Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

of amity and commerce with the United | commerce, and of reconnoitering the country. States of America, a power with whom both Great Britain and Spain were at peace; with whom the king, as well as his Catholic Majesty was perfectly free to contract any such engagements; and with whom the court of Madrid has actually concluded a similar treaty, with this difference only, that the stipulations of the British treaty can give no ground of offence or injury to any other power while the Spanish treaty contains an article (that respecting the navigation of the Mississippi) which, if it could have any force or effect at all, would be on the part of Spain a direct breach of treaty with Great Britain, and a gross violation of the important and unquestionable rights of his majesty and his people,

The same ill faith is said to have been manifested in the unwillingness shown by the British government, to adopt the plan proposed by Spain for hastening the conclusion of the war with France (but what these plans were it is not stated); and also in the omiting to comply with an application made by Spain for pecuniary succours, as necessary to enable her to act against the common enemy. The failure of such an application cannot certainly be matter of surprise to any one who considers the situation and conduct of Spain during the war. It can hardly be alleged, even as an excuse for the precipitate peace concluded by Spain, without the knowledge of her allies; but it is difficult to conceive how such a refusal can be made a ground of hostility towards Great Britain, or with what consistency the inability of Spain to prosecute the former contest, without pecuniary aid from its ally, can have become a motive of engaging gratuitously in all the expenses and difficulties of a new war against that very

power.

[ocr errors]

With regard to the condemnation of the St. Jago (a prize taken from the enemy by his majesty's naval forces) his majesty has only to reply to the injurious assertions on that subject in the Spanish manifesto, that the claims of all the parties in that cause were publicly heard and decided according to the known law of nations, and before the only competent tribunal, one whose impartiality is above all suspicion.

The conduct of his majesty respecting the naval stores which were claimed by Spain, though found on board Dutch vessels, has been in like manner exempt from all blame; nor was any unnecessary delay interposed respecting those cargoes, till the equivocal conduct of Spain, and the strong and just suspicion of her hostile dispositions, made it im possible for his majesty to consent to supply her from the ports of his dominions with the means of acting against himself.

The next charge relates to the alleged misconduct of some merchant ships, in landing their crews on the coasts of Chili and Peru, with the view of carrying on there an illicit

On this it is to be observed, that these views are not attempted to be proved by any fact whatever; that if any act was, in truth, committed by individuals in those distant territories, against the laws of the government established there, those laws might have been enforced upon the spot; and that the court of London has always been open to receive and redress all complaints of that nature; but that what is assigned in the manifesto as a mere cover and pretext for fraud, namely, the exercise of the whale fishery by the English in those parts, is not, as is there asserted, “a right which the English claim under the convention of Nootka;" it is one which was not then for the first time established, but solemnly recognized by the court of Madrid as having always belonged to Great Britain; and the full and undisturbed exercise of which was guaranteed to his majesty's subjects, in terms so express, as to admit of no doubt, and in a transaction so recent, that ignorance of it cannot be pretended.

Such, it seems, were the offences of the British government, and such the jealousies and apprehensions of Spain, during the time when the courts of London and Madrid were united in the bonds of alliance, and engaged in a common cause; and it is on motives as frivolous as these, that the court of Madrid began to project an offensive alliance with the king's enemies, a design which it now professes to have entertained from the moment when it separated itself from the common cause; but which was long after that period disguised under the most positive and explicit assurances of neutrality.

It is insinuated, that the good offices of his Catholic Majesty for bringing about a general pacification, had been tendered to Great Britain, and had been refused. What degree of impartiality could have been expected from such a mediation, the dispositions which Spain now avows herself to have entertained at that period sufficiently show: his majesty exercised his undoubted right of judging for himself and for his people, how far a negotiation commenced under such auspices, was likely to contribute to the honour and interests of his dominions; and he now finds the propriety of his decision confirmed beyond a doubt by the conduct and avowals of Spain.

