The Sun.
London, England, 1823-04-18 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Anna. i 7.
ANTI-ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITIONS.
The Archbishop of YORK presented petitions from the
West and Fast Riding of York, against the Claims of the Ro-
man Catholics. The Right Rev. Prelate said, he concurred in
the prayer of the Petitioners, and it was his intention to sup.
port it.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented petitions from the
Clergy of Litchfield and Saturn, having the same object.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER also presenred.similar
titions from the Clergy of Gloucester.
Lord ARDEN presented a petition from the Inhabitants
of Bandon Bridge, in the County of Cork, praying that no
further concessions might be granted in favour of the CatholicClaims.
•
Viscount CLIFDEN said he held in his hand a petition of a'
different description. It was from the Roman Catholics of the.
county of Tipperary, praying Parliament to open the portals
of the Constitution to five millions of persons who have long
been considered obnoxious in consequence- of their different
mode of faith. The Noble Viscount entered into detail upon
the claims of the petitioners, and strongly supported the pe-
tition.
The Marquis of LA NSDOWN presented a petition from
the Inhabitants of the /ale, of Arran, complaining of distre4s,
anti praying for relief.--The above petition& were read, and
laid on the table.

DIPLOMATIC EXPENCES.
Lord KING, understanding that a Noble Friend near hits
(Grey) was about to ask some questions in relation to 'Foreign
Affairs, took this opportunity to move for an Account which he
conceived to be connected with there, and explanatory, of them.
As to the papers now upon the table of the House, there was
something not undeserving of remark in them. These dem-
merits, it appeared, were most satisfactory to the French Go-
vernment, they had given great satisfaction to his Majesty's
Ministers, and, if the adherents anti panegyrists of those Min/li-
ters were to be believed, these papers had given much satisfac-
tion to the country, though, unfortunately they had not satisfied
his Noble Friends ; but, amidst all this satisfaction, he should
certainly be glad to know the amount of the expellees which
had been incurred in this most curious and extraordmayy diplo-
macy. Throughout the whole of the neirociations, it appeared
that the Noble Lord opposite, and also his Colleagues at house
and abroad, had submitted to that " prostration of the under-
standing" so much recommended by their Right 'leveret:al
Diocesan (we suspect that this allusion had respect to the Bishop
of London); a prostration that might, perhaps, be quite sada-
factory to Divines, but which, he apprehended, would be any
thing but satisfactory to Statesmen. If, however, this system
of negociation were to be carried on, their Lordships had better
have Bishops for Plenipotentiaries, for they would ultimately
gain by the change. It was quite apparent to every one who
examined the papers laid upon table, that even the Noble
Duke (Wellington) wasmot aware that the laths ofSpain were
to become the subject of discussion at the Congress of Verona.
Mr. Secretary Canning, in the same complacent spirit of mental
prostation, had given up his understanding, so tar, at least, sus
to have entertained no idea of an approaching war. Could La
(Lord King,) have had an option in this case, he certainly
would have liked to have been present at those Cabinet dinners
where whenever the Cordon Samtaire was noticed, it was stated
to amount to nothing at all. M. Villele had, in all probabi-
lity, with the same facility, been so successful as to persuade
his Majesty's Ministers that there was absolutely no idea of a
war. Then figured fordf'M. tie Chateaubrianti, who said to
himself—" I'll manage it better still ; I'll persuade theirs
(meaning his Majesty's Ministers) that we shall remain in per.
fect peace." It might be supposed that even the Noble Earl op
posite felt great pleasure in being duped. But he_was duped,
and by whom?—Why, by the House of Bourbon; and when
their Lordships recollected the habitual fraud of that dynasty
in their transactions with this country, there could be no ex-
cuse
fur the dupery of the Noble Earl. His Lordship con-
eluded by moving for an account of the expenses attending, ti:e
negociations at Verona, from the Ist of September to the 31.4.
December, 1840• .4

The motion was reed to.
