§ Mr. Greyrose and stated, that as he by no means wished to anticipate the full discussion of the Spanish business, which was so soon to take place, and as he understood that no material objections were likely to be made to the motions which he was about to submit to the house, he should not occupy their time with many preparatory remarks. During the long negotiation which had preceded our rupture with Spain, much must have passed of which the house were yet ignorant. In the official correspondence that had been laid before them, there were numerous chasma which he wished to see supplied, and it was for this purpose that he had prepared the motions which he had prepared the motions which he now held in his hand. When our govt. received the first information of the pecuniary succours afforded by Spain to France, it must have been productive of minute instructions to our ambassador at Madrid, and of considerable discussions with the Spanish govt. His first motion, 150 therefore, was, for "copies or extracts of all letters from his maj.'s minister at the court of Madrid, relating to the demands made for succours by France to Spain in July 1803, with the instructions sent to the said minister thereupon, and an account of all the discussions which took place on that subject with the Spanish govt." To Mr. Frere's note of the 9th Sept. 1803, addressed to the Spanish minister, and complaining of the passage of 1500 Trench artillery-men through Spain, no answer appeared; in all probability, some answer must have been received; indeed, lord Hawkesbury, in a subsequent letter, adverts to this subject in such a manner, as to prove that no answer had been received, he should therefore move for "a copy or extract of any answer given by the court of Madrid to Mr. Frere's. note of the 9th Sept. 1803, respecting the passage of a body of artillery-men and marines through Spain to reinforce the French fleet at Ferrol; and also, an account of all explanations which may have taken place with the Spanish govt. and of all assurances received from the same, respecting the passage of French troops or seamen in general, since the commencement of the war with France." There now appeared a vacuum in the correspondence of upwards of 3 months. It was impossible but that, during this long period, a great deal of interesting and important correspondence must have passed between our court and that of Spain, more especially with regard to the pecuniary succours afforded to France by the govt. of Madrid, he should, therefore, move for "copies or extracts of all letters from Mr. Frere to our court, between the 12th Sept. and the 27th Dec. 1803, relative to the money paid by the Spanish govt. for the use of France, together with copies or extracts of the instructions sent to the said minister I thereupon." In lord Hawkesbury's letter of the 21st Jan. 1804, reference was again I made to the pecuniary succours which France had received from Spain. On this subject he thought we ought to receive the; most ample and satisfactory explanation. He would, therefore, move, for "copies or extracts of all correspondence explanatory of the pecuniary succours from Spain to France, alluded to in lord Hawkesbury's f letter to Mr. Frere, dated Jan. 21, 1801." In the course of the correspondence between our ambassador and M. Cevallos, allusions were frequently made to a con- 151 vention between England and Spain. Of every thing relative to this convention, it one did exist, we ought to be most fully and minutely informed; his next motion, therefore, should be for "a copy of any convention, contract, or agreement, which may have been entered into between G. Brit, and Spain, respecting the neutrality to be observed by the latter power during the present war with France." Another long interval now appeared in the correspondence. From the 21st Jan. 1804, to the 22d May, 1804, not a single letter or a. single instruction from our govt. to Mr. Frere was to be found. To fill up this hiatus, he would move for "copies or extracts of all correspondence that had passed between Mr. Frere and lord Hawkesbury from the 21st Jan. 1804, to the 22d May, 1804." At this latter period the new administration came into office. Lord Harrowby succeeded Lord Hawkesbury, but of tins noble lord's letters to Mr. Frere we had but 3 given to us, one on the 22d May, another on the 29th Sept. and the last on the 21st Oct. 1804. It cannot have escaped the observation of the house, that in some of Mr. B. Frere's latter notes to M. Cevallos, his demands for passports are more urgent, and the expression of his determination not to remain in Madrid, unless he obtains a satisfactory answer to his requisitions more strong than what his authority in the letters from our govt. laid before the house seems completely to warrant. There must still remain a portion of the correspondence of which the house were not in possession, and to endeavour to procure this, he would move for "copies or extracts of all instructions to Mr. B. Frere, subsequent to the 22d May." It was highly probable, as the Spanish minister at our court and our govt. must have had