He could say, to his certain knowledge, that three several parties had already been ruined in Spain by our intervention. Individuals had been induced to take a certain line of action by the assurances of our Government. They had afterwards, of necessity, been abandoned by their own; and were so left with their families ruined, their properties sacrificed, and their prospects blighted for ever.

Lord Melbourne closed the debate. He admitted, that the tranquillity of Ireland was but comparative; that the resistance to tithe-collection formed an important exception; and with respect to the body calling itself the National Association, he saw its existence with regret, and disapproved of much of its proceedings. Still, they might justly congratulate themselves on the prevalence in Ireland of a degree of quiet, which, unfortunately, was very unusual. As for meetings, and speeches, and resolutions, if these were to be considered as disturbing the peace of a country, the most distracted country in Europe had been, England during the last vacation; and in these agitations many noble lords opposite had taken a conspicuous part. He believed, it was the persuasion of these noble Lords, that their agitation had not been without effect; that what was called a reaction had taken place in the public mind. If so, the effect would soon be seen in a transfer of the administration. But, in the meanwhile, he would recommend to his noble adversaries not to be deceived by the sound of their own voices, or to take the loudness of their shouts as a proof of the increase of their numbers. The department of calculation was a very important one to the conduct

of a great party. It was one which they had rather neglected, and had, consequently, fallen into very serious mistakes. Such, he had reason to believe, would prove to be the case of their present reckonings of augmented strength. They had better, therefore, beware before they venture to act upon them.

With respect to the affairs of Spain, Lord Melbourne said, he perfectly agreed with the duke of Wellington, both as to the impropriety of interfering with the internal affairs of that country, and the impossibility of doing so with any effect. Accordingly, we had not interfered. The late revolution in that country, disastrous as it had been to property, was no ways ascribable to our interposition. It arose from the circumstances of the country, from the impatience of the people under a long civil war, carried on without success or progress.

In the Commons the address was moved by Mr. Sanford, and seconded by Mr. Stuart Villiers. The debate that followed was enlivened by Mr. Roebuck, who took the occasion to make a violent sally against the whole system of ministerial policy. In doing this, he entered into a regular review of the state of public opinion. A struggle, he said, was going on, not in this country only, but throughout the world, between two principles of government; that which would make the many dominant, and that which would make the few. Each of these principles was represented in that House, but very unequally. The tory, or aristocratic party, presented there a large array of members, while the representatives of democracy were in a miserable minority. But, though weak in numbers within doors, they were still formidable by the support of the great mass of the people without. There was also a third party, called the whigs, which affected to mediate between the other two, but always in the interest of the aristocracy, of which it was, in fact, but an offset. It was thus in the great conflict of 1830, the whigs proposed and carried the reform bill, which the people were glad to take at their hands as an instalment of justice, a steppingstone to further improvements. After the retreat of lord Grey, the same task of mediation had been taken up by the whigs under lord Melbourne, and the reformers were still willing to give them support, not from any particular confidence in their honesty, or respect for their principles, but because they thought them, upon the whole, better than the tories, and they thought they could get more out of them.

After this statement of the division of parties, Mr. Roebuck went on to declare, that the whigs had deceived the people; somewhat inconsistently, perhaps, with what he had just let fall; for, if the reformers had never really trusted the whigs, they can hardly be said to have been deceived by them. He contended, that they kept the country in a state of excitement, bordering on revolution, merely for the purpose of maintaining themselves in power. They made reform clubs; established registration societies; in fact, did every thing but the right thing, which was to do away with the ratepaying clause of the reform bill, and give the people the ballot. As for Ireland, which was dwelt upon as the bright spot in their admini

stration, he asked, what had they done for that country? They had sent there an honest governor, indeed, which, in Ireland, was a species of miracle; but lord Mulgrave, after all, was but a lucky accident; he might be removed tomorrow by one of a thousand chances; and what then remained for Ireland? Had they made a single change in her laws, a single improvement in her institutions? If he looked abroad, did he find, in the foreign relations of the country, anything for congratulation to England? Did he not find an interference at once undignified and useless in Spain; and in Portugal an interference which was worse than useless; which was positively mischievous, directed, as it was, against liberal opinions? If he turned to the colonies, did he find things any better? The common cry of the colonies was, that the whigs were just the same as the tories.

