HL Deb 05 February 1805 vol 3 cc256-8
Earl Spencer

said, that in the absence of his noble friend, (lord Grenville) it fell to his lot to put the motions of which the noble lord had given notice, and the tendency and nature of which he had yesterday explained. The first of these was for the production of the result forwarded to govt. by Mr. Frere, of the information which he intimates in his letter of the 5th of March, 1804, it was his intention to take the first opportunity of requiring from M. Cevallos, relative to the treaty between France and Spain, on finding that the prince of peace did not chose to give him any information on that subject, but referred him to M. Cevallos.—After some explanation between lords Mulgrave and Darnley,

Lord Mulgrave

said, that after every inquiry which it was in his power to make, and after perusing all the papers on the subject, which were to be found at the foreign office, he could only say, that the existence of any such communication as that alluded to, was altogether unknown to him; nor was he aware that govt. had ever been in possession of the result of such communication, farther than was to be collected from an allusion to the subject in No. 14. of the second volume of papers before the house, (see p. 183.)—On this assurance the motion was allowed to drop.—The second motion was for production of two notes from M. Cevallos to Mr. Frere, of the 23d and 24th Feb. referred to in M. d'Anduaga's Letter to Lord Hawkesbury, of 30th March, 1304.

Lord Mulgrave

said, that no such notes existed, if they could not, as he believed they did, be supposed to apply two notes of date 23d and 24th Jan. the former of which was among the papers on the table, and the latter had not been produced merely because it entirely regarded another subject, the island of Teneriffe, not now in question.—This explanation being esteemed satisfactory, this motion was also withdrawn.—Several other motions followed, for production of answers by lord Hawkesbury, to the letters from M. d'Auduaga, of the 9th and 30th March, 1st May, 23d Dec. 1804; to all of which it being answered, that no such papers existed, or in the nature of the communication were to be expected, the motions were withdrawn.—The next motion was for the production of an account or minute of the communications and explanations made by M. d'Auduaga to lord Harrowby, as to the preparations making at Ferrol, which the former of those gentlemen represents in his letter, as being such as either were, or ought to have beet), satisfactory on that head.—This motion was agreed to.—The last motion was, for the production of the instructions sent by this govt. to Mr. Frere, at Madrid, authorizing his declaration to the Spanish govt. that if the condemnation of Brit, prizes in the ports of Spain was not put a stop to, he should consider the refusal as a termination to his mission at Madrid,

Lord Hawkesbury

said, that, from being himself in the foreign office at the time, he thought he was warranted in stating, that no instructions of that kind had ever been sent to Mr. Frere, farther than the general instructions contained in the papers on the table of the house. How far Mr. Frere might have thought that they warranted the declaration alluded to, he could not take upon him to say.

Earl Spencer

begged it to be understood, that the declarations made by ministers this night, as to their belief of the non-existence of the papers called for, which had been denied to exist, and the motions for production of which had been withdrawn, should be afterwards taken as evidence, that those papers did not exist.

Earl Carlisle

said, from what he could understand, it must be held that Mr. Frere had added another to the instructions transmitted to him by govt. which should be esteemed sufficient to put an end to the peace between the two countries, and that he had thus, of his own accord, and without any instructions to that effect, involved Spain and this country in war.

Lord Hawkesbury

said, he had not given, nor meant to give any such opinion, he had only conjectured that such might have been the conclusions drawn by Mr. Frere, from the instructions he had received, and from the tenor of the treaty between the two countries, by which it was declared that Brit. ships should enjoy all the privileges of the most favoured nation. How, far Mr. Frere, if he had judged in this manner, had argued logically, he was not at present called on, or entitled to judge.

Lord King

could not conceive that the words of the instructions, which he read, would warrant any man in drawing from them the result deduced by Mr. Frere.

Earl Darnley

said, that on looking back to the answer or explanation given to the first motion, he could not conceive that it applied. The letter in which Mr. Frere stated his intention of applying for farther explanation, is dated the 5th March, and the letter in which it was now alleged, that the result of that information might have been communicated, is dated the 3d March, being two days preceding.

Lord Hawkesbury

explained, by saying, that all he meant was, that ministers had no later communication on the subject.—Adjourned.