Lord HOLLAND thought it necessary to propose one or
two questions to the Noble Earl opposite. The first questiet,
which he supposed the Noble Earl would feel no difficulty in
answering, was whether at any period this country had entered
into any stipulation or engagement whit France or with Spain,
or with any other Court, to the effect that in future the Crowre
of Franca and Spain should never ti.e united so as to be senile
on one head. '1 next question he wished to propose was_._
whether his Majesty's Ministers were apprised of an engage •
meat that had been contracted on the part of Russia witf-
France; which engagement bound the Court of Bessie, in the
event of the discomfiture of the French army in Spain, to fur.
nish troops to the FrenCh Government, in order to their being
sent to` Toulon ' He wished to learn, also, in what camel:eV a
Noble Duke (Wellington), now present, lead assisted at the
Congress of Veiona
The Earl of LIVERPOOL elide that' he was willing to give
all the satisfaction in his power, in answer to' the inquiries
made by the Nobleebord. With: respect to the 'first question,
he had not the least difficulty in saying that there was nothing •
in the Treaties now existing that could authorise an union of
the distinct Crownitof France and Spain upon. one head. With
respect to the question if, in November last, 'an engagement
had been contracted as between Fiance and 'Russia,' to furnish
the fanner with' troops, he believed that no such engagernene•
existed. With respect to the Noble Lord's fait question, tl4 it.
regarded hls Noble Friend, it was manifest that lie the Duke
of Wellington) had appeared and been received when at the
Congress Of Verona, as his Majesty Plenipotentiary, to take.
;part in the deliberations which might affeet this `country.
• THE LATE INEGOCIATIONS.'
Earl GREY observed, that in Using for the purpose ofaskirg
further information on the subject of the-late negotiations, it
Was not his intention to preclude a faller discussion as it mimed
to the difficulties which had titkett place' between the tiovere.
tnents 'cif Fiance and Spain, 'which unhappily, had since ended-
inhoitilitieee He must confess that he Was not satisfied by tee
answer of the Noble Earl, as it respected his 'Noble Friend
(Lord Holland), who wished to be informed Whit was to be tip,.
prehended in the event of a meditated •union the Crowns of
France and Spain upon one head.. A dengei so very near, so
ominous at first, not to say threatening at last, from' eircum-
, stance.* so unprovided for, ought not to' reinain to be inferred
Irons a general construction of treaties, but he would contend
that it ought to be made the g-rouratworkorsome specific treat!.
Proceeding to other points, it was ninmasible not to remark on
the scarcitytir even thepaueity of the extracts from-the comniu-
nimtion of Mr. Secretary Canning to the Duke of Wellington,
when informed of the tliff'ereects that existed between France
and Spain (see Inclosure, No. 2), as it went only to acquaint
the Noble Duke that he should hereafter be apprised in proper
. .
time of the part assigned to her.
The Earl of LI V E R POOLsaI4, that when instructions were
forwarded to his Noble Friend (Weilbigtori); it never bail en-
tered into the contemplatien of hit •Majesty'SMinisters thatifie
internal affairs of Spain would become a subject of prominent
discussion at Verona; but, guarded as to the 'future 'his Noble
Friend was Informed that, whenever the neeetwity should
he was empowered at once frankly- and peremptorily to
dare that this country would not interfere in any forme either
by force or by menace, in the ittruggle in Spain. Instructions
to the same effect had been entrusted 'tea late Noble Marquis,
and had devolved to the Noble Duke now present. AU -diet
could, under these circumstances, be presumed was, that emir
discussion in relation toiehe affairs of Spain Was looked for.
Earl GREY considered. the Noble Earl's expatiation of no
moment. By the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle there was-to be no
discussion on the affairs of Staten, during the Congreas, without
a formal notification first given to that effete He hoped that
the Noble Earl ( Liverpool) would never think' of evading tie.'
difficulty by seeking shelter inehe absurd plea that no Special
Congress had been held for the consideration of intematierial
difficulties, whilst, siethe same time, these affairs had been irt.
cidentally discussed in a General Clings-me.. Had any sort of
instructions been transmitted to the Duke of WeUiegton. to
direct him to offer Lome remarks on the Treaty -Of AixaseChea
'pine ? This question might be best ill ostrated by the questions
which were addressed by the French Plenipotentiary to the
Plenipotentiaries. of Austria, Prumia, Russia, arid (Im o
Britain.--(See the biclosure' No. 3.)--'l his was the
more extraordinary, as from the month of April 1820, hid "Sri_
tannic Majesty had never ceased to communicate most oroi.
cably, wide the Government of France ; though it so harp.
