Star. — London, England, 1805-02-12 00:00:00

of a Infirm like' this, to be at once moderate and forbearhl towards Spain. and wife and provident to (Treat Britain ; to feel and to vindicate the julliee eft their cattle, yet t mitigate the rigour of junice 4 % far ale trite policy and the fafety of the' State would hear, was indeed a trying fituation, and re quired the utinoll prudence ; particularly when they wtre fenfible that Spain might be ;sullied on to war •vith us though ruin might be the coofequence to her. provided her co-operation could in any manner the larjeas of the Ruler of Francs for our alearultion. Haying slated theft general principles as applicable to the (late of our relations with Spain, it remains to confider how they have been followed up. Gentlemen will fee in the papers on the Table the inGrullions by Lord Hawkefbury to our Minilter Madrid, fo far back as O. iber iBo2, inftruitions orhich lam confident all mull approve. They will there fee that the &Si ohjt.t of our policy was, if .-offible. to detach Spain from her degrading connec ;ion with France, and if that was impraCticable, at to endeavour, that in cafe of any future war, sisi:er a (yawl of neutrality fhould be fettled, or at least that hoßilities with her might be deferred. It 'cannot be guellioned that thefe principles were acted upon by our Minifter. and that every effort was made to prepare the minds of the Spanifh Govern. ment for thefe alternatives. In June 1803, inftruc tions were given to Mr. Frere to demand from the Spanifh Government a renunciation of the Treaty of Ildefonfo ; nor will any man, I believe, dilpute that the inftriCtions to which I allude. as to the points to be Willed on, are folly justified by the laws of nations. It is needlefs for me to dwell upon the queftion, how far the Uniited fuccours in the Treaty of Ildefonfo would have been confident with the neu trality of Spain, as that makes no part of the cafe. I mutt fay, however, that it never was admitted that we were bound to acgitiefce in thole foccours being given. fo that all argument founded upon the com mutation of alfillance in kind into pecuniary aid are ionpplicable t becaufe, if we did not admit the one, we were certainly no way bound to aeguiefee in the other. The caudal which a nation is bound to fol low in the cafe of limited fuccour furnifhed in purfu.. ance of a Defenfive Treaty mutt depend upon the extent of the affiance. and that extent mull be taken in proportion to the whole Rrength and re fontces of the nation furnilhing. Much wili depend, too, upon whether the Treaty is recent or ancient, whether it is general in its pratiflons, or concluded with Uireil reference to hollaities with a particular State. His Majeay's Government, at the time, wifely gave no opinion upon the quettion of limited fuccour in kind to be furnifhed by Spain to France, becaufe that cafe did n"t occur. They did what was riec..ffiry for the proteilinn of our interests, had it taken place, and the Spanifh Government were ap prized that our forces would attack the ill auxi liar; fleet, and prevent their junltion with the ene my. That, to do fo, would have been confiden t with the clearea principles of the law of nations, and of felf defence, cannot admit of a difpute.— But while the tnoderation of this country was tinsel'. Brig to drive Spain into war, it was ungueftionably meceffary to obtain fame pledge that the Treaty of Ildefonfo Ronald not be aced upon. If they did not make it a fpecific ground of war, they were entitled to infiß that its battik principle thould be abandoned. In the difpatches of fslit. Frere, will be found the an fwer which he received to the applications he had made Open this fulsieft, and in wnich he Owed that nnlef, fei.diatory explanations and alfurances were given, the Treatyoi Ildefonfo could not but be regard ed as holtile. It was not till Augua that thefe dif. patches reached this country. The anfwer of the Print,: of Peace was vague and inconclufive, hut flip it evinced a dilpofition to delay, and, if poflible, to elude compliance with the demands of France.