REMONSTRANCES OF THE SPANISH MINISTRY.
The destruction of the Spanish fleet was a subject that employed the deliberations and conjectures of all the politicians in Europe. Spain exclaimed against the conduct of England, as inconsistent with the rules of good faith, for the observation of which she had always been so famous. The marquis de Monteleone wrote a letter to Mr. secretary Craggs, in which he expostulated with him upon such an unprecedented outrage. Cardinal Alberoni, in a letter to that minister, inveighed against it as a base unworthy action. He said the neutrality of Italy was a weak pretence, since every body knew that neutrality had long been at an end; and that the prince’s guarantees of the treaty of Utrecht were entirely discharged from their engagements, not only by the scandalous infringements committed by the Austrians in the evacuation of Catalonia and Majorca; but also because the guarantee was no longer binding than till a peace was concluded with France. He taxed the British ministry with having revived and supported this neutrality, not by an amicable mediation, but by open violence, and artfully abusing the confidence and security of the Spaniards. This was the language of disappointed ambition. Nevertheless it must be owned that the conduct of England, on this occasion, was irregular, partial, and precipitate.
The parliament meeting on the eleventh day of November, the king in his speech declared that the court of Spain had rejected all his amicable proposals, and broke through their most solemn engagements for the security of the British commerce. To vindicate, therefore, the faith of his former treaties, as well as to maintain those he had lately made, and to protect and defend the trade of his subjects, which had in every branch been violently and unjustly oppressed, it became necessary for his naval forces to check their progress; that notwithstanding the success of his arms, that court had lately given orders at all the ports of Spain and of the West Indies to fit out privateers against the English. He said he was persuaded that a British parliament would enable him to resent such treatment; and he assured them that his good brother, the regent of France, was ready to concur with him in the most vigorous measures. A strong opposition was made in both houses to the motion for an address of thanks and congratulation proposed by lord Carteret. Several peers observed that such an address was, in effect, to approve a sea-fight, which might be attended with dangerous consequences, and to give the sanction of that august assembly to measures which, upon examination, might appear either to clash with the law of nations or former treaties, or to be prejudicial to the trade of Great Britain; that they ought to proceed with the utmost caution and maturest deliberation, in an affair wherein the honour as well as the interest of the nation were so highly concerned. Lord Strafford moved for an address, that sir George Byng’s instructions might be laid before the house. Earl Stanhope replied, that there was no occasion for such an address, since by his majesty’s command he had already laid before the house the treaties of which the late sea-fight was a consequence; particularly the treaty for a defensive alliance between the emperor and his majesty, concluded at Westminster on the twenty-fifth day of May, in the year one thousand seven hundred and sixteen; and the treaty of alliance for restoring and settling the public peace, signed at London on the twenty-second day of July. He affirmed that the court of Spain had violated the treaty of Utrecht, and acted against the public faith in attacking the emperor’s dominions, while he was engaged in a war against the enemies of Christendom; that they had rejected his majesty’s friendly offices and offers for mediating an accommodation. He explained the cause of his own journey to Spain, and his negotiations at Madrid. He added, it was high time to check the growth of the naval power of Spain, in order to protect and secure the trade of the British subjects which had been violently oppressed by the Spaniards. After a long debate, the motion was carried by a considerable majority. The same subject excited disputes of the same nature in the house of commons, where lord Hinchinbroke moved that, in their address of thanks, they should declare their entire satisfaction in those measures which the king had already taken for strengthening the protestant succession, and establishing a lasting tranquillity in Europe. The members in the opposition urged that it was unparliamentary and unprecedented, on the first day of the session, to enter upon particulars; that the business in question was of the highest importance, and deserved the most mature deliberation; that, before they approved the measures which had been taken, they ought to examine the reasons on which those measures were founded. Mr. Robert Walpole affirmed that the giving sanction, in the manner proposed, to the late measures, could have no other view than that of screening ministers, who were conscious of having begun a war against Spain, and now wanted to make it the parliament’s war. He observed, that instead of an entire satisfaction, they ought to express their entire dissatisfaction with such conduct as was contrary to the law of nations, and a breach of the most solemn treaties. Mr. secretary Craggs, in a long speech, explained the nature of the quadruple alliance, and justified all the measures which had been taken. The address, as moved by lord Hinchinbroke, was at length carried, and presented to his majesty. Then the commons proceeded to consider the supply. They voted thirteen thousand five hundred sailors; and twelve thousand four hundred and thirty-five men for the land service. The whole estimate amounted to two millions two hundred and fifty-seven thousand five hundred eighty-one pounds, nineteen shillings. The money was raised by a land-tax, malt-tax, and lottery.
