Star.
London, England, 1823-05-01 00:00:00

' Spain by any corporate or joint act. Whet), howev.av,
he arrited at Palk the nature of things altered, and
that interference was undertaken. Was it necessary
to point out the differences of our situation at those
two periods? Wher, interference was necessary OT
useful, we lost Dist a moment to grasp at it—we
•seized the chance of mediation, because we had just
thee received an application from Spain for the inter-
ference ofour good offices. It was said that the re.
fusel of our mee: aims on the part of France should
be resented ; but speaking generally of the policy of
nations, he begged to be anderstood to say, that such
a refusal could be considered as no affront, and
subsequent acceptance no proof of humiliation.-;--
Our mediation was refused, but our good offices were
accepted by France, whilst at the same time they
were received by Spain; and whilst he was on this
part of the subject, he begged to call the attention of
the House to a Paper, which had been a good deal
commented on ; he meant the Letter of the Spanish
Minister, San Miguel. In all that had been said of
the eloqu'erice, sincerity, simplicity, and manliness of
that document, he fully concurred ; but its purport,
he believed, had been a great deal misunderstood.
The Spanish Minister had complained that he had not
been made acquainted with the progress of the negoti-
ations, but the reason he was not informed of them was'
—we were then negotiating with other Powers, in'
tie hope cf arriving at a result favourable to Spain.
Ile appealed to any honourable man who heard him,
whetter, as long as there was a hope of an issue Una-
nimoils and favourable, would it not have been un-'
fair, both to Spain and her Allies, to make known the
disputes which were then going forward, and which,
might never he brought to issue? Would it have 1,
been right to tell France that we. were fighting her
.battles, so long as there was a hope of a layout able
termination; which would have prevented her from
feeling that these battles ever had been fought, and
it was not until he found that he had been disappoint-
ed, that he communicated the subject? He thought
he had now put the House in possesSion of facts
which would explain the following passage of San
Mignel's speech, and he wished that the conduct of
the English Government might be tiied by this and
no other standard. The Minister San Miguel writes
thus:—"" The acts to which I allude would in nowise
compromise the most strictly-conceived system of
neutrality. Good offices, counsels, the reflections of
one friend in favour of another, do not place a na-
tion in concert of attack or defence with another—
do not expose it to the enmity of the opposite
party, even though they do not deserve its gratitude.
England might act in this manner; being able, ought
she so to act? and if she ought, has she acted so ?
In the wise, the just, and generous views of the Go-
vernment of St. James, no other answer can exist
than tire affirmative. Why,. then, does she not notify
to Spain what she has done?" It is true, and no less
lamentable than Wile, that the representation's of this
country to France did not prove successful. The Ho-
nourable Member for Westminster (Mr. Hoblieuse)
had attributed the failure to the intriguei of the Rus-
sian Minister, and had gone so far as to state, that
this distineuished individual had made a bet in a
French coffee-house, that he would engage the Prencli
nation in a war—(el laugh).—EMr.Hosirodsz (across
the House)--." I only said it was so supposed."3-In-
deed, the whole argument of the Honourable Gen-
tleman, and those about 'him, seemed to proceed
upon the same system of supposition, and it might
perhaps be as well to amend their Address to the
Crown by adding, that his Majesty's most faithful
Commons most humbly pray, that his Majesty will
be graciously pleased to take measures to avert the
dreadful calamity of a war, supposed to have origi-
nated in a French coffee-house !--(Great laughter).'
I believe, however, that what the Member for
Bridgenorth said was more true. I believe the war,
against Spain not a war by France, but of a dormant
faction in France—(Hear, hedr).—l believe that
some of the Members of the French Cabinet hoped to
a late period to avoid a war, and that, up to the
latest period, the smallest loop-hole from which they
could have crept Would have induced them to avoid
war—(Hear, hear).—We wire considered dupes, be-
cause some Gentlemen ascribed to the Frepch Go-
Vernrhent an unalterable line of conduct from the
beginning to the end, and had held their coarse right
on. But a little consideration would shew how er-
rorteous were those views. M. Matthew de Iqontmo-
rency went to Verona, high in the confidence of and,
countenanced by the Holy Alliance—on his return to
Paris he was created a Duke for his able services, in
the view of France and the Allied Powers; but,
I strange to say, in three days after his return, be was
I dismissed from office, and his dispatch, conceited
%%WI the Ministers of the Allied Powers, was signed
by another Officer- -(Hear, hear, hear).—From this
change, I must confess, I believed in the prospect of
a peace, and so far I may have been a dupe. The,
fact, however, was not so ; for the question thence-
forward turned from being an European to a mere,
French question. M. de Montmorency was bound to
the conditions agreed to by the Allied Powers. Ano-,
ther French Minister had merely French views as to
the war with Spain ; and M. de Montmorency, like
a man of honesty and honour, quitted office when he
found he could no longer accomplish his object. This
conduce, in my mind, completely negatives the charge
of our being duped. If the Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site read over the correspondence attentively with the
key, they would clearly understand the difference be-
tween the Note of M. de Montmorency to the Duke
of Wellington, and that of M. de Chateaubriand to
me. M. de Montmorency said the policy to be pur-
sued was European ; M. de Chateaubriand, ip expla-
nation said, rather singularly, it is toutes Franraises.
et tout autres—an explanation, in truth, which I don't
well understand—(Hear, hem, hear, and laughter).—
I can only speak of M. de Chateaubriand with .re-
spect for his private worth—With admiration of his
talents and genius— with the most perfect conviction
of his untainted honour, and his capability to fill the
highest station. Whatever I may think of the con-
duct of France, or of the French 'Ministry, I cannot
individually say of him that he is capable or been
guilty of duplicity. I have been the cause of some
unintentional misrepresentation relative to his cha-
racter : in justice I owe him some explanation, and
now most willingly offer it. I must, however, con-
fess that M. de Chateaubriand was rathet unfavour-
ably spoken of in a dispatch from Madrid relative to
the failure of Lord F.Sornerset'scnission to Madrid; but
I have received another copy of the FrenCh Minister's
dispatth, in which the tense of the objectionable verb