thins,nll3etb ihrliecnorse_eniwofthhhavi ecde contrary,
importance
es r
4 istr thingtl tthat
en
the
wh to our
penn c itsiri
Minister lhecr ot
trii h:erermr 41314 e thereforeloucAttst ° 6
Wilbur:ti'l; 4.:'

/Moat)" at Madrid; but we got nothing in return from
France. • - tie believed that no instance of negociations so con-
ducted—no such example of implicit confidence on the one
side, and of wily precaution on the other side, had. ever been
avowed by a British Minister to that House. The memorandum
of. the British Government (see the Inclosure, No. 5) went to
state that his Majesty had not an opportunity to make represen-
tations of non-interference with the Government of Spain. Why
if Ministers had entertained no apprehensions on that head, of
what avail Was a protesting memorandum : and if any kind of
apprehensions were entertained, then it was palpable: that the
Congressional conferencea had relation to objects now apecifi.
tally known, (see the inclesure4Vo. II.) This circumstance was
avowed, arid. even stated at The einigreas of Verona, when the
general conferences on the affairs of Spain took priority, New,
therOftire' - he would esk the-Noble Earl opposite if he was tinivit.
Eng to produce to their .Lordahips those, papers Which might
enable them distinctly to judge what had passed.at those confer-
ences with regard to Spam ?---[ Here the Noble Earl referred to
the dispatch from Sir C. Stuart, dated. MaY'l7, 1820.11rOuld
the Noble Earl opposite have nnyobjection to produce. the dis-
patch ,of the sth of 'Nov. 1022? But the next general object to
whack he wished to direct the attention of their Lordships was
the obnoxious principle that authorised France to compel Spain.
to adept some changes in her Government,. a principle that seem-
ed not only to be disclaimed but condemned by his Majesty's
Government; but, upon this subject, .he gave little credit to
the Ciicitlar at Laybach, when then followed the exception of I
Naplee, end now that ofSpain. If their Lordshipsiooked at the
utmoat amount of a disclahner, it resulted in non.intrrference. ;
an,i what did such a disclaimer, mean, when the British Minis-
ter at Madrid was. found advising some concession)! to France ?
Ile was ashamed. and 'afflicted not to find, either in our cone-
.munietitions to France or elsewhere, a denunciation of the prin-
ciple of interference—(See the Inclosure. No. ,L)—lie was so
much attached to the honourable reputation of the, illustrious
Duke (Wellington) that he was surprised. to see no. proper re-
presentations made 1.1 himself to the
_principle of interference
on the vart of the Government of France; He could not, in-
deed, hod one single word against the principle of interference,
but only a mere recommendation to abstain from the enforce-
ment of that detestable principle, on the ground of some unne.
cesaary.assumption of responsibility, and the risks too likely to
be incurred ; so that, in effect no remonstrance was attempted
on the violation of national rights._[ (f ere the Niltble Earl com-
mented on the Inclosure No. 64—The interference was every
where put upon the principle of expediency-a principle so in.
consistent with the honour and interests of the country, that if
any,'representatiOns to the country were made, the Noble Earl
ought, for the honour of his country and the honour of his own
Adniinistration, not to refuse inch -Papers to the house. Re-
t'erring to a passage in the speech of the King of France, the
Noble Earl condemned the monarchical principle as displayed
in all its odious extent. Re trusted to GOD, finally, that the
French people would not !Airport the Sovereigns in the present
war, but that they would remember their honour and interests,
till the evils which were hatched by the .plotters of an iniqui-
tJimattaek should recoil on themselves, and consign them to
the odium of oblivion. Such were the assurances on which the
Noble Earl appeared to reply ; but if that Noble Earl had bet-
ter grounds, he wished him to produce them.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL. complained, that under pre-
take of asking for information, and etecording to his notice,
moving for additional Papers, the Noble Earl had made a
speech, in which he had entered into some of the most impor.
taht parts of the great question which it was understood was to
be thscie;sed on another day. Ile felt himself therefore placed.
