to pursue in a despatch which had

manner:

been sent to our ambassador at Paris, after all hopes of an amicable arrangement had ceased, to be by him communicated to M. Chateaubriand. That despatch, after giving a history of the negotiations, concluded in the following "It remains only to describe the conduct, which it is his majesty's desire and intention to observe, in a conflict between two nations, to each of whom his majesty is bound by the ties of amity and alliance. The repeated disavowal, by his most Christian majesty's government, of all views of ambition and aggrandizement, forbids the suspicion of any design on the part of France to establish a permanent military occupation of Spain; or to force his Catholic majesty into any measures, derogatory to the independence of his Crown, or to existing relations with other powers. The repeated assurances, which his majesty has received, of the determination of France to respect the dominions of his most faithful majesty, relieve his majesty from any apprehension of being called upon to fulfil the obligations of that intimate defensive connexion which has so long subsisted between the Crowns of Great Britain and Portugal. With respect to the provinces in America, which have thrown off their alle giance to the crown of Spain, time and the course of events appear to have substantially decided their separation from the mother country; although the formal recognition of those provinces, as independent states, by his majesty, may be hastened or retarded by various external circumstances, as well as by the more or less satisfactory progress, in each state towards a regular and settled form

of government. Spain has long been apprised of his majesty's opinions upon this subject. Disclaiming in the most solemn manner any intention of appropriating to himself the smallest portion of the late Spanish possessions in America, his majesty is satisfied that no attempt will be made by France, to bring under her dominion any of those possessions, either by conquest, or by cession, from Spain. This frank explanation upon the points, on which perhaps alone the possibility of any collision of France with Great Britain can be appre◄ hended in a war between France and Spain, your excellency will represent to M. de Chateaubriand as dictated by an earnest desire to be enabled to preserve, in that war, a strict and undeviating neutrality -a neutrality not liable to alteration towards either party, so long as the honour and just interests of Great Britain are equally respected by both."

Mr. Canning, after his exposition of the course which government had pursued, entered into a justification of the system of neutrality which had been adopted. He knew, that many individuals in this country thought that the invasion of Spain by a French force ought to be considered by England as a declaration of war against herself. But war, in the responsibility of those who had to make it, ought to be well and duly weighed before it was resolved on; the cause of it should not merely be sufficient, but urgent; and not merely urgent, but absolutely essential to the interest and welfare of the country which first declared it. In making these observations, did he cast any blame upon those, who, seeing a strong and powerful nation eager to crush and overwhelm with its

vengeance a less numerous but not less gallant people, were anxious to join the weaker against the stronger party? Certainly not the feeling was highly honourable to those who entertained it. The bosoms, in which it existed in full bloom and vigour, unchastened and unalloyed by any other feeling, were much more happy than those in which that feeling was chastened, tempered, and mitigated by the considerations of prudence, interest, and expediency. He not only knew, but he envied the feelings of those who called for war, for the issue of which they were in no wise likely to be responsible for he would confess, that the reasoning, by which the war against Spain was justified, appeared to him to be much more calculated than the war itself to excite a strong feeling against those who had projected it; and he could not understand, by what process of reasoning, or by what confusion of ideas those who defended that war contrived to persuade them selves, that they had made out any thing which approached even to a shadow of a case. The right hon. secretary added, that there were some persons, who thought that, though it might not be prudent to make war, it might still be prudent to menace war against France. These individuals he conceived to be guilty of an error in principle; as the country, which menaced war, ought always to be ready to carry those menaces into execution. There were other individuals who were guilty of an error of a different kind-an error of opinion, and who thought that we should immediately send forth a maritime armament, to watch the events that might occur on the shores of the Peninsula. Such a course

would be unworthy of a great and independent nation, and would degrade us from a first to a secondary power. Whenever we determined upon war, to wage it, not as an auxiliary, but as a principal, had hitherto been our policy; and on all former occasions, when we had resorted to hostilities, we had exerted every nerve to bring them to a safe, a speedy, and an honourable conclusion." "Toto certatum est corpore regni." This, he contended, was the only sound view in which war could be contemplated. If war were the issue, it should be a war worthy of this great country; and there was no war in which the country could be engaged at the present moment, and under the existing circumstances of Europe, which would not call forth all her power, all her strength, all her energies.