It is next stated, that in the prosecution of the war, in which Great Britain is engaged her views seem uniformly to have been directed to the annoyance of the Spanish possessions in America. In support of this accusation, are adduced an expedition directed against St. Domingo, the conquest of the Dutch colony of Demerara, and the supposed establishment of British commercial companies on the banks of the Misouri, formed with a view of penetrating to the South Sea.

This latter point is one to which it is impossible to make a specific answer, because

the British government has no knowledge of any fact to which it can refer; within the Spanish territory the Spanish government certainly possesses both the right and the power to prevent individuals from trading; within the American territory his majesty's subjects have, by treaty, a right to settle and to trade; and they have also an express right freely to navigate the Mississippi, by which the territories of Spain and of the United States are divided from each other: unless, therefore, it can be shown, that the British government has authorized any settlement on the Spanish territory, this complaint can afford no pretence for hostility against his majesty.

With regard to the expedition against St. Domingo, and to the conquest of Demerara, it is impossible to refrain from remarking, that however highly the rights of neutral natrons ought to be respected, and whatever delicacy his majesty might be disposed to feel towards those of a power, so lately his ally, and not yet become his enemy, it is a new and hitherto unheard of claim of neutrality, which is to be circumscribed by no bounds, either of time or place, which extends equally beyond the date and beyond the limits of possession, and is to attach not to the territories of a neutral power itself, but to whatever may once have belonged to it, and to whatever may be situated in its neighbour. hood, although in the possession of an actual enemy.

The subject, however, of St. Domingo deserves to be more particularly adverted to, because the attempt on the part of Spain to cede a part of that island to France, is a breach of that solemn treaty, under which alone the crown of Spain holds any part of its American possessions. The conclusion of such an article, without the knowledge of an ally so deeply concerned as Great Britain in that stipulation, both in right and interest, was therefore an act such as would have justified any measures to which the court of London could have recourse; yet so earnest was the king's desire to maintain peace with Spain, that he repeatedly endeavoured to fix, by amicable discussion with that court, the period when the right of Spain to the territory so ceded was to cease, in order that any operation, which it might become expedient for his troops to undertake there, might be directed against the French alone; and although no explanation could ever be obtained from the court of Madrid on this subject, his commanders on the spot were restrained from acting, and did not act against the Spanish part of the island, till the cession actually took place, by which it became, as far as the act of Spain could make it, a part of the territories of France.

To the accusations which make up the greater part of the remainder of the manifesto, respecting the detention or capture of merchant ships, or the violations of territory

[ocr errors]

there mentioned, it is sufficient to reply, that in every case of such a nature, which has been brought to the knowledge of the British government, the most effectual measures have been instantly taken for instituting inquiry into the particulars of the transaction, for collecting the proofs necessary to ascertain the fact on which the charge is founded, and for submitting the whole to that regular course of proceeding, in which justice is to be rendered in these cases, according to the established practice throughout Europe, and to the express stipulations of the treaties between Great Britain and Spain.

Amidst the wide and complicated operations of a naval war, extended over every quarter of the globe, it is not improbable that some disorders and irregularities may have taken place, which the utmost vigilance of the government could not immediately discover or repress; and that in the exercise of the undoubted right of a power at war, to search out and to seize the property of the enemy, the rights of neutral nations may, in some instances, have been unintentionally exposed to temporary molestation. The same observation was not less applicable to Spain in her war with France; and the short interval that has elapsed, since her declaration against Great Britain, has amply shown that similar complaints will arise from her conduct in the present war.

The utmost that can be demanded, in such cases, of a power at war, is, that it should show itself ready on all occasions to listen to the remonstrances and reclamations of those whom it may have aggrieved, and prompt and expeditious in redressing. their injuries, and in restoring their property and to the readiness of the British government to fulfil these duties in every case, where they have been called upon to do so, even Spain herself may safely be called to bear witness; nor would it be easy to cite a more striking proof of the friendly disposition of the king's government, and of the particular attention manifested towards the rights and interests of Spain, than arises from an impartial examination of the detail of what has passed on this subject; it will be found, that the causes of complaints whether well or ill-founded, which have been brought forward, are much fewer than ever have occurred within the same period in former times; and the court of Spain, when called upon to specify particulars on this head, is obliged to have recourse to an allegation of the depredations of Corsican privateers.

