By virtue of two treaties concluded in the years 1667 and 1670 between England and Spain, the Spaniards claimed the right, which they frequently exercised, of searching the British merchant-vessels which passed near their American ports. The first treaty allowed a general freedom of navigation and traffic between the two countries in all places where they had before carried on trade with each other, but reserved the right of searching the merchant-vessels sailing near the ports and in the seas belonging to the respective countries, and of confiscating contraband goods. Much debate. arose on the construction of this treaty. On the one hand, it was contended that its provisions extended to America; while on the other hand, this was denied, and it was further said that the power which it gave of confiscating contraband goods was intended to prevent the English ships from supplying the States of Barbary with military stores. The second treaty, which was much more explicit than the first, related exclusively to America, and regulated the commercial intercourse between the two countries in that quarter of the globe. By this treaty the subjects of each nation were prohibited from trading with the colonies of the other in America, unless authorized so to do by a special license, to be granted for that purpose by the sovereign to whom the colonies belonged. But liberty was granted to the subjects of each power to seek shelter and protection in the ports and harbours of the other, in case of being pursued by pirates, or of distress by bad weather, or for refreshment. From the conclusion of this treaty to the death of Charles the Second, King of Spain, a period during which it suited the political interests of the Court of Madrid to be on friendly terms with Great Britain, a large, although illicit, trade was carried on by the British merchants with the Spanish colonies by the connivance and indulgence of Spain. But no sooner was a prince of the House of Bourbon firmly established on the Spanish throne, than he directed his views to the American trade. Accordingly, the treaty of commerce which was concluded at the Peace of Utrecht, between England and Spain, altered in a material manner the intercourse between the two countries. The privilege of trading with the license of the sovereign, which had been granted by the treaty of 1670, was annulled; and the contract called the Asiento Contract, for the supply of a certain number of negroes to the Spanish dominions in America, was transferred to the South Sea Company for a period of thirty years, with the privilege of sending annually a ship of 500 tons to Spanish America. In return for these concessions, one-fourth of the profits of the negro trade and annual ship, and five per cent. on the remaining three-fourths, were reserved to the King of Spain. With the exception of these alterations, the treaties of 1667 and 1670 were confirmed. The provisions of the treaty of Utrecht were, however, soon found capable of being evaded. The Asiento annual ship was followed by several others, which moored at a distance, and, as it disposed of its cargo,

* This contract had been previously held by the French, to whom it had been transferred from the Dutch.

supplied it with fresh goods. By these means the fair of Panama, once the most celebrated in the world, and to which the Spanish merchants resorted to exchange their merchandize for gold and silver, became depreciated, and the English obtained a monopoly of the commerce of the Spanish colonies. In the prosecution of their endeavours to stop this illicit traffic, illegal captures were frequently made by the Spanish guarda-costas (or guardships), and occasional acts of violence and cruelty committed. The merchants who had suffered succeeded, by the exaggerated accounts which they gave of the treatment they had received from the Spaniards, in exciting such deep feelings of resentment in the minds of the people of England, that it was only with difficulty, and at the cost of much odium to himself, that Sir Robert Walpole had continued so long to maintain amicable relations with Spain. The same conciliatory spirit which had hitherto guided the policy of that Minister induced him to open negotiations, with a view to the adjustment of the differences existing between the two countries. The result was, that the demands of the English merchants upon Spain were fixed at £200,000; while, on the other hand, those of Spain upon England were fixed at £60,000; * thus reducing the balance due to this country to £140,000. Foreseeing the uncertainty of the payment of this sum by Spain, the English ministers agreed to make an abatement from it of £45,000 for prompt payment. The claim of Great Britain upon Spain was thereby reduced to the sum of £95,000.

While the subject of the depredations and injuries committed on the English was under dispute, other differences arose between Spain and England. The right of cutting logwood in the Bay of Campeachy, and of gathering salt in the Island of Tortuga, was called in question; and some disputes took place respecting the limits of the settlements which the English had lately formed in America, and which, in honour of the King and Queen, had received the names of Georgia and Carolina. The Spaniards claimed a part of those colonies contiguous to their province of Florida; and the demand was made in such violent terms, that England, apprehensive of an attack on Georgia, ordered a battalion of troops to embark from Gibraltar for America.