On the same evening on which Mr. Canning made his statement to the Commons, lord Liverpool gave a similar exposition of our policy to the Peers. The only difference between his lordship's statement, and that of the right hon. secretary (if difference it can be called) was, that lord Liverpool, at the same time that he earnestly deprecated departure from neutrality, declared more avowedly than his colleague, that the pacific course, adopted by ministers, did not arise from any apprehension that the resources of the country were not equal to meet the exigencies of war. "I have no hesitation or difficulty," said the prime minister, "in again declaring, what I stated on the first day of the session, that, if either the honour, or the essential interests of this country should require us to engage in war, we have the means of carrying on war with effect. ·

I repeat this, my lords, not loosely or generally, from the persuasion which every true British subject must entertain, that a great country like this, will always find the means of protecting itself, when its safety, its interests, or its honour, are really endangered: but I say it, from the opportunities, which my situation gives me, of examining such a question in detail; and I aver, that if any circumstances should render it either necessary or advisable for this country to engage in war, I should feel no difficulty in finding the means to support it, without materially impairing any of the great sources of our prosperity."

Mr. Brougham in the one House, and earl Grey in the other, immediately intimated their opinion, that the explanation, which had been given of the conduct of our ministers, was by no means satisfactory but the more minute discussion of the subject was necessarily delayed, till the members had time to examine the diplomatic correspondence.

On the 16th of April, lord Althorpe moved for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the act which prohibited British subjects from engaging in foreign military service, and the fitting out, in his majesty's dominions, without the royal licence, vessels for warlike purposes. It was opposed on the ground, that, in the actual circumstances of Europe, such an alteration of our law would be an act of partiality in favour of Spain. It was rejected by a majority of

216 to 110.

On the 24th of April, the formal debate on the Spanish negotiations took place in the House of Lords. It was opened by lord Ellenborough, who proved, by a

detached examination of the correspondence, that France had been dishonest and insincere in her professions, and that the line of conduct pursued by her, was unjusti fiable in itself, and disadvantageous to this country. Then assuming that the insincerity and mischievous policy of Villèle and Chateaubriand, were imputable as faults to Mr. Canning and lord Liverpool, and that we could have arrested France in her career without involving ourselves in hostilities, he sprung to the conclusion, that our government had not acted with sufficient vigour. He finished, by moving that an address should be read to his majesty, offering the thanks of their lordships for the communication of the papers relative to the late negotiations-expressing their regret that the endeavours of his majesty's ministers to preserve peace had been ineffectual; and at the same time representing that the course of negotiation had not, in the judgment of their lordships, been calculated to support the honour and interest of the nation; that their lordships had heard with indignation the speech of the king of France; and that it was their opinion that more prompt and decided measures on the part of his majesty's government might have prevented war.

Lord Granville moved an amendment, expressing the concurrence of the House in the principles laid down on the part of his majesty with respect to interference in the internal concerns of independent nations, and their satisfaction at the manner in which they had been applied during the late negotiations; lamenting, that the efforts to preserve the peace of Europe had not been successful; and declaring, that they should be

at all times ready to give their cordial support to such measures as might be necessary to vindicate the honour of his majesty's crown, and the interests of the country.

The address was supported by lord Holland, earl Grey, and the marquis of Lansdown; who declaimed very eloquently against France, and in praise of Spain. It was not, however, easy to gather, what was the precise nature of their charge against the ministry. Their voice was not for war; and yet it was not for peace. War was to be avoided, but we had not gone sufficiently near to it; peace was to be maintained by us, but we had not sufficiently endangered it;-such was the purport of the desultory observations, of which the debate was made up on the part of the opposition Peers.

