Page images
[ocr errors]

fore will proceed 10 shew what this gentleman was ignorant of, or what de concealed very unfairly, because it is decisive again it him.

I think he could hardly be ignorant that the second article of the preliminaries, not only recalls the treaties of Utrecht and Baden, and the quadruple alliance, as he quotes the article, but likewife all treaties and conventions which preceded the year 1725; which latter words he does not quote. Perhaps, he judged them unnecessary. If he did fo, he was much mistaken; for by the fifth article of the treaty of 1721, between Great Britain and Spain, it it declared, “ that all the pretensions of “ both sides, touching affairs not exposed in the “ present treaty, and which pretensions are not " comprehended in the second article of it,” shall be treated of in the future congress; which was at that time the congress at Cambray. Now let it be observed, that the affair of Gibraltar is not one of the affairs exposed in this treaty. Let it be observed also, that the pretension of the Spaniards to Gibraltar, is not one of the pretensions comprehended in the fecond article of it; and then let any man deny, if he can, that, in the intention of Spain, these words were relative to the pretension, which fne acquired by the private engagement taken in the letter fo often quoted. If the letter gave her a right, as she insists, it gave her a pretension certainly to claim that right, and this pretension is carefully preserved by the treaty of 1721. I do not say among other pretensions ; for I think I may venture to tay, that all other pretensions are specified in the treaty ; even that relating to the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion in Minorca : and therefore these words seem to have been fingly applied to the pretensions of Spain on Gibraltar. Will not the Spaniards now in ift, upon these foundations, that they enjoyed, in 1721, a right to demand the restitution


of Gibraltar, by virtue of conventions then made; and that the second article of the preliminaries preserves entire, to all the contracting parties, what. ever rights, as well as possessions, they had by virtue of any treaty or conventions, antecedent to the year 1725; and that therefore the first general words of the second preliminary preferre to them the right of demanding the restitution of Gibraltar, as a right acquired by conventions made before the year 1725; whilst the last general words of the same preliminary article preserve this right as an alteration made in the treaty of Utrecht, and in the quadruple alliance?

How little weight loever the defender of the En. quiry may allow to these observations, which would I doubt hare some in a congress, yet he must allow that they ought not to have escaped him, or to have been concealed by him ; ince they do certainly af. feat the merits of the cause on which he has so

positively pronounced judgment, without any regard to them. But I am almost ready to ask your pardon, Mr. D’dnvers, for saying so much on this point, when there is another more clear and more decisive still behind. Is it possible our author mould never have heard of a certain public inftrument, containing a declaration explanatory of the preliminaries made by the French minister at the Pardo, on the fourth of March, 1728, and accepted and confirmed by himself, and by the Imperial, Briti:?, Spanish, and Durch ministers on the fixth of the faine month? If this inftrument hatt ever fallen into his hands, and it is in every body's elle, did he never read there words in ima that all pretensions, “ on all sides, shall be produced, debated, and de. “ cided in the fame congress ?” The disputes about contrabands, and other complaints made by the Spaniards concerning the ship Prince Frederic, and the disputes about the restitution of prizes, which


articles are taken notice of in the introduction to this instrument, are, by particular clauses in it, referred to the discussion and decision of the congress. To what purpose then were these general words inserted ? To what purpose was it stipulated that all pretensions whatsoever (among which the pretenfion of the Spaniards to the restitution of Gibraltar muft neceflariiy be included ; lince, whether ill or well founded, it is still a pretension on their fide) fall likewise be referred to the congress; and that his “ Britannic majefty shall be obliged to stand to “ what fhall be decided upon the whole ?" But I forbear to press this matter any farther upon the gen. tleman ; since it would be, in some fort, like itabbing him on the yiound.