Mr. Roebuck concluded by stating what, under such circumstances, he conceived it to be the course for the radicals to pursue. In his opinion, they should separate from these pretended friends of reform, the whigs; and force them into an alliance with the tories. He said, the people would then know who were really their representatives in that House; but, excepting this knowledge, he did not explain what advantage on his own principles they were likely to obtain from such an arrangement. Indeed, a considerable confusion of feeling and object was perceptible in the whole of Mr. Roebuck's speech on this occasion -it abounded in abuse of ministers for not doing more; but failed altogether in showing how more could be done so long as the conservative party maintained their present strength in the two Houses of Parliament.

Accordingly the member for Bath met with little encouragement in his diatribe against the ministry. It was observed, that he had not received a single cheer from any side of the House. Mr. Beaumont denied that the radicals were the only representatives of the people in the House of Commons; and if the whigs had lost something of their popularity, it was more from their greater approximation of late to the radicals, than from their refusing to co-operate with that party. The radicals called for organic changes; but we had had enough of them, and parliament should therefore apply itself to real reforms, and to the business of practical legislation.

Mr. James, too, differed from Mr. Roebuck in thinking the whigs were worse than the tories. The whigs would not give them the ballot; but could they get it from the tories? As for organic changes, he did not wish for them, any more than did the people of England; but unless the House of Lords would legislate a little more wisely, something of that kind would become necessary with respect to the constitution of that House.

Mr. Curteis also denied that the majority of the people were in favour of the ballot, or at all disposed to support the principles of the member for Bath; and Mr. Hume himself agreed, that though they had not got all they desired from ministers, still they had obtained much; and he was, therefore, disposed rather to pat them on the back' and support them. He deprecated any disunion among reformers; by separating they would lose all; by keeping together, they

would, at least, gain something. Finally, Dr. Bowring admitted that ministers were deserving the support of every member who wished well to the principles of good government and the cause of general humanity.

Sir Robert Peel then rose; not, he said, with the intention of opposing the address, or provoking any lengthened discussion on the matters to which it referred; but chiefly to remark on that passage of it which expressed the satisfaction of the House that his majesty's co-operating force had rendered useful assistance to the troops of her Catholic majesty. Whatever had been his opinion of the policy of the quadruple alliance, he had always considered it our duty to fulfil the treaty so long as the national faith stood pledged to it; by that treaty, we stipulated to give the assistance of a naval force to the arms of the queen of Spain; and he supported the address on the understanding that the aid we had given had been strictly of that character. The distinction, he observed, was important-the grant of a military force might have supposed an interference with the civil dissentions and party conflicts of Spain; an interference which he deprecated most strongly as unjust in itself and most dangerous in its example. Might not the precedent be equally adopted by despotic governments claiming a right to support absolute principles among their neighbours; and where then would be the peace and repose of Europe? Indeed, the very next paragraph in the address, supplied a sufficient illustration of this danger of interfering in the civil affairs of other countries. In 1837, we express our regret that "events have happened in Portugal which, for a time, threatened to disturb the internal peace of that country." These events, however, said Sir Robert, are only the corollary of the revolution which had taken place in that country in 1834; a happy result, as it was then called, in the speech from the throne, and to which it was made a matter of congratulation to parliament that the treaty of quadruple alliance had materially contributed. A consequence of this "happy result" is, that we have now no less than six sail of the line in the Tagus-for what purpose? to defend the queen of that country from possible personal attack on the part of her own subjects; and to protect lives and property of the English residing there from the dangers with which they were threatened.

Lord Palmerston observed, in reply, that "when we stated that the effect of the treaty of 1834 was to put an end to the civil war in Portugal, we did not take upon ourselves the responsibility of the

government of that kingdom in all future times, or undertake that it should be henceforth free from the civil disturbances to which every country was liable." This may be true; but if the last revolution in Portugal is a demonstrable consequence of the one which we had been so instrumental in bringing about, it would be difficult to shew that we were not in a great degree responsible for its occurrence. any rate, Sir Robert Peel's inference as to the danger of interfering at all in the internal dissentions of other countries remains unimpeached.

At

When the report on the Address was brought up, Mr. Plumptre objected that it contained no recognition of Divine Providence. There was some justice in Lord John Russell's observation in reply, that if the mention of Divine Providence on these occasions were made invariable, it would become a mere matter of form and the words would lose their effect.