But the truth is, that the whole spirit of the treaties, and their his. tory, show that the principle of the guaranty given by England, is the protection of Portugal from foreign invasion.

When, upon the restoration of the Portuguese monarchy in 1640, a treaty was shortly after concluded between the two crowns, (which forms the real basis of their actual alliance,) the English government could have entertained no other object than that of extending an efficient protection to King John Fourth, struggling to maintain his newly acquired independence against the overwhelming power of Spain. Again, in 1661, when Charles II., in the treaty upon which the Marquis de Barbacena appears greatly to rely, declares "that he will take the interest of Portugal, and all its dominions, to heart, defending the same with his utmost power by sea and land, even as England itself;" it is clear that these engagements have reference to protection against foreign danger; and the manner in which this is to be afforded is expressly stated to be, by giving timely assistance against the "power of Castile, or any other enemy."

In the course of the last century, Great Britain has repeatedly answered the call for this protection, and the Marquis de Barbacena need not be reminded, has done so with alacrity, and with effect. Never, until the unfortunate events of the year 1820, has she been called upon to interfere in the internal affairs of Portugal. This interference, although frequently demanded since that period, has been steadily refused by the British government. It has been equally refused to all parties, as for all pur

poses; and certainly these have been the most opposite and con. tradictory. Even in 1826, when his Majesty, in compliance with the requisition of the ambassador of his Most Faithful Majesty, sent a body of his troops to Portugal, the justification of that measure was expressly placed upon the ground that the Portuguese refu. gees had acquired a foreign cha. racter, by having been embodied, armed, and equipped, in Spain; and the commander of the British troops was strictly enjoined to take no part whatever in the contest between the factions in Portugal; but to oppose him to the foreign invaders, and to such as he might find united under their banners.

In 1822, the King of Portugal regarded the declaration of independence by Brazil, and the as. sumption of the sovereign authority in that country by his son, the Emperor Don Pedro, as acts of suc. cessful rebellion. The Portuguese government frequently appealed to the treaties with this country, and to the obligations of a guaranty, by which the integrity of Portugal and her colonies was secured. But the British government, while admitting in their full extent the obligations of the guaranty, maintained that they only existed against dismemberment by a foreign power; and that to the effects of internal dissention they had no application. By the note verbale presented to the Portuguese government by the Bri. tish Chargé d'Affaires at Lisbon, in the month of December, 1822, his Majesty declared, that, in the events which at that time divided the house of Braganza against itself, he was determined to observe "the most exact and scrupulous neutrality." By a happy agree.

ment with his Most Faithful Majesty, concluded under the mediation of Great Britain, the independence of Brazil was finally acknowledged and secured; but this has been so far from weakening the effect of the guaranty given by Great Britain for the preservation of Portugal and her remaining colonies, that his Majesty would feel himself bound to protect them equally against the unjust agression of Brazil, as of any other foreign power. It is not pretended by the Mar. quis de Barbacena, that the usurpa. tion of the Infant Don Miguel has had any foreign origin, or has been encouraged by any foreign state. On the contrary, every sovereign in Europe has withdrawn his minister, and suspended all diplomatic intercourse with the court of Lis bon. Whether the act be right or wrong, it was that of the nation. If proof were wanting, it would be found in the conduct of those who, having raised the standard of the Emperor Don Pedro, or of the Queen Donna Maria, at Oporto, having collected there the greatest part of the army, together with a large body of men in arms, not be longing to the military profession, superior in numbers, equipment, discipline, and means, to their opponents, still thought it necessary to abandon Oporto, and many of them to seek refuge in England, because, as they declared, they found the whole country against them.

But if a case of successful usurpation and rebellion cannot justify the interference of Great Britain, still less can she be called upon to take part in the decision of a disputed succession. It is attempted, however, to interpret the guaranty established in the treaties with Por

tugal, as imposing upon Great Britain the obligation of securing the succession of the Queen Donna Maria, and of placing her Most Faithful Majesty by force upon the throne of her ancestors.