ACT FOR STRENGTHENING THE PROTESTANT INTEREST.
On the thirteenth day of December, earl Stanhope declared, in the house of lords, that in order to unite the hearts of the well affected to the present establishment, he had a bill to offer under the title of “An act for strengthening the protestant interest in these kingdoms.” It was accordingly read, and appeared to be a bill repealing the acts against occasional conformity, the growth of schism, and some clauses in the corporation and test acts. This had been concerted by the ministry in private meetings with the most eminent dissenters. The tory lords were astonished at this motion, for which they were altogether unprepared. Nevertheless they were strenuous in their opposition. They alleged that the bill, instead of strengthening, would certainly weaken the church of England, by plucking off her best feathers, investing her enemies with power, and sharing with churchmen the civil and military employments of which they were then wholly possessed. Earl Cowper declared himself against that part of the bill by which some clauses of the test and corporation acts were repealed; because he looked upon those acts as the main bulwark of our excellent constitution in church and state, which ought to be inviolably preserved. The earl of Hay opposed the bill, because, in his opinion, it infringed the pacta conventa of the treaty of union, by which the bonds both of the church of England and of the church of Scotland were fixed and settled; and he was apprehensive, if the articles of the union were broke with respect to one church, it might afterwards be a precedent to break them with respect to the other. The archbishop of Canterbury said the acts which by this bill would be repealed, were the main bulwark and supporters of the English church; he expressed all imaginable tenderness for well-meaning conscientious dissenters; but he could not forbear saying, some among that sect made a wrong use of the favour and indulgence shown to them at the revolution, though they had the least share in that happy event; it was therefore thought necessary for the legislature to interpose, and put a stop to the scandalous practice of occasional conformity. He added, that it would be needless to repeal the act against schism, since no advantage had been taken of it to the prejudice of the dissenters. Dr. Hoadley, bishop of Bangor, endeavoured to prove that the occasional and schism acts were in effect persecuting laws; and that by admitting the principle of self-defence and self-preservation in matters of religion, all the persecutions maintained by the heathens against the professors of Christianity, and even the popish inquisition, might be justified. With respect to the power of which many clergymen appeared so fond and so zealous, he owned the desire of power and riches was natural to all men; but that he had learned both from reason and from the gospel, that this desire must be kept within due bounds, and not intrench upon the rights and liberties of their fellow-creatures and countrymen. After a long debate, the house agreed to leave out some clauses concerning the test and corporation acts: then the bill was committed, and afterwards passed. In the lower house it met with violent opposition, in spite of which it was carried by the majority.
WAR DECLARED AGAINST SPAIN.
The king on the seventeenth day of December, sent a message to the commons, importing that all his endeavours to procure redress for the injuries done to his subjects by the king of Spain having proved ineffectual, he had found it necessary to declare war against that monarch. When a motion was made for an address, to assure the king they would cheerfully support him in the prosecution of the war, Mr. Shippen and some other members said, they did not see the necessity of involving the nation in a war on account of some grievances of which the merchants complained, as these might be amicably redressed. Mr. Stanhope assured the house that he had presented five-and-twenty memorials to the ministry of Spain on that subject without success. Mr. Methuen accounted for the dilatory proceeds of the Spanish court in commercial affairs, by explaining the great variety of regulations in the several provinces and ports of that kingdom. It was suggested that the ministry paid very little regard to the trade and interest of the nation, inasmuch as it appeared by the answer from the secretary of state to the letter of the marquis de Monteleone, that they would have overlooked the violation of the treaties of commerce, provided Spain had accepted the conditions stipulated in the quadruple alliance; for it was there expressly said, that his majesty the king of Great Britain did not seek to aggrandize himself by any new acquisitions, but was rather inclined to sacrifice something of his own to procure the general quiet and tranquillity of Europe. A member observed, that nobody could tell how far that sacrifice would have extended, but certainly it was a very uncommon stretch of condescension. This sacrifice was said to be the cession of Gibraltar and Port Mahon, which the regent of France had offered to the king of Spain, provided he would accede to the quadruple alliance. Horatio Walpole observed, that the disposition of Sicily in favour of the emperor was an infraction of the treaty of Utrecht; and his brother exclaimed against the injustice of attacking the Spanish fleet before a declaration of war. Notwithstanding all these arguments and objections, the majority agreed to the address; and such another was carried in the upper house without a division. The declaration of war against Spain was published with the usual solemnities; but this war was not a favourite of the people, and therefore did not produce those acclamations that were usual on such occasions.