— Much ill humour esitled in the Court of Madrid spit tl the latter, and an inclination to refill her do. znioetion teemed to prevail • while every difpolitinn was manifeiled to give fatisfaltion to the jall repre fentations of this Government. Things remained in thia Rite till September, nor was it known here, at' ' least up to that time, that France bad made a formal demand of tie stipulated fuccours. At that period a note was relented by M. D'Anduaga, the Spanifh Minifter here, in which he endeavours to prove that the Treaty of St. Ildefonfo contained nothing hot: tile to this country. And here 1 cannot but Murk upon a whimfical circumllance in thole reafoninE cw of the Spanilh Ambalrador. He endeavours to that the Treaty in go/Rion was, in reality, two Trea ties, the one defeafive, the other offenfive. but appli cable only to the cafe in which both France and Spain Wield, b common confetti, enter into war againa any other country. It lo happens, however, that the fir ft part of the Treaty, which M. D'An dnaga contends to be defenfive, is precifely that which contains the offenfive provifions, and that part which he defcribes as offenfive is that which is deo fenfive. For under the firft part is included the potation that Spain, in cafe the limited fuccours (hall be isfutficient, !hall put her whale forces at the dif. pofal of France ; words which M. D'Anduaga argues do not mean that Spain (hall join France with all her power, though words more fynonimous I do not think it would be polfible to fele& This, however, by the way; and now to purfue the comic of the ne gociation. In September, a difpateh was received from Mr. Frees, dated in Auguß, in which he an nounces that France had made a formal demand of the ftipelated tumours.. Mr. Frere was then informed by the Prince of Peace, that to preferve the neutra lity of Spain they were willing to make a pecuniary iac:ifice. The demands of France were urgent ; and Mr. Frere writes, that alum of not lefs than 2 . 50,0001. a month. or 3,000,0001. a year, were the terms, and though Spain had pleaded for a decreafe, it appears to have been the furn fettled, and indeed rather with increafe than diminution. This event. in which the influence of France over Spain wasfo manifett, mull have led Minifters to corclude, that the hopes of the neutrality of Spain would prove vilionary. Mr. Frere. in difpatehes, dated tath of September, mentions, that the Spanifh Government. in anfwer to his re monfirances on this fubjeO, had Rated that it was' better for this country that they fbould make pectiti ary facrifices to preferve their neutrality(though it ap peared, from every account, that this pecuniary cops mutation was no lefs than 3,000,0001.) than that they Ihoold have fu plied the (updated filet:ours in kiod, and a nominal declaration of war which mull. have enfued. This mode of reafoning is undoubto edly abfurd andeidieulons, for how could the Spa-. nith Government have espaead thatthikeenahrßauld have confidered the declaration metekOionsiosi, and have Attained from aentreboaility? Bet I men. tion this, not on this acnoinst, but to (hew that the Spa nithGovernment themfelves;far from thinking even the limited fuccour continent with neutrality, confidered that at leaf! a *mind declaration of war mutt be the inevitable confequence of (applying them. In a fub fequent difpatch from Mr. Frere, dated soth Sep tember, he mentions, that be had heard that the fabfidy demanded by France was yocsocsol. a-year, and that this fam was confidered too much by Spain, which offered 600,000 i. If the n t h e Sp an ifh Government confideted 700,0001. as exceffive, is it I not clear by their own confeffion, tioat 3,000,0001. ethe fum that has been paid, was infinitely more than this country was bound to confider compatible with any prineiole of neutrality !—Nothing farther of im portance took place in the difeuffiou except a Note, raptding the ;mirage of French feamen to Ferrol to reinforce the crews of the fleet there, a fubje#ft on which I forbear at prefent to comment. On the 9th °dither Mr. Frere writes, that the Negotiation with France was concluded. Mr. Frere, however, was unable to procure any official communication cf the arrangement with France, though from every information he could obtain, it amounted to three millions Reding a-year. What we know of that Convention, however, is futficient to Ramp the con dud of Spain as hollile ; and the refill - al of a com munication of its terms, up to the very date of the rupture, was of itfelf fufficient to path& war. What we know, then, is itfelf a dittind and fpecifle ground of war, iin:efs it be contended, as I cannot hippo& it will be in this Honk, that a war lubGay of thtee millions is not an infringement of neutrality, and does not render Spain a principal in the war. The Spanith Government. indeed, all along contended that the fubfidy, the extent of which they refuted to communicate, was only an equivalent for the fuceours Stipulated ; but we are not told, whether it was to be canfidered an equivalent for the lie :rifted, or for the unlimited fuccours. If for the lotter, noticing can be more abfurd ; and, if as to the former, on what principles of calculation is the