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.