« EelmineJätka »
treaty; and many words are employed to cut off all pretences of excuse, and to pin the lie upon me. Now I desire it may be observed, in the firit place, how very exact and knowing a critic this gentle. man is ; who, after pronouncing with so much emphasis, “ that he hath read the treaty himself, and “ finds no one article belonging to it, which hath “ the least relation to this subject,” proceeds to mention the treaty, and quotes a wrong one.
No, man would have imagined that such a stipulation could have been supposed to be in the defensive alliance between Great Britain, France and Spain, of the thirteenth of June, 1721, who had known that there was a distinct private treaty, of the same date, between Great Britain and Spain. But this, it seems, was a secret to my accuser ; though the treaty had appeared printed in the fourth volume of Rousset's Collection, when he committed this mistake. It was of this treaty I meant to speak; and the reason why I expressed myself in that manner was this :- I have had some years by me an extract of this very treaty, which was long kept a great secret, and for the keeping of which secret there is an express provision in the fixth article of it. When the treaty became public, I found that my extract of the several articles was exact, and therefore I gave the more credit to the separate article, mentioned in the fame extract, as belonging to this treaty, and stipulating the contents of a letter to be written by tbe late king. The letter I never saw; but the account I have had of it by those who have read it, agrees with my extract. All this induced me to think, that there was such a separate and more private article, belonging to this private treaty; nor was I at all surprised to see the treaty come abroad without this article ; knowing full well that treaties often appear, when the secret articles belonging to them do not-This is a true state of the cafe ; and VOL.I. S
will, I believe, sufficiently justify me for what I writ. But I have not yet done with my accuser. Let it be, that no such private article, as I was led to suppole, does exist, or was ever executed. Will he veniure to fay that no such article was drawn up, as he expresses himself, about the treaty of pacincation? Will he venture to deny that if our ministers were afraid to figa such an article, and therefore did not sign it, the reason on which the Spaniards were induced to recede from this point, was that something equivalent flould be done; and that this fome. thing was his late majesty's letter to the King of Spain? I appeal, in my turn, to the lowest observer, as well as the higheit, who hath gone about to deceive mankind, this author or l; this author, who conccals froin the world what he knows, or might know, with all the means of information which he has in his power, and what sets the matter in quite another light than he hath represented it : or I, who, having not the same means of information, fell into an undesigned mistake; which does not alter the ftate of the case in favor of my argument, fince, if the Spaniards accepted this letter, which was writ in lieu of the article which was not signed, their pretensions, and nothing but their pretensions, are under confideration here, will be still the same.
As to the letter itself, what I affirm about it is, that the Spaniards pretend it is a positive engage. ment to restore Gibraltar to them. That this should be allowed them, I am as far from agreeing as this author can posibly be; but that the letter is sufficient to keep up their pretensions, I affirm : and that in fact they do keep up their pretensions on this foundation, is notorious. Was this gentleman to dispute the point with the Spaniards, he might comment as much, and distinguish as subtily as he plealed, on the terms of the letter; the others would infill, that it was given them as an engage
ment; that if they had not received it as such, they would not have departed from the article ; and I doubt they would be apt to infinuate, that we could not have found a more proper cafuist than himself, to distinguish us out of our obligations, amongst their own schoolmen, or amongst all the fons of Loyola.
To speak seriously; it were to be wilhed ex. tremely, that the Spaniards had not had this color for persisting in their demand of Gibraltar, or that it had been by an express and clear stipulation taken from them; since it is certain, that the right and possession of Gibraltar is nothing less than afcertained to Great Britain by the preliminaries, as they stand; “ and consequently, that all claim of
Spain to it again is not extinguished."
I contradict him in his own words, though none of the properest; and I will prove, in what I am going to say, either that he does not at all underitand the matter he talks lo magisterially about, or that he attempts, in this instance, to deceive the world, by giving wrong interpretations to some thirgs, and by concealing others.
It then, although the letter of the late king hath given the Spaniards a pretence to claim Gibraltar, this claim is effectually barred, and even extinguished by the first general words of the second article of ihe preliminaries ; how comes it to pass ihat Gibraltar was not specifically mentioned, in order to prevent any future chicane ? It will be said, I know, that as the King of Spain's acceflion to the quadruple alliance vacated any promise which my Lord Stanhope might have made; fo the King of Spain, by consenting to these preliminaries, has vacated any engagement of this kind, which the letter may be supposed to contain; and I, perhaps, shall be quoted again as “one, who must necelfarily see the force of this argument.” Lut this S2
author must not judge of my eye-light by his own; for I see a manifest difference between the two cases. My Lord Stanhope's promise is faid to have been conditional; all allow that it was verbal; and I think it is allowed likewise, that the late king never confirmed it. The simple accession of the King of Spain to the quadruple alliance, might therefore be thought very justly fufficient to put the matter, at that time, out of all dispute, for the reasons given by me, and quoted by this author. But when the preliminaries were to be fettled, the King of Spain's claim to the restitution of Gibraltar rested on an engagement, or what he took for an 'engagement, entered into by the late king, and under his majesty's own hand. Besides, this engagement, or promise, whether valid or not valid, had been insisted upon as valid, in a formal treaty, and had been made the foundation of the second article in the defensive al. liance between the emperor and the King of Spain, which relates to Gibraltar. It required therefore something more to put an end to a claim founded in this manner, than to a claim founded on any promise that my Lord Stanhope could make. These confiderations could never escape the penetration of that most able minister, who negotiated the preliminaries; and therefore I conclude, first, that the Spaniards would not consent that Gibraltar fhould be mentioned specifically in the second article ; and, in the next place, that they could refuse to consent to it on no reason whatever, but this one, that their pretensions to Gibraltar would be kept alive, if it
not mentioned specifically, notwithstanding the general words so much infiited upon by this writer. He has not therefore answered my demand; 'nor thewn" in the preliminaries an article, " which is indeed as express and effectual a con“ firmation of our right to Gibraltar, as if the word s6 Gibraltar had been put into it.” But he goes on,
and observes, " that the latter part of this second “ article greatly strengthens the former; because it is “ there stipulated, that if any thing thall have been " altered with respect to rights and poffeffions, or “ not have been put in execution, the alteration “ made, or the thing not executed, is to be dis“ culled in the congress, and decided according to " the tenor of the said treaties and conventions ;' that is, in his sense, according to the tenor of the treaty of Utrecht, and of the quadruple alliance; for he mentions no other, except that of Baden, which hath nothing to do here. Now, fays he, “nothing either as to the right of Great " Britain to Gibraltar, or to the possession of it, 66 hath been at all altered; nor hath there been any
non-execution, &c.” From whence he infers, that our right to Gibraltar is not included in this description of points left to be discussed in the congress. But how could he avoid seeing that he afsumes for granted the very thing disputed ? No al. teration hath been made in “our right to Gibral“ tar (says he); therefore this right cannot be dif. “ cuffed.” An alteration hath been made in this right, fay the Spaniards, by a private engagement taken with us in 1721; therefore this alteration is to be discussed at the congress. Who doth not fee, that whether this right shall be found to have been altered, and what the alteration imports, are by this preliminary to be discussed and decided at the congress?
I think, I have now shewn what I under. took, and what this gentleman challenges me to shew; inat is, I have shewn those general words in the preliminaries, upon which the Spaniards may found a pretence for reviving their demand of Gibraltar; or, to speak more properly, since they have never ceased to make it, for continuing this demand. But I have undertaken something more; and there