had our troops been out of the way, the existing institutions of Portugal, would infallibly have opposed to his projects.

Did not all these circumstances give us a right to insist, that Miguel should keep those oaths, and abide by those engagements, to which he had thus publicly, and in the face of Europe, made the king of England his witnessing sponsor?

Did not a due regard for the honour and dignity of the English Crown, require that the ministers of the king should have used their best exertions to compel Don Miguel to do so?

If he had declined to enter into any engagements; if he had taken his stand upon alleged rights; if he had rejected our hospitality, and refused our money; if he had fought his way into Portugal by himself and on his own account; much as we might have condemned his after conduct, we at least should not have been implicated by any course which he might have pursued.

But I say that the conduct of Don Miguel has been no less affronting to the king of England, than it has been disgraceful to Don Miguel himself.

Was it fitting that the king of England, should be made the stalking-horse, under whose cover this royal poacher should creep upon his unsuspecting prey? Was it becoming that the king of England, should be made use of, as the attesting witness, to engagements never meant to be fulfilled, and to oaths forsworn by the heart, ere yet they had found utterance from the lips?

I say, that if the insulted honour of a sovereign, is a legitimate ground of na

tional quarrel, we are intitled to demand, and to extort, reparation from Don Miguel. What that reparation ought to be, the voice of indignant Europe has long since declared.

But in the absence of all documents, and judging only from known events, what, let me ask, have our government done, to hold Miguel to those engage ments, to which he thus studiously and publicly contrived to make us parties?

Why first, we took away from him his money; that is to say, our ambassador, who accompanied him, seeing indications, not to be mistaken, of an intention on the part of Don Miguel, to depart from his engagements; our ambassador acting upon his own responsibility, though the act was afterwards fully approved by the government at home, sent back the money which had gone out with Don Miguel, and which luckily had not been landed. Rather a strong measure this; and bordering somewhat upon interference in the affairs, pecuniary at least, of Don Miguel.

Secondly, as was stated by a noble friend of mine, the present Secretary of State for Foreign affairs, in another place, towards the end of last session; secondly, remonstrance followed remonstrance, each couched in language stronger than that which preceded. Remonstrances, indeed, and in language of progressively increas ing indignation! Remonstrances, pray, against what? why, against the manner in which Don Miguel was proceeding to administer the internal affairs of Portugal. And is remonstrance, strong and indignant remonstrance, upon such matters, no interference? and if all interference in the internal affairs of Portugal be interdicted, as is alleged by the government, who and what, gave us the right, thus to remonstrate? Why my noble friend himself answered this question? for he stated, that we remonstrated against indications, that Miguel intended to depart from those professions, which he had made while in this country; and here the government took the same view of this matter which I am now taking, and assumed, that the engagements which Don Miguel had entered into with us, and through us, with others, did give us a right to interfere. Well, but ought the government of a great nation to remonstrate strongly and repeatedly, and yet to remonstrate in vain ? ought they officially to complain of violated engagements, and yet to sit

tamely down under a disregard of their complaint, and a determined continuance of the violation?

It does not appear that, at the time to which my noble friend alluded, such was the intention of the English government; for when our remonstrances were disregarded, the functions of our ambassador were suspended; and when those violations were continued, our ambassador was actually withdrawn; and both these measures were in fulfilment of intimations, previously given by him to the Portuguese government, that such would be the consequences of a perseverance in the course which they were pursuing.

Up to that period then, (about the end of May, 1828) by which time a provisional order of recall had been sent to our ambassador, which was to take effect upon the happening of certain things, which did actually occur a little while afterwards; up to that time, the government seem to have remonstrated, threatened, and executed their threats. But when our ambassador was withdrawn, the last bolt of the English cabinet seems to have been shot away; their quiver was exhausted; and then began a cessation of hostilities with the usurpation of Don Miguel.

The recall of our ambassador, a measure, in the usual intercourse of nations, big with fearful import, and commonly understood as the immediate forerunner of rupture, or rather as the public declaration of rupture already existing, the recall of our ambassador seems, in this case, to have no other consequences, than to deprive the British residents in Portugal, of the protection which the presence of our ambassador might have afforded them; and to relieve Don Miguel from the irksome necessity of listening twice a week to the very disagreeable truths which our ambassador had, from time to time, been instructed to tell him.

All that since has followed, as far as the public are informed, has been entirely of a different complexion. Then came our acquiescence in every sort of blockade proclaimed by Don Miguel, against the subjects of our ally Don Pedro; then came his infliction of every sort of injury, upon the subjects of the king of England, residing in Portugal. Then came the arrival of an ambassador from Don Miguel, who, though not formally acknowledged, is yet supposed to have been in frequent private communication, with the

members of our government; then came the mission of our ambassador, lord Strangford, to the Brazils, the objects of which, I trust, for the honour of the country, have been much misrepresented by pub lic report; then came the conquest of Madeira; and then, would that it could be blotted out from the naval records of England, then came the British expedition against Terceira.