equivalent ellimated? Under the name of an equi valent any fum might have been paid. In different nations different ettimates of that equivalent would be formed. In this country, owing to cireum fiances connected with our profperity, though tome times burdenfome in their operation, the pecuniary equivalent for military aid, would be higher than in any other country probably in the world. What then might be the rated equivalent in England for 15 fail of the line and 24,000 land forces ? At the highelt eßimate the pay and charges for 15 fail of the line for a twelvemonth would not exceed one million, leaving two for the land forces. This would be allowing be tween 801. and 901. for every man. It is well known that this is infinitely beyond the allowance neceffary in any fervice or in any treaty. Of what is allowed as pecuniary commutation for fervice in kind, we may take an inStance from the treaty between this country and Holland in the year 1788. in which it is Stipulated that.between 91. and tol. 'hall be paid for each man in the infantry, and r 11. and r 21. for each man in the cavalry. By this calculation of equiva. lent however, Spain pays between Sol. and 901. for each man, an allowance extravagant and unreafon• able in .the extreme. Can it be doubted then that a pecuniary fubfidy, to the annual amount of 3,00000001. made Spain a principal in the war, and could never be confidered as a fair equivalent for any moderate client of military affiftance ? If this be the general P:inciple, as it molt unquellionably is, why did this Government forbear to make itaground of war ? I have already touched upon the reatons. They believed that Spain rather fubmitted to adverfe circumllances, than acted from choice. They be lieved that the looked to cirennaltances that might enable her to efcape from the thraldom in which the was kept, and to purfne a courfe mote fuited to her interefts and to her dignity. There were, in deed, circumflances in the Rate of Europe known to thole at the head of affairs here, circumftances on which I cannot at prefent enlarge, which feemed to joßify the hopes which Spain was naturally (u poled to entertain, and which fufficiently account for the forbearance rnanifelled by this Government, It ap pearing, however, that nothing had "'dually been Signed between France and Spain, inftrations were on the 24th of November,fent to Mr. Frere, in which be is anthorifed to declare to the Spanith Govern ment, that the acquiefeence of his Majetiy in the payment of a war fublidy to France could be no more than a temporary connivance ; that it mull depend upon the amount of that fubfidy, and the difpolltion of Spain in other refpetfts to maintain a ftriel neutra. lily. Mr. Frere is inftruded alto to proteSt againft the meafute as hollile ; and that forbearance of adual war could cely be continued on the expeltation that the fobfidy was to be temporary ; and the moll ex. prefs fefervation of our right to go to war is made. The Spanilh Government received dillind notice that, Should his Majefty be induced to connive in the payment of a fubfidy as a temporary meafure, be would naturally look with the utmoft jealouty to any naval preparations in the ports of Spain. A difpatch was received from Mr. Frere on 6c 27th of Decem ber, announcing that the Convention between France and Spain was finally concluded on the .r9th of October. In this difpatch Mr. Frere informs this Government tha he had reprefented the Convention to Mr. Cevallos as a war fubfidy, and as giving this country an undoubted right to go to war. On this occafion Mr.Cevallos argues that the limited fucconrs had not been °fleeted to, and adds, that we ought not to complain of the pecuniary fubfidy, beeaufe we did not know what it was. This reatoning of Mr. Cevallos is worthy of remark. When we urged a communication of the Convention, we were told it was unneceffary, becaufe it was an equivalent for the fuccours Stipulated, we etrO know what it was ; but when we complain of this payment to France as a war fubforly, we are anfwered, No, you have no reafon of complaint, bccaufe you do not know what we pay. Thus, becaufe the Spanifh Government wrongfully refutes the communication of a Treaty, in which we are diredly intereSted, we are to have no redrefx, nor mull we be difpleafed when a fubfidy is pai d ten times the amount of nny Ripulated fuc; iours in kind. had the fornithipg of *le been ad:' nut as they were not, to be confillent with Deo • tra As the firs part of * negociations begins with-the dithufloss refpeding die Treaty of Melon ; 41efocood with thole rcipeding the convection of qulalith = the third, the ere of the