meaning of a circumstance so curious as two successive wars being "ascribed to the same individual, and that he is found to be the very person who denounced both, not only as impolitic, but as acts of "D. U.

treason.

The Carlists Belligerents, not Rebels.

TOWARDS the close of last Session that Irish member who has so honourably distinguished himself from others by dealing with questions of general and paramount importance-Mr. O'CLERY-brought a Resolution before the House, the object of which was to call on the Government to recognise the Carlists now fighting in the north of Spain as belligerents. The remarkable speech of Mr. O'CLERY was well received and answered by the Government in a way which may be called courteous and friendly; as the Under Secretary of State took occasion to speak with a warmth very unusual in the chilling atmosphere of the House of Commons, of the gallant attitude of the populations in question, and of the military aptitude they had displayed. He, however, opposed the resolution on the ground that British interests were not involved in the matter.

We do not now propose to enter into the arguments then brought forward to show that British interests were concerned on account of the maritime positions held by the Carlists, the amount of intercourse between the Carlist coasts and this country, &c. Our object is to refer shortly to the new incidents that have recently occurred, and which we think make out a very strong case in favour of Mr. O'CLERY'S proposition.

As to the abstract right of the Carlists to be considered as belligerents, there can scarcely be a clearer case. Whether it be looked at historically or geographically, their claim is irrefutable. On the first point we will use the words of a French Deputy, M. D'ABOVILLE (whose question in the French Chamber, and letter on the subject will be found further on), "How can the Spaniards of the North be "considered insurgents for having proclaimed DON CARLOS King "the 17th of July, 1873, when DON ALPHONSO, against whom they "fight, was made King eighteen months later, the 29th of "December, 1874, and that by the revolt of MARTINEZ CAMPOS against SERRANO, who himself became dictator only as the result "of the coup de main of PAVIA, against the Cortes and CASTELAR "of January 2nd, 1874?"

To which we may add that those Provinces which, acknowledge DON CARLOS and are fighting for him, are doing so in self-defence, since the intention of the Madrid Government to deprive them of all their local rights has been openly proclaimed. One of the French Journals, who write in the interest of DON ALPHONSO, has declared that the defeat of the Carlists will be followed by the suppression of the Fueros, by having 60,000 soldiers quartered upon them at their expense, and the prohibition of the Basque dialect! There is thus a striking analogy between their position and that of the Highlanders, when fighting for CHARLES EDWARD. At the close of the Seven

Years' War, during which these same populations resisted the change of succession which brought in Queen ISABELLA, they remained, indeed, still in possession of their Fueros, thanks to the respect they imposed even in defeat, on the revolutionary Government. But nevertheless the Municipalities were robbed of their property, which was all sequestered and sold by the Government of Queen ISABELLA. Geographically the case is equally strong. CHARLES VII. is de facto King of a certain definite portion of the surface of geographical Spain. The struggle, therefore, is a Civil War, and not an insurrection, and may be compared to that between the Southern and Northern States of America, with reference to which it would have been transgressing the bounds of neutrality not to have accorded to the Southern States belligerent rights. The material results of the contest in Spain in reference to ourselves, are of course infinitesimally small as compared to those involved in the American Civil War. But material results are not the only ones to be considered, and those of a different nature not unfrequently bring material results in their train.

The

It is in the interest of England that we speak, and not in that of DON CARLOS. The strength of England consists pre-eminently in being in all respects legally and morally right, in all her acts as a nation being strictly in conformity to the Law of Nations, and in all her political judgments being according to the highest reason. Carlists have a right to complain that neutral nations have not recognised in them the character of belligerents, for in that respect, as in all others, Nations ought not to be guided by caprice or interest, or political partisanship, but by right. They have been so acknowledged de facto by the Government against which they are fighting, as we shall show. On the 13th of February, 1875, a Convention was signed at Suvia for "the exchange of prisoners," of which the first paragraph is thus worded: :

"The Captains-General and Generals-in-Chief of the two belligerent armies in this Principality, being authorised in due form. by "their respective Governments."

