143] 
on whith it was manifested that no 
just motive of hostility could be 
grounded. 
Such, however, was not his con- 
duct, Anxious to avert from both 
kingdoms the calamites of war, 
he bas. repeatedly and vainly pro- 
posed to adjust, by friendly dis- 
cussion, all points of difference 
Which could subsist between the 
governments of two nations whose 
xeal interest were the same, and 
who had an equal concern in op» 
posing the progress of a common 
enemy. 
This discussion having always 
been studiously avoided by the 
court of Madrid, it now remains 
only for his majesty to vindicate in 
this public manner his own cause, 
and to prove the futility of those 
pretences by whichthat court now 
seeks to colour its aggression, 
The first point brought forward 
to support an accusation of ill faith 
is the conduct of the king’s ad- 
miral at Toulon; who is charged 
with having destroyed those ships 
and naval stores of the enemy, 
which he could not carry away with 
him; and with having afterwards 
undertaken an expedition to Cor. 
sica, without the knowledge or 
participation of the Spanish ad-« 
miral, To an accusation of such a 
nature, alledged as a ground for 
war between two great nations, it 
can hardly be expected that a se- 
tious answer should be given. It 
is perhaps the first time that it has 
been imputed as a crime to one of 
the commanding officers of two 
powers acting in alliance, and 
making @ common cause in war, 
that he did more than is proportion 
of mischief to the common enemy. 
‘Aud if it be really true that such @ 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1796. 
sentiment was entertained at Maa 
drid, certainly no other justifica- 
tion can be necessary for not invit= | 
ing the officers of that court to join 
in subsequent expeditions against 
the same enemy: at all events, | 
it cannot be pretended that a coa 
operation between two: allies (how- 
ever cordial and sincere) in any 
one particular enterprize, could 
afterwards restrain either of them 
from undertaking separately any 
other, to which his own forcé 
appeared in itself to be adequate. 
The second instance of ill-faith 
attributed to his majesty, is the 
conclusion ofatreaty of amity and 
commerce with the United States 
of America; a power with whom 
both Great Britain and Spain were at 
peace: with whom the king, as well 
as his catholic majesty, was perfectly 
free to contract any such engage. 
ments; and with whom the court 
of Madrid has actually concluded 
a similar treaty, with this difference 
only, that the stipulations of thé 
British treaty can give no ground 
of offence or injury to any other 
power, while the Spanish treaty 
contains an article (that respecting 
the navigation of the Mississippi) 
which if it could have any force 
or effect at all, would be, on the 
part of Spain, a direct breach of 
treaty with Great Britain and a 
gross violation of the important 
and unquestionable rights of his 
majesty and his people. 
The same ill-faith is said to have 
been manifested in the unwilling= 
ness shewn by the British govern- 
ment to adopt, the plans proposed 
by Spain for hastening the con- 
elusion of the war with France, 
(but what these plan were, is not 
stated) and also in omitting to com- 
ply 
