Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/186

 172 History of the Radical Party in Parliament. [1822- House, a tone of more dignified remonstrance would have been better calculated to preserve the peace of the continent." The resolution said nothing about interfering by force of arms on behalf of Spain against the attack by France, but that was clearly in the minds of many of the opposition, and Mackintosh the Whig and Hobhouse the Radical both spoke in that sense. There was, indeed, so strong a sympathy with Spain under the injustice which had been committed, and with the cause of constitutionalism trampled on by a foreign army, that it naturally carried away the feelings of all Liberals. It was difficult to limit the effect of such sentiments by con- siderations of calmer policy, and by the reflection that non- interference and the preservation of peace were the true objects of Radical policy. Canning was able to answer the attacks which were made upon his proceedings, and to show that his conduct was consistent with a hatred of oppression, with a desire to check the ambition of the Holy Alliance, and with a thorough devotion to constitutional principles. His speech was delivered on the third night of the debate, and produced an extraordinary effect upon the House. The opposition, partly perhaps in order to limit the victory of the minister, but mainly because they accepted the principles which he enunciated and were convinced of his sincerity in their vindication, endeavoured to avoid a division. Brougham recommended the withdrawal of the resolution, and when the House would not allow that, it was negatived without a division ; but when the amendment proposed on behalf of the Government came to be put, there was an exciting scene. There were cries of " Aye," but none of opposition. Some ministerialists, however, anxious that a division should take place, called out that the " Noes " had it. The Speaker thereon ordered those who wished to vote for the amendment to go into the lobby, and those who meant to vote against it to remain in the House. There was immediately a general rush to the lobby, opposition and ministerial members alike anxious to vote, and, but for the lobby being too small to contain them all, the decision would have been unanimous. As it