This Convention was signed by TRISTANY and MARTINEZ CAMPOS, the former using the seal of DON CARLOS, the latter that of the Government of Catalonia. It was followed by another, dated the 25th of February, between the same parties in reference to the treatment of the wounded, and which thus begins :

"The Captains-General-in-Chief of the two belligerent armies "have agreed to what follows, in reference to the sick and wounded: "The sick and wounded shall everywhere be mutually respected and "succoured by the two belligerent parties."

At the recent capture of the fortress of the Seo d'Urgel in Catalonia, the garrisons were given the honours of War; that is they were treated as prisoners of War, and not as rebels. It is true that in other places and under other circumstances the Government of Madrid has acted on the opposite principle, and has used the means of force at its disposal without any regard either to the laws of War, or the dictates of humanity. But it is these very circumstances which

Ꮓ

we hold to be a most powerful argument in favour of the line of conduct which Mr. O'CLERY urged on the British Government. His Motion was in May, and it is since then that the conduct of the Alphonsists has become so outrageous. By a question in the House of Commons (July 31st), he brought out the facts and received from the Government the confirmation of them. They consist in the bombardment and destruction of several villages on the Cantabrian seacoast by the ships of the Madrid Government, and in the wholesale destruction of the crops by its troops.

We take at random out of the news appearing in the public press the following incidents.

"The Commandant General of the Naval Forces of the North "authorised by the Government of His Majesty, orders :—

"All the fishing boats belonging to the Carlist coast which shall "be found at sea, shall be captured and the crew shall be considered "prisoners of War. The captured ships shall be at once destroyed, "unless I shall judge them useful for operations of War, in which

case they shall be confiscated and their owner shall have no right "to an indemnity. Those who resist this order shall be conducted to "the Port of Ferrol, confined in the arsenal, and put at the disposition "of the Government."

The only possible justification of such an order would be that the Carlists were belligerents, in which case the other side would have an abstract right to proceed in this manner, although in the particular case the Madrid Government had not that right according to the rule laid down by VATTEL, that the exercise of our belligerent rights should always be restricted within the bounds of what is useful and necessary as against the enemy. Here the result would be to starve the coast population, which lives by fishing; that is to starve the subjects of King ALPHONSO, according to the Madrid theory-and which population was not the one that was actually engaged in fighting against him.

One of REUTER's telegrams, dated 19th August, reported "The "ironclad frigate Vittoria has bombarded and almost wholly destroyed

"the town of Beuneo."

A correspondent of the Times, writing on the 20th August (Times of September 1, 1875) gave a description of how the order given above had been carried into execution. He wrote from a little fishing village on the Guipuzcoan coast, having accompanied an officer deputed to examine the coast with a view to see what means of defence could be organised. Retaliation had already begun on the Carlist side. Not long before the hostile flotilla had been startled out of their security, while in a very act of opening fire against the Port of Motrico, which "lay invitingly open, the order was given to stand in "and clear for action, and proceed to demolish houses. It was just "possible that some women and children might be killed, but then "such a contingency could scarcely be avoided." A puff from the height overlooking the little port astounded them, and the rushing of a shell between the masts of the nearest (the Admiral's) ship left no doubt that they were within range of hostile guns. Before they

could get out of range the Admiral and his flag-lieutenant were killed, and several officers wounded. The same writer thus describes what had gone on for "several months," while the Carlists were illsupplied with cannon, when the Government ships "steamed from "haven to haven, knocking bricks, stones, and mortar about, making "practice targets of the little unprotected ports, and spreading terror, "wounds, and death among the defenceless inhabitants. The fishing "boats dared not venture more than a mile from the shore; if they "exceeded this distance, they were almost certain to be caught by a "light-draught sloop of war, which would suddenly pounce upon them "from behind some headland. Should they attempt to run for port they were treated as a flock of wild ducks, and pounded with shell "and canister until those that were not sunk were glad to surrender "at discretion, to be towed in triumph by the heroic victor either to "Santander or San Sebastian."

