In our number for June last, we called the attention of our readers to the very anomalous condition of Great Britain in the present Spanish contest. We did so, that our countrymen in general, who are not deserving of the character of a reckless and sanguinary banditti, might be led to consider how far we were justifiable in embroiling ourselves in a dispute with which we had nothing in the world to do, and lavishing blood and treasure for objects which nowise concerned us as a nation. Under the old boroughmongering system, as it was called, it was the reproach of the democrats that the country was involved in war, to gratify the prejudices or promote the interests of a corrupt and unprin. cipled oligarchy; and the new order of things was looked forward to with delight, chiefly because it seemed to afford a security against the recurrence of such dreadful evils. But, when, at any former period of our history, were the honour and the interests of the British empire so deeply compromised as they are at present, when a government, leaning entirely upon popular support, the very foundation of which has been laid upon the ruins of the oligarchy, have made a treaty of nonintervention the ground for interference in the internal concerns of Spain, and a profession of neutrality the pretext for butchering its unoffending people? Can any thing in the annals of boroughmongering be produced, equal, in wantonness of atrocity, to this? And will such a violation of all law, human and divine, be any longer endured by the righteous and reflecting inhabitants of this great empire? We know not. There are now so many things to call and to keep our attention at home, that it is doubtful how far we can be brought to give any serious thought to matters at a distance. Formerly an Englishman could sit down in conscious security of the continued enjoyment of his constitutional rights and privileges; and he was not kept in a state of constant anxiety and alarm, lest every succeeding wave of revolutionary violence should sweep away the ancient institutions of the country. No matter how great the conflict of parties upon minor questions, the church and the hereditary peerage, those venerable outworks of the monarchy, were unassailed; and our senatorial contests were rather to be regarded as healthful exercises, by which public spirit was tested and disciplined, than desperate combats in which life may be lost, and by which all that we value must be endangered. Such is now the character of the discussions which take place in our reformed parliament. Every question now is vital. Either the monarchy is beleaguered, or the peerage is attacked, or the church is assailed, or the constitutional functions of the House of Lords are sought to be paralyzed; and the most which Conservative opposition seems to promise, is, that the evil may be staved off, not that it can be finally resisted. It is not surprising, therefore, that the worth and the wisdom of the country should be so engrossed by the The Basque Provinces; their Political State, Scenery, and Inhabitants, with Adventures among the Carlists and Christinos. By Edward Bell Stephens, Esq., in 2 vols. London: Whittaker and Co. Ave Maria Lane. 1837. VOL. X. 2c dangers and difficulties which press upon them at home, that our disgraceful conduct in foreign affairs has been suffered to pass almost unheeded. We are like a man whom the violence of a pain in the heart renders insensible to injuries which he suffers in the extremities; it is not until the former remits its intensity that he is able to perceive that the latter are all but fatal. Thus, and thus alone, can we account for the extraordinary spectacle, of a nation like England enduring the Palmerston policy, of speaking one thing and acting another; of professing peace and practising war; of proclaiming neutrality in a civil strife, and making good our words by suddenly assuming the character of belligerents, and sending fire and the sword amongst an unsuspecting people. a We do not forget, that, during the last session of parliament, England had almost redeemed itself from this disgrace; and that it was by but " measuring cast majority," the motion of Sir Henry Hardinge was defeated. We do not forget that that majority was procured by an urgency of supplication on the part of ministers, who represented, that upon the issue of the question then under discussion depended their political existence, and that, if it were carried against them, their doom was sealed. All this we do not forget, and still less, that a majority of those who voted with them, did so upon an understanding that our Spanish policy should be quietly abandoned. We also hold in mind that the position of the Conservatives has been improved, as compared with what it then was; and that the very decisive demonstration of ante-destructive principle, which, during the late elections, has been made by the people of England, cannot be without its effect, in rendering even the most desperate and jacobinical of the democrats cautious in manifesting, at least, the reckless audacity of their nature. The cause of revolution and democracy in Spain, may be, in their eyes, a fine thing; but the fate of Hume, and Roebuck, and Bowring, may teach them that it is just possible, in the present state of men's minds, to carry their love of social derangement a little too far and that more may be lost than gained, by any violent effort, on their parts, to force upon their neighbours democratic institutions. : For these reasons, and because the new parliament has not as yet committed itself in this disgraceful busi ness, we deem it our duty again to address ourselves to the subject, in the confident hope that, the more it is discussed, the better it will be understood, and the better it is understood, the sooner will the unjustifiable course that