in an embarrassing situation. lie must say, however, that the
Noble Earl had given a very unfair representation of the first
part of 'the negociations at Verona, when he had inferred from
the qUestions put by the French Plenipotentiary that there had
been previous conferences, in which the principle of non-inter-
ferenee had been discussed, and had asked whether the docu-

ments relative to those conferences would be produced. The
ecamiunications on that subject were far anterior, and the view
of his Majesty's Oovernment had been clearly explained in the
State P.lner issued by a Noble Marquis, now no more, in May,
1620, The Noble Earl then said, that it was strange.that we

should have communicated to France ell that paseed, between
us and Spain, whilst France communicated nothing to us in
return. But the Government of this country made no mystery
its intentions with respect to Spain. It had nothing which
it would shrink reen avow Inez. The question ofinterference had
not originally been raised by France, but by a Paper published
in 11320 by the Emperor or Rusiaia, and addressed to all the
European Powers. It wee that document, anti not any step on
the part of France, which had called fur the first expression
et the sentiments of this country. She held no mysterious
course, lent her proceedings were in little matter of secrecy,
that there was nu stip which his ;Majesty's Government took
relatively to Spain,. that was 110 t communicated, not only to
France, but to all the other .Mowers. They did not anticipate,
however, that the uti airs of Spairewoule become tile prominent
abject or discussion at Verona. The Noble Earl thought it
extraordinary that his Noble Friend should not, on the first
starting. of the question of armed interference in the concerns
or Spent, have made a stronger remonstrance than he had done.
Out he contended that the very first paragraph of his Noble
Feiend's note contained as strong a renionstrence as could .be
Made. It mug also be recollected, that in the questions sub-
mitted by France to' the Congress, there was not one word
about interference by force of arms. All the cases put were
• 'defensive and 'Conditional., It might justly be said that the
measure of 'animadverting and withdrawing the Allied Mini-
sters from Madrid, was an improper One, but yet it was neither
armed. interference nor war; and it their Lordships took this
view of the subject, they would find that his Noble Friend had
alluded to the principles even mare than he was called upon to
.do by the occasion. The Noble Earl had asked to know what
• had taken piece in the conferences which had preceded the pre-
sentation of the' theee questions by the French Plenipotentiary.
'The fact was, that those queetions bad been pill in the very first
conferenceeand when.his, Noble Friend had objected to the
principle of interference, it was nut to the interference of war,
for it was not then thought of, but to that which threatened to
withdraw the Allied Ministers from Spain. His Noble Friend
had expressly stated in his Note, that even to animadvert on
the internal transactions or ind ependent Siates' was inconsistent
With the principles on which his .Majesty had always acted to-
wards other nations: Here then was a protest made, not only
against interference by force of arms, since it was not andel-
pated, but against mere animadvereion on the internal transac-
tions of Spain. The noble Lord had been put in poseession of
the fullest information upon all subjects, and he (Lord
Liverpool) wait ready to meet him on the question, that
• every thing had been done which could and ought to be
done, with respect to principle. The Noble Lord then charged
his Majesty's Minister's with having said that they had re-
ceived and trusted the assurances given by France of her
pacific intentions tip to the latest period. France had cer-
tainly said throughout that she was desirious of peace if it could
be rendered consistent with her honour ; but that be had placed
too much faith on these assuranees, was disproved by the very
words whichhe had used on the first day of the Session. He
had then said that the door of negotiation was not completely
Closed, which showed that the hope which he entertained was
but very slender, though he thought it the duty of a British
Minister in so important a question as the preservation of
peace, to catch. even at a feather. It would be seen in the
Dispatch from -Sir Charles Stuart, that even after the
Speech of the King of Venice bad been made, a disposition
to modify some of its declarations had been shown, and the
French Ministers had mated that any system of alteration in
the Spanish constitution, to which the King should be a party,
whether he originated it or not, would satiety them. This was
not a principle of which lie could approve. but it explained
away the doctrine laid down in the Speech of the King of
Frahee, that every. alteration mum proceed from the Throne.