negotiation, commences with the inftrudions fent by Lord Hawkefbnry to Mr. Frere,after that convention was known to be concluded. Lord Hawkdbory, in his letter of the sift of January, 1804, fays diflinitly, that the Convention of the igth of Odober was a fufficient caulk of war, but that, from views of for. bearance and of policy, his Majefly was unwillin g , yet, to ad upon th e r i g ht w hi c h that meafure confer. red, if fatisfadory explanations can be obtained. Mr. Frere therefore was inflruEted to teqiiire explanations refpeding the other Ripulations of the Convention of the 'nth of Odober, and fecondly, to obtlin fatisfac lion as to naval preparations. The forbearance of Minifters, therefore, is not founded e ith er uprn blind nefs to the dang e r hich the future holtility of Spain, under the guidance of France, might produce ; but upon motives of policy, adopting due precaution against that event. 'Their forbearance was condi tional, and it required, as afore qua am, that no na val preparations thould be undertaken in the Sranifh ports. Without this condition, the generoficy and the lenity of Government would have been criminal had there been any danger that Spain, betides contri buting a pecuniary fubfidy, would have made any preparations for co-operating with France whenever I the moment arrived when her military aid would have been ufeful. When Mr. Frere received tbcfeinltruc tions, he was engaged in a difeufGon tefpeding the fale of prizes, on which, at a later period, fattsfae tion was obtained, and alfo refpeßing the armaments at Ferrol. As to theft, he received affurances that no hoftile armaments were going on in that port.— Agreeably to his inftrudions, Mr. Frere proceeded to demand a communication of the Convention of the t9th Oaoher. Now, for the firft time, however, the Spanifh Government begat', in their turn, to demand an explanation of the intentions of Great Britain.— Mr. Frere Willed, that a communication of th• Con. vention mutt be made preliminary to any agreement for the neutrality of Spain. On this the Prince of Peace referred him to M. Cevallos, and nothing was obtained but vague affurances that the Treaty con tained nothing hoftile to the interefts of this country. The reafon, however, affigned for the refnfal tocom municate the Treaty is peculiarly deferring of atten tion. It is exprefsly raid, that it had been propofed to communicate it, but " General Bournanville had overruled it." Here is evidence incontellible of the controul exercifed by the French over the Spanifh go. vernment—evi knee furnilhed inadvertently by the latter themfelves. The Court of Spain admit that the demand made by us was jutl, and they exclife them. (elves for noncompliance by an apology of itfelf high. ly alarming, and affording the bell criterion how pre carious mull be the reliance on the neutrality of Spain while the afcendancy of France continued. That we had a right to the communication of a Treaty in which we were fo nearly interefted, I believe no man will difpnte. And can it be contended, that we ought to have acquierced in that refufal,without at the fame time faying that we ought to abandon whatever is moll effential to the a ffertion of our dignity and the maintenance of our rights? In vain is it contended that the connivance of this Government in the neutrality of Spain was an acknowledgment of it. On the con. trary, in every one of his notes and conferences Mr. Frere Rudioully referred the right of this Country t 6 go to war, and accurately dillinguithed between temporary connivance and pofirive recognition.— The connivance ton was conditional. It depended on the communication of the Treaty with France on the difcontinuance of all naval armaments, and the prohibition of the fale of prizes in Spanilb ports. That the Spanifh Government were aware that their neutrality was not recognized is obvious from the difculßons which took place, and from their anxiety to learn what were our intentions. It appeals that Come miltake has occurred from the ufe of the word Convention, in Come cf the Spann notes, as if there bad been a Convention of Neutrality between this country and Spain. It is plain, however, that the word refers in moft cafes to the Convention with France, though to be fure it is not furprifing it should be thought fuch a Convention as that was, could not be meant to he chuaderized as a Conven• lion of Neutrality. Here I may take notice of a circnmftanee that cleaned me in the former part of my fpeech. Let us confider what proportion of the whole revenue of Spain the flibfidy paid to France forms. It will be found, I believe, that as the whole revenue of Spain, for