The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-09 00:00:00

STATE PAPER.

AUTHENTIC)COPY of a NOTE addressed by the Right
Hon. GEORGE CANNING, His Majesty's Principal Se.
cretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Chevalier DE
LOS RIOS, Minister Plenipotentiary of His Most Catho.
lie Majesty.

YOUEIGH OFFICE, MARCH 25, 1825.

The Undersigned, his Majesty's Principal Se-
cretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is commanded by his
Sovereign to deliver to the Chevalier De Los Rios, for the
purpose of being transmitted to his Court, the following reply
to the Official Note addressed by his Excellency M. Zea to
his Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Madrid on .the 21st of Ja•
nuary.

So large a portion of the Official Note of M. Zen was
founded upon a denial of the facts which had been reported to
the British Government with respect to the state of the several
countries of Spanish America, and upon an anticipation of
events expected by the Court of Spain to take place in those
countries, by which the credibility of the reports transmitted to
the British Government would be effectually disproved, that it
has been thought advisable to await the issue of the expected
events in Spanish America rather than to confront evidence with
evidence, and to discuss probabilities and conjectures. Of that
decisive issue, as it appears to be, the undersigned is directed
to say that it is a great satisfaction to the British Government
that it had actually taken place before the intentions of the
British Government towards Spanish America were announced.
Those intentions therefore cannot possibly have had the slightest
Influence upon the result of the war in Peru.
IVith this single observation the undersigned is directed to
pass over all that part of M. 'Lea's Note which turns upon the
supposed incorrectness of the information on which the decision
of the British Government was founded.
The questions which remain to be examined are, whether in
treating with deficit) governments, now established beyond the
danger of any external assailment, Great Britain has violated
either any general principle of international law, or any posi-
tive obligation tif.treaty.
To begin with the latter as the most specific accusation.
M. Zea brings forward repeatedly the general charge of vio-
lated treaties; but as he specifies only two—that of 1809 and
that of 1814, it may be presumed that he relies on them alone
to substantiate his charge.
First as to the Treaty of 1809.
That Treaty was made at the beginning of the Spanish
struggle against France, and was directed wholly, and in
terms not to be misapprehended, to the circumstances of the
moment at which it was made. It was a Treaty of Peace
putting an end to the war in which we had been since 1804
engaged with Spain. It is expressly described in the first
Article as a Treaty of " Alliance during the war," in which
we were engaged jointly with Spain against France. All the
stipulations of the Treaty had evident reference to the de-
clared determination of the then ruler of France to uphold a
branch of his own family upon the Throne of Spain and of
the Indies ; and they undoubtedly- pledged us to Spain not
to lay down our arms until that design should be defeated in
Spain, and the pretension altogether abandoned as to Ame-
rica—a pledge which it is not, and cannot, be denied that
Grezit Britain amply redeemed. But, those objects once ac-
complished, the stipulations of the Treaty were fulfilled, and
its obligation.: necessarily expired, together with the matter
to which they related.
In effect, at the happy conclusion of the war in the Penin-
sula, and after the restoration, by British assistance, of his
Catholic Majesty to the Throne of his ancestors, the Treaty
of 1809 was replaced by the Treaty of 1814. And what does
that Treaty contain ? First, the expression of an earnest wish
on the part of his Majesty, that Spanish America may be re-
united to the Spanish Monarchy ; and secondly, an engage-
ment to prohibit British subjects from supplying the Spanish
Americans with munitions of war. This engagement was in.
stantly carried into effect by an Order in Council of 1814. And
in furtherance of the like object, beyond the obligation of the
Treaty, an Act of Parliament was passed in 1019, prohibiting
the service of British subjects in the ranks of the resisting
Colonies.
That th© wish expressed in this Treaty was sincere, the
proof is to he found not only in the measures above-men-
tioned, but in the repeated offers of Great Britain to mediate
between Spain and her Colonies. Nor were these offers of
mediation, as M. de Zea alleges, uniformly founded on the
single basis of the admission by Spain of the independence of
the Spanish Provinces.
Years had elapsed, and many opportunities had been missed
of negociating on better terms for Spain, before that basis was
assumed to be the only one on which negociation could be suc-
cessfully opened.
It was not assumed in IEI2, when our mediation was offered
to the Cortes.

It was not assumed in 1815, when Spain asked our media-
tion, but refused to state the terms to which she was willing to

agree.