Lie (Lard L.) had never expressed any confidence in the pre-
eervation of peace,' but he was persuaded to this hour, and he
said it without meanhig to throw any blame upon the Spa-
nittrde, that if any pretext had been given to the French Go-
vernment, by which they might have eaten their words, peace
might men have been preserved. With respect to producing
copies of the eormiumications antecedent to the Congress of
Verona, lie wished for a few hours to make inquiries before
returning an answer, whirls, he trusted, lie should be able to
do to-morrow. As to the article of the treaty of 'Aieela-Cha-
pelle, to which the Noble Earl had alluded, he believed that
its strict execution wield generally be more injurious than
salutary. By the course which his .Majesty's Government had
taken. the °lngress of Verona had broken up wititmeasurea
which were itideed justly reprobated, .but which did not neces-
sarily lead to war ; whereas had the course pointed out by the
Noble' Lord been followed, the Allied Powere Would have
disetsseed the internal situation of Spain, and the first conse-
quence would have been a declaration that the King was a pri-
soner, and in a state or dureese. The Noble Flea concluded
by referring to the embarrassing-situation in which he stood,—
• Ile thought when he had come, that he shotild have nothing
to do but to answer questions with respect to the production
of certain papers, which lie had been forced into the discussion
of the inain subject.
Lord 1101.1. AND thought it extraordinary that the Noble
Earl who had just sat down should complain of the course
adopted by his Noble Friend (Earl Grey) in omitting to give
notice of the questions: lie was alien to ask, and entering into
a variety of observations, When he had hinerelf, a few days ago,
come down with a long speech and a multitude of commons
upon papers which were -not .theiebefore the House. It was a
curious mode of teasoning ets say that there was Anything un-
fair in asking question;{ rexpoting papers which were in his own
office, and to compin'Of being taken by surprise on a subject
with which Ite 'Must be presumed to be so well acquainted.
The Noble • tioici did itntaceuli to deal out to others the same
measure of jtisidee that 'fie was anxious to obtain for him-
self. After what hail already passed he was not willing to
anticipate the discussion which muts shortly take place, but

lie could MA help stating that the answers of the Noble
Earl to the questio4 of his Noble Friend were quite unsa-
tisfactory. His Noble Friend had , first asked how- it hap-
pened that the reciprocity, as the Irishman, once expressed
it, was all upon one side ? The Noble Earl had said that
they let all Europe know their sentiments, and not France
alone, but the manner in which they proceeded exhibited the
wildest and most impeacticable policy that ever was adopted by
any man in power. With respect to the remonstrance, as it was
called, of the Noble Duke, he found many observations against
the expediencyeaf asserting the principle ofinterfereneeVith the
internal affairs of Spain, but it did not contain a single word in
condemnation of the prtnciple. Ile would say, without compli-
ment, that whenever he differed from the Noble Duke, he did
so with pain and humiliation, but - it was impossible not to ob-
aerve and- disapprove of the fact, that all the anxiety .and ten-
dereess expressed in the note was directed to those who. were
about to commit the crime,. and never once applied to the un-
fortunate persons against whom the crime was meditated.- Was
this the way to interfere for the protection of an independent
state? Was this the way to oppose the commission of one of the
most horrible crimes that power could commit against the law of
nations and common rights of mankind? He would put a case to
illustrate this ? It was often their duty to consider the affaira
of Ireland, and last year the brother of the Noble,Dnlte had in-
formed them of the state of that unfortunate country, and the
necessity of arming him with additional power* to meet the dif-
lied-hies of his situation. There were many individuals, but none
he hoped in that House, who were always on the look out for
charges against the Priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church.
Supposing then that the starving Irish were to enter into a con-
spiracy to attack some neighbouring 'Squire, to burn his pro-
perty, and to attack his life! Suppose that the Priest, aware of
their intentions, should content himself with requesting that
they would do .no such thing, adding, that they would in-
cur a great responsibility, and be exposed to great obloquy
if they persisted. What would their Lordships say of such
a priest? 'Would they not say, that though lie pretended to
. be an adviser, he was as. ►great a rebel and incendiary as any of
them in his heart? The Noble Lord had said, that the intention
of interference was not avowed. Was that the defence of Minis-
ters ? Did they mean to say, that, after the Russian Note, they
believed that the three questions were put by France in con-
templation of an aggression on the part of Spain ? Were ties)/
so innocent ? He was bound to take their words if they '
said so, and he would give them joy of the avowal; but he ,
hoped that- the Government of this country would not be en-
trusted to men,. let them be ever so honest, who were no better
judges of the dishonesty of other men. He should not dwell
upon any other .points, but would advert to the answer given to
the question of his Noble Friend as to the existence of any sti-
pulations to prevent the union of the Crowne of France and
Spain. The Noble Lord had said there could be no doubt that
all the treaties in which he was concerned for the last seven or
eight, years had proceeded from this principle, but all those
treaties were founded upon what was called by some the doc-
trine of Legitimacy, but what the honest English called the
doctrthe of divine right, and the principles of French law,
which went to place the Crown of France in the event of the
detth of the Dukes of Angoulemc and Bordeaux on the head
of Ferdinand VII. It never could be the interest of Europe,
and particularly not of Great Britain, that the Crowns of France
and Spain should ever be united ; but he thought it still pos-
sible that negociation might obtain a pledge upon that subject,
from Spain at least. His Lordship concluded with giving no-
tice.of his intention to submit the following motions, on a fu-
ture day : .
