their Ambassador to address to Don Miguel the strongest remonstrances upon the nature and tendency of his conduct; and he much wished that that remonstrance was then upon the Table of the House, that Parliament might be enabled to judge of the manner in which the then advisers of the Crown had acted. The result of the despatch which was received on the 22nd of June was, that Sir Frederick Lamb suspended his functions at Lisbon until further orders, and the other Powers all followed the example of England. On the 13th of July his Majesty's Ministers received a very laconic letter from Sir F. Lamb, in which he said, "I enclose the proclamation of Don Miguel, in which he claims to be recognized as King." Thus it appeared, that on the 13th of July his Majesty's Ministers received the notification of his having usurped the throne of Portugal, long after he ceased to be connected with the Government. On the 13th of July, Ministers received this information, and he would remind the House, that only three days after the receipt of that despatch, when one would suppose that the Government would have been filled with indignation at the imposition which had been practised on his Majesty when one would imagine that the deceit of Don Miguel would meet with their strongest reprobation-only three days after the arrival of that information, the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department (the Earl of Aberdeen) declared his regret at the usurpation? or his sorrow for the fate of the persons whose lives and properties were sacrificed by the usurper? No such thing; he declared that the friends of Don Miguel spoke the sentiments of the Portuguese people. Thus did it go forth to the world, that the moral influence of Great Britain had expired; thus did it appear that our friendship and assistance were mere shadows. Well might the Portuguese say, when an English minister again proffered them assistance, noscitur à sociis-heaven defend us from such friends. But it seemed, we were to be friends of neither party. As if to make up for the praise thus bestowed on these actions, the noble Lord had lately spoken of the character of this wretched Prince in good set terms of horror and detestation. There are no terms in our language, he believed, which could adequately describe the compound enormity of baseness, perfidy and villany

in so young a man. Before the age of 26 he had attempted or perpetrated every crime, and displayed every vice which historical truth and poetical fiction have accumulated upon the head of the most sanguinary and remorseless usurper that ever waded through the blood of innocent kindred and betrayed friends to the British Throne. The parallel might, perhaps, not end here. Portugal, like England, may have a Bosworth Field. For one, I should not be sorry to see it. It would be something, at least, for the honour of high lineage and Royal blood, if, like our Richard, Don Miguel should thus be permitted to veil the infamy of his life by the courage which marked its close; and that it should not be said of him, in the page of history, as it was said the other night by a noble Lord, that he was cowardly because he was cruel. Let him not descend to posterity blacker than Richard, and then, God knows, he will still be black enough. But could they talk of this individual abstractedly, and without reference to the engagements into which he had entered? Could they forget the pledge which he had given to the King of England? Could they overlook the indignity with which his subsequent conduct visited the monarch of this country? To use a military metaphor, a gallant body of British troops, including a portion of his Majesty's household forces, had been sent out as a covering party, to facilitate the assaults and attacks which Don Miguel was about to make on that Constitution which he had sworn to maintain

they were sent out to look on his bru tal violence, and to view, unmoved, the judicial murders which he was committing. Was it for the honour of this country that there should be now some 30,000 or 40,000 Portuguese wandering all over Europe? He could assure his right hon. friend, whatever he might think, that the impression throughout the world was, that the Constitutional party in Portugal had suffered deeply for their strict adhesion to this country. His right hon. friend had argued, that Ministers were justified in the course which they had adopted, and that they would have acted improperly if they had, under the existing circumstances, interfered with Portugal. Why, the history of Portugal, for the last thirty years was nothing but the history of English interference; and it could not be otherwise, in consequence

of the engagements which bound this country to that limited and feeble state. All must know the reason of the engagements which bound us to defend Portugal from any aggression, come from what quarter it might. It was evident, when an engagement so binding, and yet so inconvenient to this country, was so long preserved, that there must be some leading and paramount interest which called for it. That leading and paramount interest was to prevent Portugal from falling into the hands of any of those great powers which adjoined that state, and which this country was accustomed to view with jealousy. Besides, the situation of Portugal was such as would enable this country the more easily to repel any design which the Spaniards might meditate with respect to Gibraltar. Supporting that power against her continental neighbours, we kept a long line of, sea, of sea coast harbours of great utility, and a considerable maritime population in the hands of an ally. Portugal ought, therefore, to claim as a right a paramount interest in Our councils. What had been the history of our connection with Portugal for the last thirty years? Early in the late war, an application was made by Spain to Portugal, calling on her to shut her ports against Great Britain. And what representation did Portugal make to this country? She said, that either we must defend her at our own expense, and with our own army and navy, or else that she must comply with the unjust and improper requisition of Spain. This country then entered on the defence of Portugal, with a most unbounded profusion of men, of money, of military, of naval, and of every other description of succour. Did we not train up in that country a well-appointed force? Did we not give strength to her government, and inspire her whole population with a spirit warmly devoted to the preservation of her rights? All this was done, and in what situation stands that country now? All that we did had been overturned; and general corruption, folly, feebleness, and immorality prevailed. Portugal was now in a state of absolute inability to make any defence against foreign aggression. She was as inefficient to defend herself in 1827 as she was at any time when she called for our assistance. It was the paramount duty then of this country to give to Portugal