we have taken be abandoned. Briefly, then, how does the case stand? A dispute has arisen in Spain respecting the succession. The crown is seized by one party, who pretend a novel and an extraordinary claim. It is disputed by another, who assert an ancient and an imprescriptible right, and who maintain that the pretensions of the former are entirely based upon fraud and falsehood. The case is, simply, this. By the salique law, the crown of Spain could not descend upon a female. And that law having been in force for more than an hundred years, and under the guarantee of the great powers of Europe, Don Carlos must have succeeded to his brother Ferdinand, upon the death of the latter, had nothing been done to defeat his succession. This would have been an event which could not be very acceptable to the young Queen, the fourth wife of the now doating Ferdinand, who must, naturally, desire to secure for her child, whether son or daughter, so rich an inheritance as the crown of Spain, and for herself, so dazzling a prospect as the possession, during the minority, of the chief place in the administration of the kingdom. Fortunately for her, therefore, it was now discovered, or said to be discovered, that Charles the Fifth, in 1789, had, upon the petition of the Cortes, abrogated the salique law, and that Ferdinand had nothing to do, in order to gratify her most ambitious wishes, but only to publish a decree, enjoining what was then done, "for perpetual observance." Such is the character of the title set up against the claim of Don Carlos. It may be a good, or it may be a bad one. With its merits or demerits we are not concerned. To enter, therefore, into a critical examination of the cases sought to be made by these two parties, is not our intention; as no abstract opinion which we might form upon them, could justify us in interfering, by force of arms, for the adjustment of a quarrel with which we have nothing to do, and which concerns the people of Spain, and them only. The question at issue is not one of international policy, but of constitutional law; and the nation which is not privileged to decide that, accord ing to its own views of right and wrong, is thereby pronounced unworthy the rank of an independent nation, and cannot acquiesce in the pretensions of the intermeddlers, who would fain relieve it from the duty of judging for itself, in such matters, without subscribing to a sentence of incapacity and degradation. The question, therefore, in whom the right to the throne of Spain centers, is one which we do not feel ourselves called upon to discuss; inasmuch as no decision to which we might come, upon such a subject, would entitle us to interfere with the deliberate judgment of the Spanish people. With them it rests to adjudicate upon the case, in which they, of all others, are the most interested. With their decision, whatever it may be, we have no right to quarrel, unless in its immediate consequences, it should involve something by which our own safety, as a nation, might be compromised; and then our interference should be, not to settle a point respecting their government, but to take measures, rendered necessary for our own protection. But, any interference, having for its object, primarily and ostensibly, the siding with one party against the other, and the giving of foreign aid to what may be the minority, to coerce the majority of the nation, that is clearly such a departure from the settled policy of civilized states, and implies so entire a forgetfulness of the rights of an independent people, that we know not how it can be practised or countenanced without leading to universal disorder. If we have a right thus to interfere in the internal concerns of any other nation, any other nation has an equal right to interfere in our concerns; and an intriguing government, whether despotic or democratic, has only to get up a convenient dispute in any country which they might find it desirable to disturb, in order to be justified, in their own eyes, in embruing their hands in the blood of its people. In such a state of things, there could be no such thing as national integrity or independence. Those who were least concerned in the well-being of a particular country, might constitute themselves the arbiters of its destiny; and its condition would ofttimes be determined, not by the wisdom of its inhabitants, but by foreign bayonets. The question, therefore, as to who is right, or who is wrong, in the present constitutional dispute respecting the succession to the crown of Spain, is one into which we will not enter. If any such question arose in this country, we feel very sure, that, in the arbitration of it, the people of England would not endure the obtrusive interference of strangers. They would say, and say truly, it was one with which foreigners had nothing to do. They would desire the impertinent intermeddlers to mind their own business. They would feel, in all probability, a prejudice against the judgment, whatever it was, which was thus unceremoniously obtruded upon them. And their national pride, even if no better motive, would determine them against submitting to foreign dictation, in a matter the decision respecting which belonged peculiarly to themselves. And, if such would be the feelings of Englishmen at Spanish interference, in questions strictly constitutional and domestic, can we be surprised that Spaniards entertain similar feelings towards us, when, with arms in our hands, we appear amongst them, for the purpose of compelling their submission to a system which they detest, and in manifest disdain, and open violation of their national independence? We therefore hope that some one will be found who will bring the subject under the consideration of parliament, at an early period of the approaching session. Let no fear of being baffled a second