There remains but one ground upon which the court of Spain pretends to account to the world, for the rash and perfidious step which it has taken in declaring war against England, and to excuse to all Europe the calamities which cannot fail to result from such a measure the supposed decree of arrest, asserted to have been issued against the Spanish ambassador at the court of London. The fact to

which this relates, must have been grossly mistaken before it could be made to appear, even in the eyes of Spain, a fit motive for the slightest representation or complaint, much more a justifiable cause of war between the two kingdoms.

By the stress which is laid upon this transaction, who is there that would not be led to imagine, that the law suit, commenced against the Spanish ambassador, was attended with some peculiar circumstances of personal indignity; that the insult was intentional, and originated with the British government, or that on being apprized of the offence, the court of London had shown some unwillingness or delay in proceeding to the prosecution of the parties concerned in it?

Who but would be astonished to learn, that the process itself was no more than a simple citation to answer at law for a debt demanded; that the suing this process was the mistaken act of an individual, who was immediately disavowed by the government, and ordered to be prosecuted for his conduct; and who made (but made in vain) repeated and submissive applications to the Spanish ambassador for forgiveness and interference on his behalf? that cases of the same nature have frequently arisen in England, from the ignorance of individuals, and from the ready ap peal to the laws, which the happy constitution of the country admits and authorizes, without the previous intervention or knowledge of any branch of the executive government; and that in all similar cases, and particularly in one which had occurred only a few weeks before, precisely the same measures have been pursued by the government to vindicate the privileges of foreign ministers and have uniformly, and without exception, been accepted as completely adequate to that object, and satisfactory to the dignity and honour of the sovereign whom the case concerned.

Such then are the frivolous motives and pretended wrongs which Spain has chosen to assign as the justification of her declaration of war against Great Britain; such are the topics of complaint upon which his majesty has repeatedly offered the most unequivocal explanation, upon which he has long and earnestly endeavoured to persuade the court of Madrid, to enter into a full and amicable discussion, for the purpose of averting from his own subjects, from those of his Catholic Majesty, and from Europe, the extremities of

war.

When upon grounds of such a nature, and with the offer of negotiation repeatedly pre sented to its choice, a power has wilfully and wantonly chosen a war, in which its prosperity, its happiness, and its safety, are hazarded and in which it will have as much to fear from the success of its allies, as from that of its enemies, it surely is not too much to presume, that, even in its own eyes, that power is not justified for the proceeding which it

adopted; and that there must be some unassigned motive of irresistible necessity, which induces it to pursue measures alike inconsistent with its interest, and with its honour. It will be plain to all posterity, it is now notorious to Europe, that neither to the genuine wishes, nor even to the mistaken policy of Spain, her present conduct is to be attributed: that not from enmity towards Great Britain, not from any resentment of past, or apprehension of future injuries, but from a blind subserviency to the views of his majesty's enemies, from the dominion usurped over her councils and actions by her new allies, she has been compelled to act in a quarrel, and, for interests not her own, to take up arms against one of those powers, in whose cause she had professed to feel the strongest interest, and even to menace with hostility another, against whom no cause of complaint is pretended, except its honourable and faithful adherence to its engagements.

Under these circumstances, his majesty forbears to enumerate the several grounds of just complaint, which he has had occasion on his part to prefer to the court of Madrid, since the conclusion of the peace between France and Spain; the many and gross instances of unjust partiality towards his enemies, of undue protection afforded to their ships, and of injuries committed, and allowed to be committed, on those of his majesty and his subjects.