With respect to the blockade of Oporto, I must take leave to say, that we have been in a great hurry to proclaim our acquiescence in the Miguelite blockades. I well know that it is not for the interest of England, to break down the respect for blockades, when real and effective, and established by existing governments; and that we are not to scrutinize too deeply, the legitimate origin of the blockading government, but should take people in this respect pretty much as we find them, and for what they give themselves out to be; but at the time when Miguel declared Oporto blockaded, was he in truth the de facto sovereign of Portugal ? and if he was, did we take him for what he was, and for what he gave himself out to be? When that blockade was declared, civil war was raging in Portugal; the nation was divided; there were two governments existing; an usurping one at Lisbon, another in the name of the law ful sovereign at Oporto; why such breathless haste on our part, to decide that wrong must overpower right? and why, by thus publicly proclaiming our anticipation of the result, did we in some measure contribute to bring that result about?

Oporto marched troops against Lisbon; Lisbon launched a blockade against Oporto. The whole thing was a scramble. If the Oporto troops had been well led and commanded, they would infallibly have been in Lisbon, and have put down our de facto lieutenant, just about the very time, when we were officially announcing his blockade; and it was owing to the merest accident that this did not actually happen. But suppose Oporto had had ships as well as troops, and had blockaded Lisbon; which it had a much better right to do, than Lisbon to blockade Oporto; should we have been as ready to announce the blockade of Lisbon ?

Now, Sir, a word or two about the conquest of Madeira; and I beg leave to ask why the British government permitted Miguel to make that conquest?

F

I deny that Miguel by usurping the throne of Portugal, could acquire any rights over Madeira, which England, denying as she did, his right to the throne of Portugal itself, could be bound to acknowledge. Two wrongs cannot make a right; the wrongful usurpation of Portugal, could not render rightful, the subsequent conquest of Madeira; Miguel claimed to rule over Madeira, because it was a dependency of Portugal; but we, who denied his right to rule over Portugal, could not admit, that his unjust usurpation of the mother country, could constitute a legitimate title to the dependency. Those who deny premises cannot accede to conclusions.

He had no right to talk of the integrity of the dominions of the crown of Portugal integrity indeed, and Miguel! The very words refuse companionship. Who had broken the integrity of the dominions of the crown of Portugal? who but he, who brandishing in one hand the sword of rebellion, uplifted in the other the sceptre of usurpation; he, who himself first began to dismember Portugal, he, least and last of all mankind, could urge the plea of the undivided entirety of the dominions of the crown of Portugal.

I ask, then, was England bound by the obligations of any specific treaty, or by the general laws of nations, to stand by, and see Miguel conquer Madeira?

No treaty could oblige us, because treaties with Miguel, thank heaven, as yet, we have none. Treaties with Pedro indeed we have; obligations of honour towards him and his daughter, have we also. But the spirit of those treaties, and the tenor of those obligations, might have led to any other course rather than that, which has been pursued.

The usurpation of Miguel was an outrage upon national law, whether at Lisbon, at Oporto, or at Madeira; and every one of the subjects of that sovereign, whose crown he had placed upon his unworthy head, was not only at full liberty, but was bound by his allegiance, to resist that usurpation to the utmost.

1

If the people of Lisbon had a right to choose Miguel for their king, the people of Oporto and Madeira, had just as good a right to uphold the authority of Pedro or Maria. If the people of Lisbon had no right to choose Miguel for their king, still less could they have a right to impose him upon their unwilling fellow-subjects. Upon no possible principle could the people of Lisbon have a right to impose by force of arms, upon Oporto or Madeira, that Miguel, whom Lisbon perhaps had chosen, but whom Oporto and Madeira rejected.

Well then, if England was not bound by treaty, nor by international law, to stand by, and see Miguel conquer Madeira; if England had, even by the laws of nations, a right to interfere, if she chose; what must have been the views and policy of that government, which could choose, not to interfere?

There could have been no difficulty in protecting Madeira. United to Portugal by diplomacy, it is widely divided from it by geography; we could have accomplished our purpose, without sending even a single keel to Madeira; by means no more hostile than words, by missiles no more deadly than a despatch. We had only to declare to Miguel, that we took Madeira under our protection, in trust for our ally Don Pedro or his daughter, So long, at least, as Madeira chose spontaneously to maintain its allegiance; and I think I may venture to affirm, that such a declaration from England to Miguel, would have met with an acquiescence no less prompt, than that of England, to his blockade of Madeira.