Another measure has distinguished the reign of ALPHONSO XII., a measure of universal prescription against all persons throughout Spain "suspected" of entertaining Carlist sentiments. This proceeding, worthy of the times of the worst tyrants that have disgraced human nature, was left for one of his own blood to imagine and execute against DON CARLOS and his adherents; republican rule had not brought it forth. But as ALPHONSO is a mere puppet, one may say a prisoner, in the hands of the Ministers who rule in his name, it would appear as if the intention must have been to make the very idea of kingly rule odious, and to render impossible all healing of the wounds of Spain. It cannot be considered as a measure calculated to lead to the final defeat of DON CARLOS, the only apparent result has been to bring into evidence the number of his adherents in those parts of Spain where it was not known that he possessed any. It is the Madrid Government itself that has made this known, as it has not only driven the Carlists into exile, but published the numbers that have undergone the sentence. The Protestant rector of Blackburn visited Spain lately, and wrote to the Standard on the 29th July, a description of the enthusiasm of the Carlists, and the atrocities committed by the Government, from which we extract the following:

"The Government has published a list of exiled persons, made up "to the 14th of July, which amounts to the terrible sum of 147,000 "heads of families. As they are not allowed to carry away with "them either furniture or clothes, some idea may be formed of their "sufferings. Here is the form of the order of expulsion sent to an ex"minister of Queen ISABELLA: You are exiled by the supreme "authority, to Estella (in Navarre), where you are ordered to go "without fail, and without complaint, within three days. May GOD 666 preserve you many years! The ex-minister in question had a son fighting without his knowledge in the Carlist ranks. Notwithstanding, "the father, mother, and eight children were exiled. All their goods "and property have been confiscated, and they remain absolutely "penniless."

Let us recal for a moment the universal outcry against the King of

• Times of September 1, 1875.

NAPLES for having resisted an internal insurrection in his own dominions, and for having imprisoned men who had conspired against him, and note that no expression of horror has followed upon the news of this treatment by ALPHONSO of Spaniards who have never sworn fealty to him. We shall then undestand that when those who are banded together against the repose of the world, under whatever different names they may exist, speak of justice, humanity, patriotism, freedom, or any other sacred word, it is a lie that they have taken upon their lips.

In the present instance it is very important to inquire who are the parties "banded together under different names." The Government, carried on under the name of ALPHONSO XII. is supported by the European Press, especially by the Republican papers in France, and by Government ones in Prussia; by the Governments of Berlin and Versailles-that is, Prince BISMARCK and the Duc DECAZES; by the Freemasons, and by Russia. It is not needful to offer any evidence on the first three counts, for the facts are notorious. The effectual assistance given to the Alphonsists by the Cabinet of Versailles is set forth in the letter of M. D'ABOVILLE, which we reproduce; it is also reported in all the papers, and the immediate result of it was the fall of Seo d'Urgel, which could not have been besieged but for the artillery and ammunition, convoys of which came through France, and is still being conveyed, by the last news, although the fortress in question has fallen. The impolicy of allowing a Government which may at any moment become hostile to France, if it is not actually so, to store up munitions of war on the French frontier, is so obvious, that even the Duc DECAZES could not venture upon it, but for the fear of BISMARCK, and the sense that such is the conduct that has been ordered from Berlin.

The connexion between the Freemasons and the Madrid Government has been put on record by that body themselves, in a Masonic Review called The Chain of Union, published at Paris. In the January number for this year, p. 97, appears the account of a great fête given by the Paris lodge in December, 1874, at which one of the "brothers" spoke as follows:-" The venerable lodge of the Sons of "Hiram, of the Grand-Orient of Spain, has sent us a letter (material) worthy of all your attention. It is an address of thanks from the "Spanish Freemasons to the South American lodges for their noble "and generous initiative. These lodges have collected 154,000 piastres, that is 770,000 francs, in favour of the liberal army which "is fighting against DON CARLOS. The sum was sent to our brother, "General ESPARTERO. The example of our American brothers is a (6 proof of the power exercised by the Freemasons, and a reproach "to those of our brothers who do nothing for such a great cause."

66

For our English readers it may be as well to say a word respecting the real character of Freemasonry, which, not having been yet called upon to play a part in this country, is to their minds associated only with good dinners and fanciful costumes. On another occasion we hope to be able to find room for an account of the conduct of the Freemasons during the reign of the Commune in Paris in 1871. Suffice