The amendment was supported principally by lord Harrowby, the duke of Wellington, and lord Liverpool. The proposed address, they contended, was altogether unintelligible; it was not for peace, and yet it was not for war: and the supporters of it could not condemn what had been done, unless they were prepared to assert, that, we ought to have gone to war rather than permit the invasion of Spain. If such was their view of the case, why should they shrink from avowing that principle? The ministers had determined on neutrality: were they wrong in that choice? That was an issue which might fairly be tendered to them, if their opponents would venture to do so; but, if, upon that point, the policy of this government had been correct, it was impossible to throw any blame on them in respect of the details or issue of the negotiations. To have menaced war, when we

did not mean to make it, would have been at once hazardous and degrading: and it would have been absurd, when conciliation was our object, to have used such language as was calculated to irritate. Upon a division, the numbers

were- -Contents-present,

96; proxies, 46-142: Not-contents present, 29; proxies, 19— 48: majority in favour of the amendment, 94.

The debate on the conduct of our cabinet in the negotiations relative to Spain, commenced in the House of Commons on the 28th of April, and was protracted through that and the two following nights. The unusual length of the discussion was occasioned in a great measure by the circumstance, that Mr. Canning, from whom the formal and complete defence of our policy was expected, did not rise in the course of the first two evenings;-a delay, which, on his part, was supposed to arise from a wish to be preceded by Mr. Brougham. The speeches from the Opposition side of the house were on this occasion more than usually deficient in argument, and were far from being adequate either to the importance of the subject or the interest which it excited. The assailants seemed afraid to come to close quarters with the ministry whom they accused: they railed at the continental sovereigns, deprecated war, and complained of what had been done: but they neither ventured to make specific charges, nor to define explicitly the course which ought to have been followed.

Mr. Macdonald opened the debate by moving:-"That a humble address be presented to his majesty, to inform his majesty, that this house has taken into its most

serious consideration the papers relating to the late negotiation, which have been laid before them by his majesty's gracious command; to represent to his majesty that the disappointment of his majesty's benevolent solicitude to preserve general peace appears to this house to have, in a great measure, arisen from the failure of his ministers to make the most earnest, rigorous, and solemn protest against the pretended right of the sovereigns, assembled at Verona, to make war on Spain on account of her political institutions; as well as against the subsequent pretensions of the French government to deny that nations can lawfully enjoy any civil privileges but from the spontaneous grant of their kings; principles destructive of the rights of all independent states, which strike at the root of the British constitution, and are subversive of his majesty's legitimate title to the throne: further, to declare to his majesty the surprise and sorrow with which this house has observed that his majesty's ministers should have advised the Spanish government, while so unwarrantably menaced, to alter their constitution, in the hope of averting invasion; a concession which alone would have involved the total sacrifice of national independence; and which was not even palliated by an assurance from France, that, on receiving so dishonourable a submission, she would desist from her unprovoked aggression: Finally, to represent to his majesty, that, in the judgment of this house, a tone of more dignified remonstrance would have been better calculated to preserve the peace of the Continent, and thereby to secure the nation more effectually from the hazard of

being involved in the calamities of war."

Mr. S. Wortley moved an amendment in the same words as that which had been carried in the House of Lords.

On the first evening of the debate, the address was supported, among others, by Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Baring; the amendment, by lord F. Gower, Mr. Bankes, and Mr. H. Sumner. Mr. Wilberforce accorded to the cabinet a qualified approbation. Though he could have wished to have seen a higher moral tone preserved in our diplomatic papers, ministers, he thought, had manifested a sincere desire to preserve the peace of Europe, and to prevent the unjust aggression against Spain. But they had fallen into a mistake not uncommon with persons who had to deal with unprincipled men. Knowing that such men were bound by no ties of moral rectitude or justice, they had put in operation such a policy as they thought would best answer the purpose of their negotiations: whereas, they ought to have relied on those high principles which had hitherto pervaded, and he hoped would long continue to direct, the councils of this country. He regretted, that they had not said from the first, not only that we would not co-operate, but that it was contrary to the principles of the British constitution-contrary to the principles of justice, and to the common rights of humanity-that France should persevere in her designs against Spain. But there was one point which had not, he thought, been sufficiently attended to in the course of the present debate. It was this. The desire of ministers being to prevent the war, they