such institutions as would render her government sufficiently strong and powerful, as not to be dependent on England on every trifling occasion of danger. If he were called on to state instances of our interference, not during the period of war, but since the peace, he would say, that before the Constitution was sent over from Rio Janeiro, a large British force was lying in the Tagus. That force was stationed there, not to assist one party or another, but to preserve the government inviolate. And when Don Miguel attempted the foulest treason to his sovereign and his father, how was it prevented? Why, by the intervention of the British ambassador, who placed the captive monarch on board a ship in the harbour, and sent him for safety out of the country. Speaking of interference, he would suppose that when Don Miguel was engaged in the subversion of the Portuguese Constitution, in violating the most solemn pledges, and profiting by the presence of the British force to perpetrate a series of the most odious treachery, he would suppose that Donna Maria, the rightful Queen of Portugal, had then arrived in that country, and had placed herself at the head of the patriotic party; and what then, he would ask, would have been the conduct of the British ambassador. Would he have deserted her, or would he not rather like the ambassador in 1824, have protected her by the British force against domestic treason. Did the relationship of the parties make any difference, the rights of the parties being the same. Did absence make any difference as to these rights? He thought not. And if the British ambassador received the sanction of the Government in one case, he would not have deserved its censure in another; he would not have merited condemnation, had he protected the Constitution and Donna against this latter outrage of Don Miguel, as he had protected the father of that Prince against the former. His right hon. friend seemed not to like the Constitution of Portugal, because it appeared that the Emperor had framed it in less than a week, and because it was not suited to the disposition of the Portuguese. He did not stand up to defend that Constitution; but it was no answer to him to say that it must be defective because it was framed in so short a time. Let his right hon. friend recollect how

long Louis 18th was occupied in framing the Charter of France. He believed the Charter of France-and he hoped it would not die a premature death-was promulgated in three days after the necessity of such a measure was pointed out. When the House was gravely told that England ought not to interfere with other countries, that this was equally contrary to her practice, and the law of nations, he begged to ask what was the history of Europe for the last fifteen years, but a history of such interference? Naples, Spain, Piedmont, all the smaller states of Europe, had been so interfered with; the fact was, that the sort of constitution to be interfered with justified or condemned interference. Did any people, urged by their wants, proceed in a peaceable, orderly, and quiet manner to remodel their ancient usages, giving themselves institutions intended to secure life and property, and encourage the growth of improvement, while they afforded a protection against arbitrary power; if those institutions involved the liberty of discussion, and the freedom of the press, and promised to establish a regular and free Constitution; if they were brought about by the instrumentality of the people, all the despots of Europe immediately joined to crush them. No question was asked whether the Constitution were good or bad, fit or unfit; the only question was, did the constitution flow from the people, was it the spontaneous growth of the public sentiment, and if it were, it was to be unhesitatingly crushed. That the Portuguese Constitution came from a legitimate source, even the despots of Europe could not deny; that it was well received by the most intelligent of the Portuguese people was equally certain; but when this Constitution was put down by a fanatical rabble, headed by priests, and stimulated and supported by a neighbouring sovereign, then the people of England heard of nothing but the doctrine of non-interference, then his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, though never over-anxious to recognise the power of the people, founded their principle of non-interference on the impropriety, the impolicy of appealing against the voice of the people. The Constitution had the marks and stamps of freedom, and that was the

reason why it was not supported. Though recognised by all the legitimate sovereigns of Europe, it was not for one moment to be defended. Had an attack been made on an absolute Monarch by the people, their armies would instantly have marched to his rescue. They looked, however, with complacency, and with approbation, on the overthrow of free institutions. It was not for England to hold counsel with those who entertained such doctrines respecting the duty of sovereigns. He had already referred to the language used on hearing of Don Miguel's usurpation, and was that the only indication we had given of our readiness to support him? What was the reason, he would ask, of the breathless haste with which the blockade of Oporto was recognized,-a blockade so utterly inefficient, and even ridiculous, that whilst the government at Oporto was sitting devising measures against Don Miguel, the first intimation of it was conveyed by the newspapers? All Europe was astonished that Great Britain should so prematurely have thrown its great influence into the scale of usurpation. His right hon. friend (Mr. Peel) had said "Would you go to war?" Why, if England had manifested her opinions in the tenour of her conduct, and especially if she had declared those opinions to her allies, such a declaration would alone have been sufficient to crush the usurper. Even if war were the result, no man could deny that a war against an usurper, a rebel against his sovereign, and a persecutor of his people, would have been just. But had we merely blockaded the Tagus, or issued a declaration, or made a display of force, that would have been sufficient, and there would have been an end of the usurpation. But the fact of this interference in support of the usurper, and against the legitimate sovereign of Portugal, was no longer an inferential charge against the Government. It had lately been avowed by the head of that Government, that his proceedings in respect to Terceira were pursued with that intent. With grief and mortification, greater than he could trust himself to express, had he heard it declared that the state of Terceira was not such as it ought to have been, and would have been, had the other Powers of Europe done their duty as this country had done hers. What was the plain meaning of this declaration? That we had done every thing