Such being the position of affairs between England and Spain, a Convention upon the following terms was concluded at Madrid on the 14th of January, 1739, between the two countries; "that within six weeks, two plenipotentiaries should meet at Madrid to regulate the respective pretensions of the two Crowns of England and Spain, with relation to the trade and navigation in America and Europe, and to the limits of Florida and Carolina, as well as the other points in dispute, according to the former treaties subsisting between the two kingdoms: that the plenipotentiaries should finish

This sum was intended as a compensation for the ships taken by Admiral Byng off the coast of Sicily in 1718. The right of Spain to compensation had been acknowledged by the treaty of Madrid, as well as by the treaty of Seville; but the amount had not been before adjudged.

their conferences within eight months: that, in the mean time, no progress should be made in the fortifications of Florida and Carolina: that his Catholic Majesty should, within four months from the day of exchanging the ratifications, pay to the King of Great Britain the sum of £95,000, as a balance due to Great Britain, after deducting the demands of Spain: that this sum should be employed for the satisfaction, discharge, and payment, of the demands of the British subjects upon the Crown of Spain: that this reciprocal discharge, however, should not extend or relate to the accounts and differences subsisting between the Crown of Spain and the South Sea Company, or to any particular or private contracts that might subsist between either of the two Crowns or their Ministers, with the subjects of the other; or between the subjects of each nation respectively." It must be admitted that this Convention was inadequate to settle the differences between England and Spain, since it left untouched the question of the rights of search, which had occasioned the violent disputes that finally terminated in a war with Spain.

When the Convention was on the very point of being signed, Don Sebastian de la Quadra, the Spanish Minister at Madrid, insisted that the sum of £68,000 was due to the King of Spain for his share of the profits realized by the South Sea Company, and declared that his sovereign would suspend the Asiento unless an assurance were given, that this sum should be paid within a stipulated time. The British envoy was obliged to conclude the negotiation under this condition. It will be seen that the claim of England upon Spain was thus in effect reduced to the sum of £27,000.*

March 6. This being the day appointed by the House of Commons for taking the Convention with Spain into consideration, so great was the interest excited by the subject, that four hundred members had taken their seats before eight o'clock in the morning. The House having resolved itself into a committee of the whole House, two days were employed in examining witnesses and reading papers relative to the Convention. On the 8th of March, Mr. Horace Walpole, after a long and able speech, in which he considered the various points involved by the Convention, concluded with moving that "the House return thanks to his Majesty for the communication of the Convention; for bringing the demands of his subjects to a final determination; and for procuring a speedy payment for the losses sustained by the merchants; declaring their satisfaction in the foundation laid for preventing and removing similar abuses in future, and for preserving peace; to express a reliance on the King, that effectual care would be taken for securing and establishing the freedom of navigation in the American seas; that British subjects may enjoy, unmolested, their undoubted right of navigating and trading to and from any part of his Majesty's dominions, without being liable to be stopped, visited, or searched in the open seas, or being subject to any other violation of the treaties subsisting; and that, in

Coxe's Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, chap. ii., and Bourbon Kings of Spain, chap. xliii.

settling the limits of his dominions in America, the greatest regard would be had to the rights and possessions belonging to the Crown and subject; and to assure the King, that, in case his just expectations should not be answered, the House would support him in taking such measures as might be most conducive to vindicate the honour and dignity of his crown, and the rights of his people."

This address went infinitely further than the Convention, and was calculated of itself to procure unanimity. But it was remembered that the Convention itself, and not any address upon it, was the real subject of consideration. After several members of the opposition had vehemently expressed their objections to it, Mr. Pitt rose and delivered the following celebrated speech:

66

Sir, there certainly has never been in Parliament a matter of more high and national concern than the Convention referred to the consideration of this committee; and, give me leave to say, there cannot be a more indirect manner of taking the sense of the committee upon it, than by the complicated question that is now before you.