frequent discussions on the important negotiations that were going on at Madrid, that some notes expressive of the sentiments of each party must have passed between them; he should therefore move for "copies or extracts of all official notes or letters that may have passed between the Spanish minister at our court relative to the points in dispute." By some accident, as he imagined, the letter of Adm. Cochrane, on which lord Harrowby's dispatch to Mr. Frere, dated the 29th Sept. 1804, sind giving an account of the armaments, or supposed armaments, at the Spanish ports was founded, had been omitted in the papers laid before the house. Tim was a 152 material letter, and it was likewise very material to ascertain the period at which it was received. For these reasons, he should move for "a copy of the letter of Adm. Cochrane, containing the information referred to in lord Harrowby's dispatch of the 29th of September, 1804, respecting the naval preparations in Ferrol." In Admiral Cochrane's letter of the 11th Sep. 1804, he describes the formidable state of the Spanish naval force in the port of Ferrol, and in his letter of 21st of Oct. which is the next in the papers laid before the house, he says," The Spanish ships, here are in the same state as when I wrote last." Now, the fact was, that between those periods of the 11th Sep. and 21st of Oct. those ships had gone back to the arsenal Some necessary, letters therefore, of Adm. Cochrane's, had been omitted; and he should move for "copies or extracts of all letters that may have been received from. Adm. Cochrane, giving an account of the state and force of the Spanish ships in the harbours of Ferrol and Corunna, between Sep. 11, and'Oct. 21, 1804." In Adm. Cochrane's letter he speaks of the preparations in Cadiz and Carthagena. It would be highly desirable to obtain the original authority from which he derived his information, he would therefore move for "an account of all intelligence sent by his maj.'s consuls at Cadiz and Carthargena, and by any officers of his maj.'snavy, respecting any naval preparations there, and of the state of the arsenals." The hon. gent, concluded by observing, that still to add other links to the chain of information which he wished the house to possess, he should move further for "copies of all accounts transmitted by Sir E. Pellew, describing the state of the French and Spanish ships in Ferrol and Corunna. Copies or extracts of all letters from Sir T. Duckworth, respecting the conduct observed by the Spanish governor at Cuba, relative to the sale of British prizes since the commencement of the war with France; and accounts of all supplies of stores and provisions furnished by Spain to the squadrons under the command of Sir E. Pellew, and Adm. Cochrane."—On the first motion being put,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose. He said, he allowed, that every means which would enable the house to discuss mope completely the weighty question which was soon to be submitted to it, was of importance; and in this view he was willing to consider the motions which the 153 hon. gent. has framed with the wish of procuring information. With regard to the motions proposed by the hon. gent. no material objection occurred to him at present against their production: but at the same time, from the great number of motions, from the variety of objects which they embraced, and from the very cursory glance that he had been afforded of them, it was impossible for him to undertake to say how far some of them could be complied with. Of many of the papers required, he had no doubt that govt. were not in possession; others, though perhaps not many, might exist; however he trusted that the house and the hon. gent. would be satisfied with his assurance, that every exertion would be made to give them as full information on all the subjects of the motions, as it was in the power of govt. to procure; and that where the whole of the papers could not be brought forward, those parts should be produced which it might be possible to obtain. He should avail himself of the motions being put from the chair, to make' some slight observations on some of them.
§ Mr. Greyexpressed himself perfectly satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. gent, he wished the spirit of his motions to be adhered to rather than the letter.—The motions were put separately and agreed to, until that for laying before the house any compact or convention of neutrality that might have been entered into with Spain. On this being put,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerassured the house that he had not the slightest objection to the production of such a paper if such a paper could be found; but he could not omit the present opportunity of stating, that whatever might have been asserted by the Spanish minister, or however inadvertently the term may have been used by Mr. Frere, it was certain that no such compact, or convention, respecting the Spanish neutrality, had been in any shape entered into. There was not a single note, letter, or word of explanation which at all even alluded to any such compact.
