Mr. Ponsonbyrose to put a question to a right hon. gent, opposite, as to the interpretation of the Treaty entered into with Spain, that part of it, he meant, which went to bind his majesty to an alliance with the Spanish Government. He would read to the house from a paper he held in his hand, the passage of which he now sought the explanation, it ran thus, "His Britannic Majesty engages to continue to assist to the utmost of his power the Spanish Nation in their struggle, against the tyranny and usurpation of France, and promises not to acknowledge any other king of Spain, and of the Indies thereunto appertaining, than his catholic majesty Ferdinand the Seventh, his heirs, or such lawful successor as the Spanish nation shall acknowledge." Now in his judgment, this might admit of either of two interpretations, and yet he was not at all prepared to say, whether either of those two interpretations was such a one as the treaty itself was meant to bear: one, that it admitted of, was that the king was bound to acknowledge Ferdinand, and no other in any event, as king of Spain; the other, of which it might equally admit, was, that the king was bound to admit as the successor of Ferdinand a king de facto, being so acknowledged as king by the Spanish nation, and considered by them as the lawful successor of Ferdinand.
Mr. Secretary Canningreplied, that the Treaty in question was not meant to bear either of the two interpretations mention- 105 ed by the right hon. gentleman. The Treaty was not in either of those senses. It certainly did go to bind his majesty in strict alliance with the Spanish nation, and, of course, to the exclusive acknowledgment of Ferdinand as their lawful sovereign; but this was only so long as the Spanish nation thought proper to hold good to their part of the contract. Ferdinand, and the immediate successors to the Spanish throne, were then in the power of France: and it had been understood, that in the event of the removal of their claims by demise, it would become a matter of grave question amongst the Spanish jurists, upon whom the superior right of succession to the crown would devolve; it was therefore but provident to word that part of the Treaty so as it might bear a prospective relation to such an event; for it would not be denied, that in a question of that nature, this country would have no right to interfere with the exclusive privilege of the Spanish people. That part of the Treaty had that bearing and the most desirable object in the case of such an event they had in view was, the legitimacy of the successor, qualified by the acknowledgment of the nation. As to any question arising out of the successful issue of French usurpation, when that usurpation was acknowledged and acceded to by the Spanish nation, Spain and England would be no longer acting in concert against France, and therefore the avowed object of the present Treaty would be given up, and the contract between the two countries dissolved. Whenever the Spanish nation should cease to consider France as her enemy, while France was ours, from that moment the Treaty would be ipso facto annulled.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, that as far as related to the divided claim to the crown of Spain eventually, and the doubts upon that subject among the Spanish jurists, he knew nothing of either till the right hon. gent. had then informed him. With respect to the nature of the contract entered into between the two countries, he was ready to admit the explanation of the right hon. gent, to be perfectly satisfactory; but, in giving this opinion, he did not thereby pledge himself to an approbation of the Treaty itself, or the grounds upon which it had been entered into. The next question he had to ask was in reference to a Letter from Mr. Frere to sir John Moore, dated Talavera de la Reyna, Dec. 3, 1808, and beginning, "Sir; In the event which 106 I did not wish to pre-suppose of your continuing in the determination of retiring with the army, &c." This letter he (Mr. Ponsonby) understood to conclude with a request that the bearer of that letter might be previously examined before a council of war. Now, considering the respective situations of that gentleman and sir John Moore, he could not help saying, that this request appeared to him to be one of the most extraordinary, that ever was made (Hear! hear!). Was it to be believed that a person—
Mr. Secretary Canningrose to order; though the right hon. gent, had said full enough to tempt him to enter into some justification of the conduct of his right hon. friend, as well as from a sense of public duty as the motives of private friendship, he should, however, forbear, provided the right hon. gent. would stop there, and confine himself to the putting of any question he might think proper to propose.
Mr. Ponsonbyadmitted that the right hon. gent was right, and that he was wrong. The questions he had to put were—He wished to know the name of the bearer of this letter from Mr. Frere to sir John Moore; who this messenger was, and what the nature of his message?
Mr. Secretary Canningreplied, that he could give no answer to the latter part of the right hon. gent.'s question, as he himself was not aware of the nature of the message. As to the name of the messenger, he must be excused if he declined answering that; but he believed his right hon. friend, in requesting that the messenger might be examined before a council of war, did so, not with any view of questioning the military authority or judgment of sir John Moore, but that the council might have every advantage of any extraordinary information possessed by a person so lately coming from Madrid, and an eye-witness of the scenes passing at such a distance.
§ Mr. Whitbreadasked, what were the powers and instructions given to Mr. Frere, and whether the messenger alluded to already was a Frenchman or an Englishman?
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid that the instructions could be best learned from the papers that might be laid before the house referring to this subject. As to the nativity of the messenger, he believed, as was more probably the case, that he was a native of the country where he acted.
§ Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he had asked the last question because he had it in contemplation to offer a motion to the house for the removal of Mr. Frere.
§ Colonel Wood, supposing that the letter from Mr. Frere to sir John Moore was in answer to one from that general, wished to know whether there would be any objection to the production of that letter.
Mr. Secretary Canningreplied, that all the correspondence between sir John Moore and Mr. Frere, that had reached his office, was either in copies or extracts before the house. He took that opportunity of moving, That there be laid before the house copies of all the notes which had been exchanged between the Spanish minister and the Secretary of State relative to certain Articles of the Spanish Treaty.—Ordered.