We have here the soft name of an humble address to the Throne proposed, and for no other end than to lead gentlemen into an approbation of the Convention. Is this that full, deliberate examination, which we were with defiance called upon to give to this Convention? Is this cursory, blended disquisition of matters of such variety and extent, all that we owe to ourselves and to our country? When trade is at stake, it is your last entrenchment; you must defend it, or perish; and whatever is to decide, that deserves the most distinct consideration, and the most direct, undisguised sense of Parliament. But how are we now proceeding? Upon an artificial, ministerial question ;-Here is all the confidence, here is the conscious sense of the greatest service that ever was done to this country ;* to be complicating questions, to be lumping sanction and approbation, like a commissary's account; to be covering and taking sanctuary in the Royal name, instead of meeting openly, and standing fairly, the direct judgment and sentence of Parliament upon the several articles of this Convention.

"You have been moved to vote an humble address of thanks to his Majesty for a measure which (I will appeal to gentlemen's conversation in the world) is odious throughout the kingdom. Such thanks are only due to the fatal influence that framed it, as are due for that low, unallied condition abroad which is now made a plea for this Convention.

"To what are gentlemen reduced in support of it? They first try a little to defend it upon its own merits; if that is not tenable, they throw out general terrors-the House of Bourbon is united, who knows the consequence of a war? Sir, Spain knows the consequence of a war in America ; whoever gains, it must prove fatal to her; she knows it, and must therefore

Alluding to the extravagant terms of praise in which Mr. H. Walpole had spoken of the Convention, and of those who framed it.

avoid it; but she knows that England does not dare to make it. And what is a delay, which is all this magnified Convention is sometimes called, to produce? Can it produce such conjunctures as those which you lost while you were giving kingdoms to Spain, and all to bring her back again to that great branch of the House of Bourbon, which is now held out to you as an object of so much terror? If this union be formidable, are we to delay only till it becomes more formidable, by being carried further into execution, and by being more strongly cemented? But be it what it will, is this any longer a nation? Is this any longer an English Parliament, if with more ships in your harbours than in all the navies of Europe; with above two millions of people in your American colonies, you will bear to hear of the expediency of receiving from Spain an insecure, unsatisfactory, dishonourable Convention? Sir, I call it no more than it has been proved in this debate; it carries fallacy or downright subjection in almost every line. It has been laid open and exposed in so many strong and glaring lights, that I cannot pretend to add anything to the conviction and indignation which it has raised.

"Sir, as to the great national objection, the searching your ships, that favourite word, as it was called, is not, indeed, omitted in the preamble to the Convention, but it stands there as the reproach of the whole, as the strongest evidence of the fatal submission that follows. On the part of Spain, an usurpation, an inhuman tyranny, claimed and exercised over the American seas; on the part of England, an undoubted right by treaties, and from God and nature declared and asserted in the resolutions of Parliament, are referred to the discussion of plenipotentiaries upon one and the same equal footing. Sir, I say this undoubted right is to be discussed and to be regulated. And if to regulate be to prescribe rules, (as in all construction it is,) this right is, by the express words of this Convention, to be given up and sacrificed; for it must cease to be any thing from the moment it is submitted to limits.

"The Court of Spain has plainly told you, (as appears by papers upon the table,) that you shall steer a due course, that you shall navigate by a line to and from your plantations in America; if you draw near to her coast, (though from the circumstances of the navigation you are under an unavoidable necessity of doing so,) you shall be seized and confiscated. If, then, upon these terms only she has consented to refer, what becomes at once of all the security we are flattered with, in consequence of this reference? Plenipotentiaries are to regulate finally the respective pretensions of the two Crowns with regard to trade and navigation in America; but does a man in Spain reason that these pretensions must be regulated to the satisfaction and honour of England? No, Sir, they conclude, and with reason, from the high spirit of their administration, from the superiority with which they have so long treated you, that this reference must end, as it has begun, to their honour and advantage.

66

But, gentlemen say, the treaties subsisting are to be the measure of this