I proceed to the article of blocking up the galleons; which is the lait upon which I am attacked in the Defence of the Enquiry. And bere I must observe again, that he is very far from entering into a refutation of the arguments advanced by me to prove, that seizing the galleons was a measure liable to no objection, and in every respect preferable to that of blocking them up. He observes indeed, upon Mr Hofier's letter, that the treasure had been taken from on board the galleons, when our squadron arrived before Porto Bello. Now, without making any reflections on the intelligence brought from on fhore to the admiral, and taking it for granted, that all this treasure was in time removed out of his reach, it will still be true, that this cir. cumfiance proves nothing in defence of the measure taken to block up the galleons, and not to seize them; since whether they would have the siches on board them or not, when Mr. Hofer should arrive, could not be known when his in. itructions were drawn. If ail these riches had been actually at Porto Bello, when he came thither, he would have had, in elled, nothing more to say to the Spaniards, than what the orders they had received


ten days before from old Spain imported; which was, that they should secure the money in the country.

The lingle point, infiited upon to justify this ineafure, and which the writer pronounces to be fuffi. cient, is that the contrary measure, that of seizing the galleons in port, with all their treasure on board, if it had been practicable, would " have put

Europe into a flame, by putting all the proprietors of “ those riches, whether French, Dutch or Spanish, “ into the greatest uneasinels ” At the same time, he allows that taking thele fhips, if they “ had at. “ tempted, by force or stealth, to come out, had « been reasonable.” Sure I am it is enough to say in reply to this, that as to the uneasiness which such a seizure might have given the Spanish proprietors, it deserved no confideration; that the French and Dutch proprietors would have believed, or ought to have believed, their effects as secure in our hands, as in the hands of Spain ; especially in a point of time, when they were, by treaty at least, engaged on our side in opposition to Spain ; and, lastly, that the distinction between seizing the galleons at sea, or blocking them up in port, as if one was, and the other was not an hostility, is very maniteltly a distinction without a difference; to prove which, I dare appeal to every man in Britain, whether he would not elteem the hostility as great, and the insult greater, if a Spanish squadron should block up Portsmouth, than if it should cruise in the channel, and take our ships at sea. The gentleman cuts the dispute short, by referring us to the observations on the conduct of Great Britain ; and I lhall readily join issue with him, by referring, on my fide, to the Craftsman Extraordinary, in which these obfervations are fully answered, and treated as they deserved to be.

Having mentioned the galleons, our author could pot avoid taking fome notice of a question I asked,

in answering Publicola, and which he allows to be very material. His answers to it deserve a short reflection or two. “ Since the galleons are coming “ home, hath Spain renounced those designs, " which our fleet was sent to the West-Indies to “ prevent?” Thus he states the question; and his anfwer is, “ Truly I can't tell; nor can any one “ in the world, who is not in the secrets of the court "S of Spain.” A little afterwards he asks the same question ? " Has the King of Spain renounced his " projects ?” that is, those designs which our fleet was sent to the Welt-Indies to prevent? His answer is, “ Yes undoubtedly, as far as articles ratified by “him can bind; and as far as any contracting powers

can be bound by treaty to one another." Let us fee what is urged between the first and the second asking of the same question, to produce such a wide difference in the answers. The King of Spain hath ratified the preliminaries, in consequence of which the siege of Gibraltar is raised.

raised. Orders are sent to restore the South-sea ship ; and he has promised, that the effects of the galleons shall be delivered. He hath therefore renounced his projects by treaty; but whether he hath renounced them in his heart; “ whether he will go on to act an open and honest “ part," that is more than our author can tell. It is more likewise than any one will defire, that he or thofe, for whom he is an apologist, should pretend to tell, or be answerable for. But let us fee what they are answerable for ; what has been really done by treaty; what we have obtained to make us some amends for the rotiing of our ships ; for the loss of so many thousand lives, and for the depredations and holtilities which this author founded so high formerly; and which were carried on with redoubled vigor, during the pecific blockade of the galleons. - The effects of the gallecns are to be delivered. I


[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »