HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



21 



ment of the vliole force of Spain. 

 In our subsidiary treaty with llol- 

 Jand, in the year 1788, between 8/. 

 and ()L was to be paid per man for 

 Infantr}', and between 11/. and Vll. 

 per man for cavalry ; whereas, by 

 this calculation, Spain paid at the 

 rate of 80/. or 9O/. per man. When 

 the communication of this conven- 

 tion with France was caliad for, the 

 reason assigned for refusing it was 

 singular enough — namely, " that 

 the Frencli minister, general Bour- 

 nonville, had overruled it." He 

 denied that there ever was any con- 

 vention of neutrality between this 

 country and Spain, though that 

 were sometimes assumed in the cor- 

 respondence ; all that Spain was 

 ever given to expect, was a condi- 

 tional connivance on the part of the 

 British government. He thoa re- 

 ferred to the communications made 

 by admiral Cochrane of the arma- 

 ments in the port of Ferrol, which 

 were collateral with the equipment 

 of the French squadron, and the 

 Dutch men of war. This happened 

 at the moment when the French sol- 

 diers, and sailors were conveyed 

 througli Spain to reinforce the crews 

 of the French ships, and tlie Spanish 

 packets were armed as in tioie of 

 war. After our so long forbear- 

 ance, founded on the express con- 

 dition that there should be no arma- 

 ments in the SpanisJi ports, could 

 our government shut its eyes to cir- 

 cumstances so suspicious, and ne- 

 glect such precautions as the case 

 demanded .' If the real object of 

 Spain was to queil an insurrection in 

 Biscay, she had abundance of small 

 craft in uiiich to traji'^port her 

 troops, or might have sent the men 

 of war armed i:n Jiu(r, or without 

 guns. The capture of the frigates, 

 tie said, made uo part of the case, as 



Ave should have been equally at 

 war had it never happened. 



Air. Grey, in a S|)eech of consi- 

 derable length, combated most of > 

 the positions laid down by the mi- 

 nister. He admilfed, indeed, th» 

 hostile character of the treaty of St. 

 Ildefonso, but deprecated the abuse 

 of the principle of war which tliat 

 treaty yielded. He contended that 

 wc abandoned our claim to the riglit. 

 of making war, and substituted for 

 it the recognition of a neutrality ; 

 that Spain had in no instance di- 

 rectly violated the neutrality : that 

 it all along manifested pacific dispo- 

 sitions ; that there were no ar- 

 maments carrying on against Great 

 Britain in the ports of that power ; 

 and that the seizure of the Spanish 

 frigates was not a measure of pre~ 

 caution, but of violence, injustice, 

 and bad faith. He concluded with 

 moving the following elaborate a- 

 mendment to the address,, which we 

 are induced to give at full length, at 

 it embraces, substantially, the wliold 

 scope of argument used on the part 

 of opposition in the course of the 

 debate — ^" To return his majesty 

 " the thanks of this house for the 

 " communication made to us rela- 

 " tive to the rupture with Spain. To 

 " express our entire conviction thafr ' 

 " the existence of a defensive treaty 

 " between France and Spain would 

 " have entitled his majesty to hava 

 " considered S))ain as a principal in 

 " the present war, unless the obli- 

 " gations of that treaty were re- 

 " nounced. or their execution dis- 

 " claimed; and to assure his majesty 

 " that we shall at ail times bo ready 

 " to support hiui in giving ellect, .so 

 '• far as the interests of his domiui- 

 " ons may require, to this just and 

 " undisputed principle. That we 

 " obsTYOj howcTcr, that his ma- 



C 3 " jciity - 



