gagements contained in the treaties of Vienna, with relation to trade, that the king of Spain "never "understood to grant, by the faid treaty, any pri 66 vileges contrary to the treaties confirmed above; "nor to give to his Imperial majefty any greater advantages than thofe enjoyed by other nations "in their commerce; his Imperial majefty adopt ing for his fubjects the above-mentioned declara"tion, made in the name of his Catholic majefty." And it is very obfervable that this article feems to be inferted in the treaty, merely upon the furmifes of the minifters of France, Great-Britain and Holland, who have pretended, as it is faid in the introduction to it," that in the treaty of commerce, "concluded at Vienna on the first of May, 1725"there were divers claufes, which clafhed with ar"ticles of feveral treaties of commerce, anterior to "the year 1725," &c. If therefore the natural fenfe of the Vienna treaty itfelf, as well as the declaration of their Imperial and Catholic majefties, as foon as the objection was first started, and their offer to remove any fuppofed ambiguity in this article of the Vienna treaty, were not fufficient to fatisfy us; what farther fatisfaction fhall we receive by the provifional treaty, in cafe it fhould be accepted, which contains only the very fame declaration?-But this hath been fufficiently explained already by your correípondent Raleigh. As to the Oftend trade, he thinks that I myfelf cannot be against him, unless in the degree of the importance of it. Now this is the very point upon which he must be given up, in this cafe, if he is given up at all. I never heard that any man was wild enough to affirm, that the trade carried on from Oftend, was of no confequence whatever to us. But the queftion is, whether that trade be of that degree of importance to us, which he reprefents. He afks, "who of those I oppofe hath de "clared "clared against him in this?" 1 anfwer, The very perfon I quoted in the paffage he had before his eyes, when he asked this queftion. He fays, in the Enquiry," that our East and Weft-India trade will be ruined by the Oftend company; that they are fo "already, in fome degree; that the contagion will fpread to other branches; in fhort, that this "trade will carry riches, strength, and naval power "from us to the Spanish Netherlands." What fays Publicola? "The Oftend trade, about which "fuch a noife hath been made," (he muft mean by the Enquirer, fince the Enquirer made more noife about it than all the other writers put together) was more the concern of our neighbors, both by treaty and intereft, than our own." I appeal now, in my turn; and I appeal to the Enquirer himfelf. Is not one of thefe reprefentations directly contrary to the other? Does not Publicola diminish the confequences of the Oftend trade to us, and treat it even lightly? Does not he magnify it, in the strongest terms, and make our all depend upon the obstruction of it? Does not Publicola, an author whom I oppose, give him up? 66 We are now come to the danger, much infifted upon in the Enquiry," of having Gibraltar "wrefted out of our hands by force, if it be pof"fible, unless we will bafely yield it up ;" and this danger is grounded on a fuppofed † mutual engage+ ment between the Emperor and King of Spain, contained in a fecret offenfive treaty. The writer of the Enquiry confeffes, "that the Imperial refident "read to fome of our minifters the words, which " he said were the contents of the article which his "mafter had entered into, relating to Gibraltar; "the which implied, that his mafter had engaged to ufe his good offices for the reftitution of Gi"braltar." Now from hence, because this refident 66 Page 57. + Page 34, 35. read read all that related to this point, and did not fhew the whole treaty to us, any more than we thought ourfelves obliged to fhew to the Imperial ministers the treaties of 1721, which we made at Madrid with one of the parties between whom we were at that time mediators, in the congrefs at Cambray ; from hence, I fay, the writer I am anfwering concludes that the truth of what he imputes to the Emperor ftands confirmed: but this offenfive alliance hath appeared hitherto no where, except in his writings; and the article relating to Gibraltar, in the defenfive alliance between the Emperor and King of Spain, is furely as contrary as poffible to all that he hath advanced. By that article it appears, that the Spaniards affirmed a promife on our part to restore Gibraltar. In confideration of this promife, the emperor declares he will not oppofe this reftitution, if it be made