time, by an unprincipled Whig-radical majority, have any effect in deterring the honest senator from addressing himself gravely and earnestly to this important duty. Whatever the decision of the house may be, he may depend upon it that the discussion will not be lost upon the people of England. If he succeeds in establishing the iniquity of the conduct of government, a spirit will be excited throughout the country which they cannot long withstand. The people will awaken to the national disgrace, which has been incurred, by a course of policy, at once the meanest and the most unjust; and a heavy retribution will overtake the actors in this shameful business, which may go far to right us in the eyes of the world, and to deter even the most adventurous of unprincipled democrats from again compromising the honor of England, by forestalling the deliberate judgment, and coercing the free choice of a brave and independent people. And this is all that the enlightened British senator should aim at. Parlia mentary success is but a little thing, compared with the impression which it should be his object to produce upon the country. He may succeed without producing any such effect; and, in that case, his success can be of little moment. But let the desirable effect be once produced without doors, and it is comparatively of little consequence, what perversity of judgment, or obliquity of principle, may be exhibited within. The most reckless and profligate will soon begin to dress themselves in the glass of public opinion. They will find that popular estimation is indispensible to their existence as public men; and they will, themselves, be forward to disavow and to abjure the mispolicy which will only be productive to them of popular execration. Let, therefore, the able men, who have now recruited the Conservative ranks, address themselves boldly to the principle upon which ministers have interfered in this unhappy contest. Let them expose the artifice by which the country has been stolen on, from quiet observers into active participants, and from active participants into almost principals, in this strictly national quarrel; until we now appear in the hateful character of persons forcing an odious government, (if government it may be called,) upon an indignant people. We do not desire, that, in the first instance, the Conservative senator should dwell upon the very little good which we have done, by our interference, to the party for whom we have interfered. We do not desire that the question should be discussed upon the probable chances of succeeding or not succeeding in our efforts to give stability to the tottering throne of Isabella; because we have no right to adjudicate upon the question which has arisen respecting the Spanish succession; and whatever the result of our interference may be, the very fact of such interference amounts to a violation of the rights of an independent nation. These, we know, are tempting topics, and they may be very effectively resorted to when the principle at issue has been disposed of. But let them not take precedence of the great question of international law, in which the civilized world is so much interested. Let it be plainly and directly pressed upon ministers, to explain the reasons why they have sought to impose the government of Queen Isabella upon the people of Spain. Let them be called upon to give a reason, if they can, for our interference in that case, which would not justify a similar interference on the part of any foreign power, with ourselves, if a rebellion existed for only six months, in any part of Great Britain or Ireland. It will not do to call Don Carlos a pretender or a usurper. It is that very prejudging of the question of which we complain. It may be very right to recognise Queen Isabella, as long as she is the de facto sovereign. So long it is no more than fitting that all such friendly relations as obtain between neighbouring countries in a state of peace, should be duly observed. These relations imply a reciprocation of mutual good offices, in those things which are of public concern in the intercourse of nations, and a cautious abstinence from every act of hostility by which their amity might be disturbed. But it implies no intermeddling with the local usages or customs of another people; and it never can be tortured into a justification of such violent and arbitrary interference, for the settlement of a strictly constitutional question, as would set at nought their undoubted rights, and annihilate, for ever, the privilege of judging, in their own concerns, for themselves. This would be, not to live in amity with, but to usurp a paramount sovereignty over another nation. No such principle of interference could be admitted without striking at the root of international law, and shaking, to use Shakespeare's words, "the unity and married calm of states quite from their fixture." This would, indeed, be to disseminate disorder and confusion throughout the world. We repeat it, therefore, the great question at issue is, what right we have to interfere at all, not, whether our interference is likely to be productive of good or of evil, to the particular party whose cause we have espoused in their civil contest. It would be well if our senators refreshed their memories with some of the sage maxims of the Whigs, during the commencement, and the progress of the revolutionary war. With what boldness and energy did they then denounce the wickedness of going to war with another nation, merely because they altered the form of their government, and dethroned and murdered their king. And with justice would they have so declaimed, had such, in reality, been the fact, and had not our altered relations with France been caused by the alarming alteration in character which she evinced, and by the determination which she avowed, |