It was not assumed in 1813, in the Conferences at Aix-la-
Chapelle, in which Conferences the question of an arrangement
between Spain and her Americas was for the first and last time
discussed between the Great Powers of Europe.
After the silence, indeed, which Spain observed as to the
opinion of the Powers assisting at those Conferences, when
laid before her, two things became perfectly clear ; the first,
that Spain had at that time no serious intention of offering any
terms such as the Spanish American Provinces were likely to
accept ; the second, that any subsequent reference of the sub.
ject to a Congress must be wholly fluidess, and unsatisfactory.
Front that time forth, Great Britain abstained from stirring
the subject of negociation with the Colonies, till, in the month
of May, 1822, Spain spontaneously announced to Great Britain
that she had measures in contemplation for the pacification of
her Americas on a basis entirely new, which basis, however,
was not explicitly described.
In answer to that notification, Spain was exhorted by Great
Britain to hasten, as much as possible, her negociation with the
Colonies, as the course of events was evidently so rapid as not to
admit of a much longer delay ; but no suggestion was even then
brought forward by Great Britain, as to the adoption of the
basis of independence.
The first suggestion of that basis came, in fact, from the Go-
vernment of Spain itself in the month of November, 1822,when
the British Minister at Madrid received an intimation that the
Cortes meditated opening negociations with the Colonies on the
basis of colonial independence ; negotiations which were in fact
subsequently opened, and carried to a successful termination,
with Buenos Ayres, though they were afterwards disavowed by
his Catholic Majesty.
It was not till after this last-mentioned communication from
the Spanish Government, that Great Britain expressed the opi-
nion which she entertained as to the hopelessness of negotiating
upon any other basis than that then first suggested by the Spa-
nish Government.

This opinion stated (as has been said) in the first instance con.
fidentially to Spain, was nearly a twelvemonth afterwards, that

is to say, in the month of October, 1823, mentioned by the un-
dersigned in a conference with the French Ambassador in Lon-
don, the substance of which conference was communicated to
Spain, and to the other Powers. It was repeated and enforced
in the Dispatch from the undersigned to Sir Wm. A'Court, in

January, 1824.
Nothing therefore can be less exact than the supposition that
Britain has uniformly put forward the basis of independence, as
the sine qua non condition of her counsel and assistance to Spain
in negotiating with her Colonies.
To come now to the second charge against Great Britain, the
alleged violation of general international law—Has it ever been
admitted as an axiom, or ever been observed by any nation or
Government, as a practical maxim, that no circumstances and
no time should entitle a de facto Government to recognition ? or
should entitle third Powers, who may have a deep interest in
defining and establishing their relations with a defacto Govern-

ment to do so ?
Such a proceeding on the part of third Powers undoubt-
edly docs not decide the question of right against the Mother

Country'.
The Netherlands had thrown off the supremacy of Spain long
before the end of the 16th century ; but that supremacy was not
formally renounced by Spain till the Treaty of Westphalia in
1648. Portugal declared in 1640 her independence of the Spa-
nish Monarchy ; but it was not till 1668 that Spain by Treaty
acknowledged that independence.
During each of these intervals the abstract rights of Spain
may be said •to have remained unextinguished. But third
Powers did not in either of these instances wait the slow
conviction of 'Spain, before they thought themselves war-
ranted to establish direct relations, and even to contract in-
timate alliances with the Republic of the United Nether-
lands, as well as with the new Monarchy of the House of

Braganza.
The Separation of the Spanish Colonies from Spain has been
neither our work nor our wish. Events in which the British
Government had no participation, decided that separation—a
separation which we are still of opinion might have been avert-
ed if our counsels had been listened to in time. But out of that
separation grew a state of things to which it was the duty of the
British Government (,proportion as it became the plain and
legitimate interest of the nation whose welfare is committed to
its charge) to conform its measures as well as its language, not
hastily and precipitately, but with due deliberation and circum-