" Ist. For Copies of the Austrian, Russian, • and Prussian
answers to the three questions proposed by France."
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said that he must oppos& that
motion.
" 2d. For Copies of all written Communications forwarded
by Great -Britain, or her Ambassadors to the Allied Powers
since 1820, disapproving of interference in the internal concerns
of Spain."
The Earl of LIVERPOOL declared himself ready to pro-
duce them to-Morrow.
" 3. Fur Copies of .all Communications or Dispatches from
Spain to England, or to her Ambassador at Madrid, in which
she charged France with having fomented discoid and division
in Spain by means of money or otherwise.
" 4. For Copies of all Dispatches from our Government to
M. Chateaubromd, and by him communicated through the
French Ambassador, at Madrid, to the Spanish Government,
and particularly that of February last, which was read by Ge-
neral Lagarde, to his Most Catholic Majesty." • •
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that if the Noble
Lord would carefully read: over the livers hid upon the table
by his Noble Friend, .they would find that in the notes which
he had transmitted to Government there was no ground for the
tone •of censure which they had assumed. They would find;
not only that lie had protested against the commencement of
hostilities against Spain, but that he had (in Inclosure No. 6)
stated it as his Majesty's opinion, " that to animadvert upon
the internal transactions of an independent State, Apilosi such
transactions affect the essential interests of his Msjesty's sub-
jects, is inconsistent with those principles on which his
.Ma-
jesty hes invariably acted on all questions .relating to the inter.
nal concerns of other countries," eee. ..Now he would ask how
he, could possibly. use stronger language than this ? he objected,
not only to hostile interference, but even to any animadversion
upon the affairs of 4aain. . , . .
Lord ELLENBOROCGII_ gave notice that he,would, on
Thursday next, bring forward a motion which wiiiild give their
Lordships an opportunity of expresiing their opinions upon the
question. • - •
, . . . . .
The Alarquis of. LANSDOWN begged to ask the Noble
Earl (Liverpool) whether any commumcation had been made'
to the Mike at Wellington by Mr. Secretary Canning in an.
swer to his dispatch of the 22d.October, inclosing the three
questions proposed by the French Ministers, between the.3lst
October,
.when it was received here, and the dispatch of the
Noble Duke, dated' Dec. O. His reason for asking thisluestion
was,because it was matter of surprise that 'asilence of live weeka
should elapse ontbe part of our Government, after heving re-,
ceived a communication which, whatever might be thought of
it here; was sufficient to electrilynny other Government. The
next question which he had to ask was, whether any and what
communications had been made to the Duke of NVellington, be:.
tween his dispatch of October the 30th and that of November
22d ? lit the former dispatch the Noble Duke professed entire
ignorance of the nature of affairs then pending between France
and Spain, and Upon that ground declined giving any decided'
opinion upon the subject of the quarrel. In his subsequent
note, the Noble Duke seemed to have got rid of his igno-
rance, and to have become tio perfectly. master of the sub-
ject, ns to be able to pronounce an opinion, and advise upon
the ceurse which it would be most advisable to ,persue.—
The object of Ids question was to ascertain the nature of
the information which had been communicated to the Noble
Duke. He. had always entertained the highest opinion-
of the- Noble Duke's talents and genius, yet still lie was
bound to consider that his sources of information were human,
and not magical. It was not his intention to press for answers'
to these questions before to-rnorroiv. • -
Lord ELLENBOROUGH suggested the propriety of lay-
ing upon the table.all papers in which , France had disowned
all views of personal aggrandisement in her interference with
Spain ; and also all documents in which' that Power (France)
had promised to respect the dominions of his Most Faithful
Majesty the King of Portugal.—Adjourned.