If Great Britain had yielded to the solicitation of the ambassador of his Most Faithful Majesty, in December, 1825, and had guaran. tied the succession of Portugal to the Emperor Don Pedro, in spite of his declared reluctance to accept it, confirmed by his subsequent abdication, we should have contracted an engagement utterly beyond our power to fulfil; and which, from its very nature, must have been known to be so, at the moment at which it was formed. The British government, therefore, did wisely in declining to accede to the proposition of the Marquis de Palmella. It is true that his Majesty, respect. ing the rights of primogeniture, and the order of nature, has acknowledged the Emperor Don Pedro as king of Portugal; and, upon his abdication, has also recognised the Infanta Donna Maria as his successor, and the lawful sovereign of that country. But his Majesty would contradict the principles which he has publicly professed, were he to employ force as the means of obtaining the acquies. cence of an independent people in this recognition.

The only semblance ef founda. tion for the assertion advanced by the Marquis de Barbacena, that this country is bound, under the treaties of alliance and guaranty, to co-operate by such means in placing her Most Faithful Majesty upon the throne of Portugal, is to be found in the stipulation of the sixth article of the secret convention, concluded on the 22d of October, 1807, by

which Great Britain engages never to recognise as King of Portugal any other Prince than "the heir and legitimate representative of the royal family of Braganza."

It is to be recollected, that this convention was signed in anticipa. tion of the invasion of Portugal by a French force, and of the determination of the Prince Regent to embark with his whole family for Rio de Janeiro, rather than sacrifice his alliance with England. It was known, too, to be the intention of Buonaparte to parcel out the kingdom of Portugal in petty sovereignties, among the most favoured of his generals. This pledge, therefore, was the return made by the King of England for the devotion of his ally to the common cause. It was an assurance which that ally might naturally expect to receive against the dan ger then imminent. Were this convention still in force, his Majesty might be bound to acknowledge, as king of Portugal, the legitimate heir only of the house of Braganza. But, obviously temporary in its character, it has ceased to exist with the necessity which it birth. The secret convengave tion of 1807, was engrafted into the treaty of friendship and alliance signed at Rio de Janeiro in 1810; and in this treaty, the 6th article of the secret convention, containing the express guaranty of Portugal to the house of Braganza, was inserted, word for word; the convention, therefore, merged in the treaty of 1810. But in 1815, at the termination of the struggle in which both countries had been so long and so gloriously engaged, when the sceptre of Portugal was replaced unimpaired in the hands of "the heir and legitimate repre

sentative of the royal family of Braganza," the main object of these treaties was accomplished. On the 22d of January of that year, the two powers entered into another treaty at Vienna, by the third article of which, the treaty of 1810, "being founded on circumstances of a temporary nature, which have happily ceased to exist, the said treaty is hereby declared to be void in all its parts, and of no effect." That the provisions of the convention of 1807 are included in this revocation, is confirmed by the latter part of the same article, which declares that the revocation shall be without prejudice to "the ancient treaties of alliance, friendship, and guaranty, subsisting between the two countries," which are renewed and acknowledged to be in full force and effect, while it is entirely silent upon the convention of 1807; thus evidently showing, that in the opinion of both contracting parties, the latter convention partook of the same temporary character which is ascribed to the treaty of 1810; the stipulations of which, in consequence of the changes rendered necessary by the course of events, had previously been substituted for those of 1807.

The undersigned trusts, therefore, that the religious fidelity with which this country is desirous of fulfilling all its engagements, will not be exposed to imputation or doubt, if he finds himself compelled, in the name of the King, his master, to reject the appeal which has been made by the Marquis de Barbacena to the fancied obligations imposed upon Great Britain by the treaties existing between the two kingdoms.

In addition to the supposed obligation arising from former engage

ments, the Marquis de Barbacena has adduced certain diplomatic acts, which his Excellency main. tains are to be regarded as possessing the character and validity of treaties, and, as such, giving to the Emperor Don Pedro an indisputable right to call for his Majesty's assistance in conquering the kingdom of Portugal for his daugh. ter. These acts are the result of the conferences at Vienna and in London, in the month of October, 1827, and in the month of January, 1828, before the departure of the Infant Don Miguel for Lisbon. In these conferences, the Marquis de Barbacena contends that both his Majesty, and his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Austria, virtually entered into some solemn engagement, by which they bound themselves to exact the fulfilment of the promises then made by the Infant.