Confident of having acquitted himself to the world of any share in originating the present war, he finds, in the manifest and unprovoked agression of the enemy, a sufficient cause for calling forth the resources of his kingdoms and the spirit of his subjects, and he commits to the Divine Providence the issue of a contest, which it was to the last moment his earnest endeavour to avoid, and which he now ardently desires to bring to a speedy and honourable termination.

Address on the King's Message respecting the Declaration of War by Spain.] The House took into consideration his Majesty's Message, and, on the motion of Mr. Secretary Dundas, it was resolved nem. con, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, to return his majesty the thanks of this House for his most gracious communication: To express to his majesty the concern which this House feels, in common with his majesty, at finding that his majesty's endeavours to preserve peace with Spain, and to adjust all matters in discussion with that country, by an amicable negotiation, have been rendered ineffectual by an abrupt and unprovoked declaration of war on the part of the catholic king: To assure his majesty, that, while we cannot but concur with him in lamenting that such

an addition should be made to the calamities of war, already extending over so great a part of Europe, we share at the same time in the satisfaction which his majesty feels in reflecting, that nothing has been omitted on his part, which could contribute to the maintenance of peace, on grounds consistent with the honour of his crown, and the interests of his dominions: And humbly to intreat his majesty, to place the most entire reliance upon the support of his faithful Commons on so important an occasion, and to be persuaded that no exertion shall be wanting, on our part, which can, under the protection of Divine Providence, enable his majesty effectually to repel this unprovoked aggression, and to afford to all Europe, an additional proof of the spirit and resources of the British nation."

A similar Address was agreed to by the Lords.

Debate on Mr. Fox's Motion of Censure on Ministers for advancing Money to the Emperor without the Consent of Parliament.] Dec. 13. Mr. For rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, and said:-Notwithstanding, Sir, the importance of the subject of this evening's discussion, the apparent sense which the House entertains of its magnitude, from the general attendance which is given, the conversation which it has excited out of doors, and the decision which has been this day passed by a respectable public body upon the measure to which it refers; notwithstanding, I say, all these considerations, I shall deliver the observations which I mean to make. by way of preface to the motion that I shall have the honour to propose, without trespassing for any length of time upon the patience of the House. And the reason is shortly this, that much of the argument has been anticipated in the debates to which the subject has already given rise. Besides, upon the fundamental point, the principle which the question involves, I shall think it more becoming in me as a British subject, and as a member of parliament, to assert rather than to argue, studious not to weaken the constitution, by stating as doubtful what it has recognized as one of its leading features. The grand principle to which I refer is, that this is a limited and not an absolute monarchy, and that it is the peculiar privilege of the

The Common Hall of the city of London. [VOL. XXXII.]

House of Commons, not only to levy taxes and impose burdens upon the people, but to judge of the whole expenses of the state: as well of the mode in which they ought to be applied, as of the manner in which they ought to be raised. I trust that this general principle is so universally acknowledged, that I shall not be called upon to come forward in its defence. I trust that in these times, and in this House, I shall not hear it contended, that the disposal of the public money is a secret which ought not to be entrusted to a public assembly, but that one or a few individuals are more competent to direct the pecuniary concerns of the British nation than a British House of Commons. That an absolute government may be attended with some advantages which the government of a free state does not possess, I am ready to allow. But were I called upon to argue the question (which I think is entirely foreign to the subject of this night's discussion), laying aside all the blessings of liberty, and laying aside all the energy of character which it is so eminently calculated to produce, I think I should have no difficulty in proving, that, merely for the sake of external relations and for the purpose of carrying on wars, even upon this narrow ground, setting out of view all the collateral advantages of freedom, there is enough, cæteris paribus, to turn the scale in favour of a free constitution. This, however, is a question which I hope I am as little called upon by the sentiments of the House as by the subject now before us to discuss. I hope and trust that the principle of freedom is recognized as a principle of the constitution, and that, as a constitutional principle, it is received as just, politic, and wise. I presume, however, it will be contended, that though the principle be established, it is not invariable; that though it generally obtains in the management of the affairs of government, still it is liable to some exceptions. I certainly am not disposed to deny that it has been the practice of the House, and of the constitution sometimes to deviate from the precise line of conduct which this principle prescribes.