§ Mr. Foxthought this part of the subject of infinite importance. From what he could understand of it the Spanish minister had given to something that had passed between the two courts, the name of convention, and this name Mr. Frere, in his subsequent discussions with that minister, is said to have used inadvertently. Though he could not conceive the probability of 154 Mr. Frere's inadvertently using this term in the first instance, when, perhaps, he did not attach to it much importance, yet he confessed he was totally at a loss to conceive the possibility of his making use of it, in serious and repeated discussions, without his having some solid grounds for so doing. It was obvious that Mr. Frere had repeatedly spoken to M. Cevallos of this convention; now, unless it could be supposed that he would talk of that which, had positively no existence, it must be allowed that he had some reasons to induce him to use the term which were kept from the knowledge of parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had before expressed his willingness to give the house all possible information on this subject, but he again assured them, that all the information that govt. could afford them, was already in their possession. However the Spanish minister or Mr. Frere may have dwelt on the word convention, there was no paper or document whatever that bore the slightest reference to such an agreement; there never had been in any shape whatever any recognizance of a treaty of neutrality with Spain. Such a treaty had never existed; and it was merely the expression of his maj.'s inclination to forbear from hostilities against Spain, while she conducted herself within certain limits to which this term convention could have been applied by the Spanish court. Strange as it might appear, it seemed highly probable that the Spanish govt. had confounded this expression of a desire to forbear from hostilities on his maj.'s part to the nominal treaty of neutrality they about that time entered into with France, and chose to give the common name convention to both.
§ Mr. Foxsaid, he should urge nothing further on the subject at present; but on the face of it certainly it seemed to require a great deal of explanation.
§ Mr. Greyobserved, that it certainly seemed very extraordinary that Mr. Frere, who must have been aware of the full meaning of the word, should still have continued to make use of it so repeatedly. There was an ambiguity about this circumstance which he could not explain. The hon. gent, here read several passages from Mr. Frere's correspondence, in order to prove that Mr. Frere had used the term convention in a decided manner; particularly at the conclusion of Mr. Frere's note of the 30th Oct. he says, "he has 155 not hesitated to restore the period of the convention;" and in the answer of M. Cevallos, dated the 3d Nov. 1804, he states, "that Spain, in consequence of the neutrality, concluded the 19th Oct. 1803, will make no armament contrary to the said convention."
The Chancellor of the Exchequermaintained, that those expressions alluded solely to the treaty which Spain had entered into with France, and not to any engagements with this country.—The motion was then put and agreed to.—On the motion in which Mr. Grey wished to know the periods at which Adm. Cochrane's letters from Ferrol were received, the Chanc. of the Excheq. observed, that that point would be sufficiently ascertained on the production of other papers that has been moved for by the hon. gent.
§ Mr. Greythen remarked, that the papers which had been ordered, would take up some time to prepare and print, before they could be presented to the house. As he did not think it likely that they would be in the possession of gent, in sufficient tithe before Thursday, to allow them to derive any benefit from the information they might contain, in the discussion that was fixed for that day, he was sure it would be a convenience to the house, to be informed, on what day it was the intention of the right hon. gent, that the discussion on the papers should take place.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that it would undoubtedly be impossible that the papers then ordered should be printed and presented in time to afford any light on the discussion then standing for Thursday; and as it was desirable that every information should be communicated to the house previous to that discussion, in order to enable them to come to an impartial 'decision on the whole merits of the case, he was of opinion, that the question fixed for that day's discussion should be deferred to some subsequent open day. The right hon. gent, afterwards moved, that the papers presented, and to be presented to the house, relative to the Spanish war, be taken into consideration on Thursday se'n-night. Ordered.—Adjourned.