every purpofe, is not Amami at more than eight millions, the fubfidy is, between one third and one halt 'of its pecuniary re. fourees. And is not that a ftrange fort of neutrality in which one Power contributes near a half of its whole annual revenue to another Power, to carry on war againft a third ? If the proportion of aid in a Defenfive Treaty is a confideration of great import. ance in deciding whether it is to be deemed a viola tion of neutrality, Curtly the proportion of a peen. niary commutation to the whole means of a State. is not to be held indifferent? Suppofe for inflance, that PrufGa orAultria were engaged in a war with France, would it be contidered a Convention of Neutrality, if England were to Ripulate and pay ffteen millions to one of the Belligerents? And fifteen millions paid by England, probably forms no larger proportion of ' her means, than three millions annually paid by Spain to France. And by a Convention fo ridicu loufly defcribed as a Convention of Neutrality ! It is evident, however, that M. d'Anduaga, who, in a Note prefented to this Government, fpcaks of a Convention of Neutrality of the z 9 t h of lafluber, between Spain and England, is altogether unac• quainted with the progrels and Rate of the Negocia tion. It is clear, that no fuch treaty ever did calif, for if it had, would M. de Cevallos, in February and March, have talked of the undernanding which pre vailed on the fubjeet, if they could at once have lettled the difpute by referring to the written document ? But in my view of the fubjed, it would have been of little confequence whether fuch a Convention had ex. ifted or not. It is manifeft that it could have recent aired the neutrality of Spain only conditionally, and if the condition was violated, the neutrality of courfe expiry), and we Ibould have been placed in the fame rigtit of war that belonged to us prior to its conclu (ion. But Rill, tholgh Minifters were Rill difpofed to proloag their fOrbearance and lenity, no fatisfae tion eras obtained 'Ai to 'the communication of the Treaty. Defirdtti4 liolleva, cf affording every fa cility and removing every Attack tb an amicable ar ' rangemetst, it was refolved to rscel Mr. Frere, in cam fequence of cireutnaances having occurred that made it impoilbit for . hlm any longer to cospinunieate per timely with the Prince of Peaces Upon the nature of that difference, which has no relation to the pre -1 fent lubjen, it is not necelfary for me to enlarge. In juttice to Mr. Frere, however, I tnuft fay, that it strafe without any fault on his part, from a moll un provoked, unwarrantable conduet in that perfon, who, though without oflenfible office, is known to have the moll leading influence in the councils of Spain. Neverthelefs, touch as Minifters refpefted the talents and were fentible of the Cervices of that Gentleman, who had lo ahiy filled the place of Am bafrador to the Court of Madrid, during a difficult and critical period, they were determined thaViso collateral obflacles fhould flandin the way of a friend. ly termination of dircullions, in which the public in fere} was fa much concerned. They had reafons of policy for not driving matters precipitately to 'extre mity, and referving the right of war fhould circum. (lances demand its exercife, they continued to leave an opening for conciliation and arrangement. It was in tended to fend another gentleman to fucceed Mr. Frere, the latter returning home on leave of abfence. The fano: veffel, however, which brought Mr. Frere home on the t 7th of September, brought letters from Admiral Cochrane, which proved in the cleareft man. ner the violation of that condition, on which the for bearance of his Majefly's Government had partial- ' fatly been founded. That the clear and precife in formation, communicated by Admiral Cochrane, proved, that a violation of the condition on which the neutrality of Spain was connived at. had been committed by the armaments in the port of Fer rol, and that it was incumbent on Government to an Upon it, I think cannot be denied. The difpatches of Admiral Cochrane pointed out many important fans. The preparations in the ports of Spain were collateral with the equipment of the French fquadron and the Dutch men of war; they happened at the moment when French Tailors and foldiers were con veyed through Spain to reinforce the crews of the French (hips; the packets were armed as in time of ! war. After our forbearance, fo long founded On the eiprefs condition, that no armaments were to be un dertaken in the Spanifb ports, could the Government of this country flout its eyes to an armament begun in circumftances In fufpicious, Or ought they to have far forgot their duty as to neglect the precautions which the cafe demanded ? After Spain had been warned in what light an armament would be viewed, • and of the confevences to which it would lead, what would have been thought of the vigour or good renfe of Minifters had they, nn this occafion, taken no Reps in confequence of this information ? What would have been raid if the enemy, joining their forces,' had come out of Ferrol, and proved too wrong for she fquadron under Admiral Cochrane, though that I do not believe, notwithltanding any difference of numerical Itrength, would have happened ? • What would have been laid, if the treating (hips had arrived fare, and replenithed with dollars the coffers of Spain, to be placed at the difpofal of France, and employed for our deftruCtion ?—What would have been laid had the Ferrol fquadroa pro ceeded to any euterprixe that would either have [truck a blow at our interefts, or facilitated chore plans which the enemy' meditated againft this country ? If any of there tr.iings had happened, what defence could Minifters have urged fur their negligence, their weak ness and their pntillanimity ? I cannot believe that there can be any difference of opinion in the country -.lcannot believe there is one man in this Houfe who could with that we had ;Incd otherwife than we did. Nay, if there were—if it were poflible that the Houle and the Country could concur in blaming meaftwes adopted deliberately, on authentic information, for ' the fecurity of the State againo a great and manifelk dander, I timid he more proud of that cenfure for having done my duty, than of any approbation that could be bellowed on me, if confcious that I had failed in it. BA even if the information communi ered by Admiral Cochrane had been afterwards; contradicted, I contend that Minifters would have been wi•hout excufe if they had not a/4d upon it. If it had proved erroneous, indeed, reparation molt have been made to Spain, but Minifters would have been juflified in taking rhofe Reps, which informa tion fo conveyed naturally required. But In far from being contradicted, the infa r m a ti on tran f m i tte d b y Admiral Cochrane bas been fully confirmed by every thing that has line* been heard. It is true that M. D'Anduaga Rated to this Governmint that he had no information of the nature of that mentioned in the difpatches of Admiral Cochrane • and he (poke of letters received by an frith C o l one l of the Regi ment of Hibernia, which tinted, that the armaments at Ferrol were defined agaititt the infurgents in Blf cay. But what would have keen thought of Mini hers, if upon the report of M. D'Anduaga, and the Hibernian Colonel, they had incurred the rifle of the combined finia.;rons at Ferrol putting to fea, and attempting any entetpriLe hofille to the interells and the falety cf this conotty. But, it is laid, that the troops which M. D'Anduaga Rated to have been in. • tended to be embarked on board !hips of war to Bill cay. afterwards went by land. Undoubtedly it was • more natural that they fhould go by land ; and their going, In far from convincing me that they were to have been fent by fea, were intended for a I very different purpofe. It will be found on care fully examining the Papers, that the Spanifh Go. ve.romert never once mentioned that it had been in. .1 tended to fend troops in men of war to Bifcay, till I I they were informed that M. D'Anchtaga had made that flatement here. The Governor of Gallicia Rat. ed to Admiral Cochrane that the preparations were intended for a fecret expedition, while M. Ce. ; yolks in anfwer to Mr. Frere only gave vague sant, anus that nothing hoftile to this country was intend. ed, without raying a word of the expedition to Bir o cay. From this it appears clear to me that the ar. mament had a different object, which mull have bets holtile to this country. Indeed, if it had been rta ly in contemplation to fend troops from Ferrol to the coati of Bifcay, there were plenty of (mall craft, much : better adapted for that ptirpnre than [hips of the hue. Betides, is it not urinal when flips of war are to he ufed as tranfports, to take out their guns, and fit theta out en flute ; but, on this occafion, the (hips cif-Tee mt were fitted nut in the mint warlike mottos' ' '' . It is to be coafidered too, that there are no ports on the coahl of Bifcay which (hips of war could enter. and were they to be re-embarked and landed in different ports, or landed on the beach in the month of Sep tember on the chores of the moil tempettuous of the European fear ? The pretence that Bilcay was the ob. jet is, therefore, utterly incredible. As to the arm. 1 • I