In proportion as this country is scrupulous in the performance of its engagements, care has been taken to render these engagements definite and precise; it has, moreover, long been the practice to ab. stain from giving any guaranty, the execution of which is not within our own power, but which may depend upon the good faith, or upon the inclination of others. The undersigned, therefore, cannot think it necessary to occupy much time in the refutation of an assumption so gratuitous, and so entirely unsupported by the real state of the facts, as that which has been thus put forward by the Marquis de Bar. bacena. His Majesty's ambassador at the Court of Vienna attended the conferences, by the invitation of the Austrian Chancellor of State, and in consequence of the letter addressed to his Majesty, by the

Emperor Don Pedro, on the third of July, 1827, in which his Impe. rial Majesty declared, that he had appointed the Infant Don Miguel to be his Lieutenant and Regent of the kingdom of Portugal. Had his Majesty, indeed, overcome the reluctance of the Emperor Don Pe. dro, and prevailed upon his Imperial Majesty to confer upon his brother the appointment of Regent; and had his Majesty given his guaranty for the conduct of his Royal Highness, and for the performance of his promises, there might have been a claim upon his Majesty to see that the engage. ments then contracted were carried into execution; but, in truth, the ambassador of his Majesty entered into no engagement of this descrip. tion, neither did he take part in any negotiation leading to such a pledge; and although the King had reason to complain of the Infant Don Miguel, for having failed to perform engagements made in the presence of his ambassador, this cause of complaint was founded upon the indignity thus offered to his Majesty himself, and not upon the injury done to the Emperor Don Pedro.

It is true, that in the conferences of Vienna, and, subsequently, in. Loudon, his Majesty's ambassador, and the plenipotentiary of his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Austria, did give an assurance that their respective sovereigns would jointly exert their good offices to prevail upon the Emperor Don Pedro to complete his act of abdica. tion of the throne of Portugal, as well as to send his daughter to Europe, and by a definitive treaty, to regulate the order of succession in the two branches of the house of Braganza. The Marquis de Bar

bacena complains that the Empe. ror, his master, was urged to act in this manner; and more than insinuates that he did so contrary to his own interests, and in compliance with the solicitations of England and Austria. But what is the fact? Undoubtedly the King did advise his Imperial Majesty to complete the act of abdication of the kingdom of Portugal, and thus to perform an obligation which his Imperial Majesty himself, as far back as the month of May, 1826, had solemnly contracted before the world. His Majesty further ad. vised the Emperor to send his daughter to Europe, in accordance with the declaration of his Imperial Majesty made at the same period. These measures were well calcu. lated to conciliate and to tranquil. lize the Portuguese nation, by removing the just suspicions of the people, and convincing them that it was not intended to govern them as a colony of Brazil. It is unfor. tunate that the measures thus ad. vised were not carried into execution previous to the arrival of the Infant at Lisbon. Had this been the case, much of what has since happened, and which is most to be deplored, would probably have been prevented. But the assurance given to Don Miguel, and entered upon the protocol of the ference, to offer to the Emperor Don Pedro this advice, does not render his Majesty the guaranty of the performance of those promises contained in the letters of Don Miguel, which were laid before the conference, and annexed to the protocol. Neither does the advice tendered to the Emperor upon the propriety of the execution of these important acts, respecting which his Imperial Majesty had long

con

before spontaneously pledged his royal word, confer any right what. ever of claiming from his Majesty those succours which are necessary for the conquest of Portugal.

The tone of expostulation and complaint which pervades the note of the Marquis de Barbacena, and the impression which it is intended to convey, that the present state of Portugal is in great measure to be attributed to the deference paid by the Emperor Don Pedro to the counsels of his allies, render it necessary to take a short review of some events connected with this subject, to the end that Great Britain may be as effectually relieved from the moral responsibility which it is attempted to impose upon her, as from the weight of more formal obligations.

The late King, John VI., died on the 10th of March, 1826; the intelligence of his death arrived in England on the 23d of March, and in Brazil on the 26th of April. The Emperor Don Pedro immediately assumed to himself the government of Portugal, as King, in virtue of his right of succession as the eldest son of his father. He published a general amnesty, and framed the Constitution, in the preamble to which the three orders of the state were called upon to swear fidelity to it forthwith, and in which it was declared, that the kingdom of Por. tugal should thenceforward be governed according to the condi tions laid down in that instrument. The Emperor, at the same time, made over the succession of the crown to his daughter, as Queen; appointed his sister, Donna Isabella Maria, regent of the kingdom; and, in order that no doubt whatever might remain of his intentions, his Imperial Majesty explicitly de