MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
A.D. 1837
Parliament reassembled on the 31st of January. The session was opened by commission; and the speech of the commissioners referred to the contests in Spain, and the recent events in Portugal. The speech also called the attention of both houses to the state of Canada, stating that the reports of the commissioners appointed to inquire into which, would be laid before them. It further recommended to their serious deliberation the provisions which would be submitted to them for the improvement of the law and the administration of justice, and conveyed his majesty’s desire that they should consult upon such further measures as might give increased stability to the established church. The revenues, moreover, formed a subject of congratulation in the speech, and an early renewal of inquiries into the operation of the act permitting the establishment of joint-stock banks. The concluding topic of the speech was Ireland; such measures as might improve the condition of that country were recommended to be adopted. The present constitution of the municipal corporations of that country, the collection of tithes, and the establishment of some legal provision for the poor were especially noticed as subjects worthy of their attention.
The address in the lords was moved by the Earl of Fingal, and seconded by Lord Suffield. In the commons the address was moved by Mr. Sandford, and seconded by Mr. Stuart Villiers. The debate that followed was enlivened by Mr. Roebuck, who made a violent assault on the whole system of ministerial policy. Sir Robert Peel referred to those parts of the speech relating to the affairs of Spain and Portugal. His remarks with reference to Spain were confined to that passage in the address which expressed the satisfaction of the house that his majesty’s co-operating force had rendered useful assistance to her Catholic majesty. Whatever opinion he might hold on the policy of the quadruple alliance, he had always considered it our duty to fulfil the treaty so long as we 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 was important. The grant of a military force might have supposed an interference with the civil dissensions and party conflicts of Spain. Might not the precedent be equally adopted by despotic governments claiming a right to support absolute principles among their neighbours? where then would be the peace of Europe? The next paragraph in the address illustrated the danger of interfering in the civil affairs of other countries. We express our regret that “events in Portugal have occurred which, for a time, threaten to disturb the internal peace of the country.” These events are but the corollary of the revolution in that country in 1834, and which was then called in the speech from the throne “a happy result.” A consequence of this “happy result” is that we have now six sail of the line in the Tagus. For what purpose? To defend the queen of that country from an attack on the part of her own subjects; and to protect the lives and property of the English residing there from the danger with which they are threatened. In reply, Lord Palmerston remarked, that, “when we stated that the effect of the treaty in 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 might be true; but if the last revolution in Portugal was the result of the one which we had been instrumental in bringing about, then we were in no slight degree responsible for its occurrence.