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

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 then the Spanifh
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 paid 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 unwilling,
yet, to ad upon the right which 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 either uprn blind-
nefs to the danger 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 9th 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 infarmation tranfmitted by
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 Colonel 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 II
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 •