It may be argued, and I do not contravene the fact, that, from the nature of our continental connexions, and at a period when our arms are employed in foreign service, it is impossible precisely to state by estimate the amount of the [40]

expense of any separate measure, or of any particular line of operation. And hence it may be truly inferred, that extraordinaries have become necessary to be voted, to cover the expenses exceeding the estimates which parliament has voted; and that even these being found insufficient to provide for incidental emergencies, it has been usual to pass a vote of credit to the minister, to be applied according to his discretion, to such unforeseen conjunctures as may arise. In either of the cases, however, it cannot be said, that the money is either levied or applied wholly without the consent of parliament, since, in the one case it voted the service and only mistook the estimate, and in the other, it voted the money, confiding in ministers for the wisdom of the application. And it must be remembered, that these are exceptions from the principle, not the act of the constitution; that they are necessary evils which can never be extended beyond the necessity in which they originate, without some degree of criminality in the persons who multiply them. It is not very pleasant to quote a passage from the writings of an author even in his absence, but much less when he is present, particularly when he has not an opportunity of explaining his own sentiments. My respect for the author, in the present instance, however, is such, and the sentiments which he has expressed in the work to which I refer, seem to me to be so forcible and just, that I feel I should be doing injustice to my argument were I to refrain from quoting them. Most gentlemen, I believe, will have gone before me in supposing that I refer to a work, intituled," Precedents of the House of Commons" by a very respectable gentleman, Mr. Hatsell, one of the clerks of this House. The following is the passage to which I wish to call the attention of the House:

"Notwithstanding every precaution which can be taken to confine the ex. penses of the different services within those sums, which after consideration of the estimate laid before them, appear to the House of Commons to be fully sufficient, we learn from fatal experience, that this has been found to be impossible. In all the different services, the navy, the army, and the ordnance, there has always been an exceeding, or debt contracted upon each, which has been brought before parliament in a subsequent session, under

the title of navy debt, or of extraordinaries incurred and not provided for. Formerly these exceedings were confined within some limits, as appears from the accounts entered in the journals during the war of the succession, and even in the war which terminated in 1748. In what is commonly called the German war, in 1758, these sums first became very large: but in the late war carried on in America, they exceeded all bounds. There was a degree of negligence, or extravagance, or both, in those who had the conduct of this department, which rendered all the votes of the House of Commons, or bills for appropriating the supplies, ridiculous and nugatory. The sums demanded upon the head of extraordinaries of the army, incurred, and not provided for during this period, fall not very much short of the whole sums voted by parliament, upon estimate, for that service." Sir, Mr. Hatsell afterwards proceeds to speak of the transactions of the year 1734: The general and unlimited power which was given by the resolution of the Srd of April, 1734, to the ministers to apply, out of the aids of the year, such sums as the exigency of public affairs might require, was a measure entirely subversive of those rules and restrictive forms of parliament, which the House of Commons have imposed upon themselves in the mode of granting supplies, and was contrary to the practice, which had been wisely established since the Revolution, of appropriating the supplies to the services for which they had been voted. We see, therefore, that this proceeding did not pass without much difficulty and debate, and that soon after, another, and so far as it is limited, a better mode was adopted, which, though it gave the ministers credit for the manner of disposing of the money voted, confined that credit to a precise and special sum. This deviation, in times of war, from the usual form of parliament, can only be justified from the impossibility of stating, in an estimate, those demands which the unforeseen exigencies of extensive and uncertain operations may require; it is therefore incumbent on the House of Commons, not only to make this supply of credit as small as possible, but in a subsequent session to inquire into the particular expenditure of the sum granted, and to be assured that it is strictly applied to those purposes for which it was intended, and not squandered improvidently, wantonly, or, perhaps, corruptly.”

« ZurückWeiter »