spection.
To continue to call that a possession of Spain, in which all
Spanish occupation and power had been actually extinguished
and effaced, could render no practical service to the Mother
Country ;—but it would have risked the peace of the world.
For all political communities are responsible to other political
communities for their conduct :—that is, they are bound to per-
form the ordinary international duties, and to afford redress for
any violation of the rights of others by their citizens or subjects.
Now either the Mother Country must have continued respon-
sible for acts over which it could no longer exercise the shadow
of a controul ; or the inhabitants of those countries, whose inde-
pendent political existence was, in fact, established, but to whom
the acknowledgement of that independence was denied, must
have been placed in a situation in which they were either wholly
irresponsible for all their actions, or were to be visited for such
of those actions as might famish ground of complaint to other
nations with the punisoment.due to pirates and outlaws.
If the former of these alternatives, the total irresponsibility of
unrecognised States, be too absurd to be maintained, anti lithe
latter, the treatment of their inhabitants as pirates and outlaws,
be too monstrous to be applied for an indefinitelength of time to
a large portion of the habitable globe—no other chance re-
mained for Great Britain, or for any country having inter-
course with the Spanish American Provinces, but to recog-
nise, in due time, their political existence as States, and
thus to bring them within the pale of those rights and duties
which civilized nation are bound mutually to respect, and are
entitled reciprocally to claim from each other.
The example of the late revolution in France, and of the
ultimate hapy restoration of his Majesty Louis XVIII., is
pleaded by M. Zea, in illustration of the principle of unextin-
guishable right in a legitimate sovereign ; and of the respect to
which that right is entitled from all foreig wers ; and he
calls upon Great Britain, in justice to her o a consistency, to
act with the same reserve towards the new States of Spanish
America, which she enirloyed so much to her honour, towards
revolutionary France.
But can M. Zea need to be reminded, that every Power in
Europe, and specifically Spain amongst the foremost, not only
acknowleded the several successive Governments de facto by
which the house of Bourbon was first expelled from the throne
of France, and afterwards kept for near a quarter of a century
out of possession of it, but contracted intimate alliances with
them all ; and above all, with that which M. Let justly de-
scribes as the strongest of de fiwts Governments, the Govern-
ment of Buonaparte ; against whom, not any principle of re-
spect for the rights of legitimate monarchy, but his own un-
governable ambition, finally brought combined Europe into
the field ?
There is no use in endeavouring to give a species colouring
to facts which are now the property of history.
The undersigned is therefore compelled to add, that Great
Britain herself cannot justly accept the praise which M. Zea is
willing to ascribe to her in this respect, nor can she claim to be
altogether exempted from the general charge of having treated
with the powers of the French Revolution.
It is trite, indeed, that up to the year 1798, she abstained
from treating with revolutionary France long after other Powers
of Europe had set her the example. But the reasons alleged in
Parliament and in State P.ga'rs, for that abstinence, was the
unsettled state of the French Government. And it cannot be
denied that both in 1796 and 1797, Great Britain opened a ne-
gociation for peace with the Directory of France, a negociation,
the favourable conclusion of which would have implied a recog-
nition of that fonts of Government—that in 1801 she made
peace with the Consulate; that it in 1808 she did not conclude a
Treaty with Buonaparte, Emperor of France, the uegociation
was broken ofl'merely on a question of terms ; and that if from
11103 to 1814, she steadily refused to listen to any overtures from
France; she did so declaredly and notoriously on account of
Spain alone, whom Buonaparte pertinaciously refused to admit
as party to the negociation.
Nay, further it cannot be denied that even in 1814, the year
in which the Bourbon Dynasty was eventually restored, peace
would have been made by Great Britain with Buonaparte if he
had not been unreasonable in his demands ; and Spain cannot
be ignorant that even after Buonaparte was set aside, there was
question among the Allies of the possible expediency of placing
some other than a Bourbon on the Throne of France.
The appeal, therefore, to the conduct of the Powers of Europe
and even to that of Great Britain herself with respect to the
French Revolution, does but recall abundant instances of the
recognition of de facto Governments by Great Britain, perhaps
later and more reluctaety than by others, but by Great Britain
herself however reluctant, after the example set to her by the
other Powers of Europe, and especially by Spain.
There arc two other points in 31. Zea's note which appear to
call for particular attention.
31. Zea declares that the King of Spain will never recognize
the new States of South America, and that his Majesty will
never cease to employ the force of arms against his rebellious
subjects in that part of the world.
We have neither the pretension nor the desire to controul his
Catholic 3lajesty's conduct—but this declaration of 31. Zea com-
prises a complete justification of our conduct in having taken the
opportunity which to us, seemed ripe for placing our relations
with the New States of America on a definite footing. For this
declaration plainly shows that the complaint against us is not
merely as to the mode or the time of our advances towards those
States : it shows that the dispute between us and Spain is not
merely as to the question of fact, whether the internal condition
of any of those States be such as to justify the entering into de-
finite relations with them : that it was not merely a reasonable
delay for the purpose of verifying contradictory reports, and of
affording opportunity for friendly negociation that was required
of us : it shews that no extent of forbearance on our part would
have satisfied Spain, and that, defer our advances towards the
New States as long as we might, we should still have had to
make them without the consent of Spain ; fur that Spain is de-
termined against all compromise, under any circumstances and
at any time, and is resolved upon interminable war with her
late Colonies in America.
31. Zea concludes with declaring that his Catholic Majesty
will protest, in the most solemn manner, against the measures
announced by the British Government, as violating existing
Treaties, and the imprescriptible rights of the throne of Spain.
Against what will Spain protest ?
It has been proved that no treaties are violated by us : and we
admit that no question of right is decided by our recognition of
the New States of America.
But if the argument on which this declaration is founded be
true, it is eternal; and the offence of which we are guilty in
placing our intercourse with those countries under the protec-
tion of Treaties is one of which no time and circumstance could
in the view of Spain have mitigated the character.
Having thus entered with great pain and unwillingness into
the several topics of 31. Zea's Note, time Undersigned is directed,
in conclusion, to express the anxious hope of his Government
that a discussion now wholly without object may be allowed
here to close. The Undersigned is directed to declare to the
Spanish Minister, that no feeling of or even of indif-
ference to the interests of his Catholic Majesty has prompted
the steps which his Majesty's Government has taken—that his
Majesty still cherishes an anxious wish for the welfare of
Spain—and that his Majesty still retains the disposition, and
commands the Undersigned again to renew to his Catholic
Majesty's Government the offer, to employ his Majesty's good
offices for -the bringing about of any amicable arrangements
which may yet be practicable, between his Catholic Majesty
and the countries of America which have separated themselves
from Spain.

(Signed) (JEO. CANNING.

FIRES AT AIIRAMICIII,