amicably; that if it be neceffary, he will employ his good offices, and even his mediation, if the parties defire it. Till therefore the Enquirer can fhew an other article between the contracting powers in the Vienna treaties, about Gibraltar, this must be reputed the fole article of that kind, and by confequence a flat contradiction to all that he hath faid on this occafion; fo that if his own fide do not give him up in this cafe, both they and he will be given up, I fear, in the opinion of every other man in Europe; to which I fhall add, fince the obfervation lies fairly in my way, that every nan, who knows any thing of the intereft of Europe, knows it as much the intereft of the emperor, that Britain fhould keep Gibraltar, as it is the intercft of one of our allies, that we fhould lofe the poffeflion of this place; and yet we have been taught, by fome profound ftateímen, to apprehend the Emperor's efforts to take it from us, and to rely on the affiftance of France to preferve it to us. I have reserved to the laft the greatest of all thofe dangers, which are reprefented in the Enquiry; and that is the danger of the pretender. * It is there affirmed, "that one express article of "the alliance between the emperor and Spain, con"tained an obligation in favor of the pretender, and a ftipulation to make the attempt for him in Eng"land, before opening the war in any other parts. Nay, this author was fo well informed of all these proceedings, that he gives us the particular engagements which the pretender, in return, took towards the Emperor and Spain. All these things are afferted in the strongest manner, as founded on "pofi"tive intelligence; on intelligence from more than "one perfon; on undoubted intelligence, and fuch as could be entirely depended on." Now I fufpect that the enquirer would think me very impertinent, if I fhould feem to question the authority of his intelligence; and yet I verily believe, that I have better reafons to do fo than he had to depend upon it, when he writ the words I have quoted. But we will wave faying any thing more on a point on which it is proper for neither of us to speak plain. His good opinion of the intelligence communicated to him will not give it the stamp of infallibility; nor will my bad opinion destroy its credit. The world will therefore judge, or rather has judged, of the validity of what he does not explain, by the force or weakness of the other circumftances which he enlarges upon; and by obferving whether the course of events hath juftified this boasted intelligence or not. I have just mentioned above the chief of thefe circumftances; and notwithstanding the great refpect I have for this author, nothing fhall oblige me to treat them more seriously. I will fhew him, however, that the course of events hath deftroy Page 52. ed ed all the use he pretended to make of these circumftances, and that it has contradicted, inftead of confirming his intelligence. He fays, "that the vit gorous refolutions taken, and the preparations "and difpofitions made by Great Britain, fufpend"ed the execution of this defign. The Spaniards "found themselves obliged to fend part of their fhips from Cadiz and St. Andero to the Weft"Indies, and the Mufcovite fhips returned home." -Very well! The event does not yet juftify the intelligence; but that is accounted for. The execution of the defign was fufpended for the prefent. The defign went on then; and the preparations for an invafion by confequence. It must have been fo; for we find in the Enquiry, that the defign thus fufpended was afterwards prevented by the appearance of a British fleet on the Spanish coaft. Now let me defire you, Mr. D'Anvers, to take the trouble of turning to Sir John Jennings' letter, dated August 10, 1726, and made public here; in which you will find the Spaniards fo little prepared to invade us, that when he came on their coaft, they seemed to be in the greatest confternation, that all the troops they could affemble did not exceed three thousand men, and that these were in very bad condition. I afk now, is the intelligence of the enquirer, upon this head, fupported by any thing but his own affirmation? Is it not contradicted by the whole course of events? Does there appear the leaft reafon to believe that he had a fure foundation to build upon, when he made fuch bold affertions, and of fuch a nature? The fecret offenfive treaty, which he talks fo much of, has never appeared, nor any footsteps of it; and many people are apt to believe that it never exifted any where but in fome people's luxuriant fancy. + Page 51. + Page 97. The |