to the other; to cut logwood in the bay of Campeachy, and to gather salt on the island of Tortuga. He concluded, by proposing resolutions, calculated to assert these rights in the most unequivocal and specific manner.

The minister saw and appreciated the deep impression which the speech had made upon the house, and the manner in which he answered it plainly showed the embarrassment under which he laboured. He said, he did not pretend to call in question any of the rights and privileges which the honourable gentleman had been pleased to enumerate: this nation had an indisputable title to them, no British subject would pretend to controvert any one of them; and he should be as zealous for defending them as the honourable gentleman himself. But though such was his opinion; yet he would not agree that they ought to be vindicated by the house in the manner now proposed, because no British subject could call them in question; and resolutions made by that house would not bind foreign powers. He next contended, that the passing of such resolutions would be not only unnecessary but prejudicial. For although these rights were secured by the law of nations, or by solemn treaties; yet they had never been explicitly acknowledged by Spain, except in such general terms, and by such general words, as only conveyed an implied concession, in the same manner as we possessed Jamaica. But as these general words were as secure and indisputable as the most express declaration, he entreated the house

not to pass any resolution which would preclude the ministers from accepting any such general acknowledgments and concessions. The resolutions proposed would cramp the negotiations, now carrying on. If Spain did not accede to these specific terms, it would occasion a rupture between the two nations, and render peace unattainable, until one of the parties was wholly subdued. It would be as easy, he said, to force them to sign a carte blanche, as to compel them to make such particular concessions as were mentioned in the resolutions; and as the rights in dispute with Spain might be as fully secured by general words in a future treaty, as by particular declarations, he saw no reason for preclud ing the possibility of such a treaty, which might attain all the ends proposed by the resolutions, and avoid all their inconveniences.

"For this reason," he said, “I shall be against our coming to any peremptory resolutions, with respect to any of the particular rights the Spaniards now pretend to contest; but I shall most readily agree to any motion that can be proposed, for showing it to be our opinion, that our merchants have fully proved their losses, and that the depredations that have been committed are contrary to the law of nations, contrary to the treaties subsisting between the two crowns; in short, that they are every thing bad, and without the least pretence or colour of justice. This, I say, I shall most willingly agree to, because I think the petitioners have fully proved the allegations of their petition. I think they have

fully proved, that the subjects of this kingdom have met with such treatment from the Spanish guarda costas, and governors in America, as deserves the highest resentment. But still, I think, if proper satisfaction and full reparation can be obtained by peaceable means, we ought not to involve the nation in a war, from the event of which we have a great deal to fear; and the utmost we can hope for from the most uninterrupted success, is a proper satisfaction for past injuries, and a proper security against our meeting with any such hereafter, both which we are bound to think there are still hopes of gaining by negotiation; because, if it had been otherwise, his majesty would certainly have acquainted us with it, and have desired us to provide for obtaining by force, what he saw was not to be otherwise obtained."

He concluded by offering an amendment, which adopted only the first sentence of the proposed resolutions, "That it is the natural and undoubted right of British subjects to sail with their ships on any part of the seas of America, to and from any part of his majesty's dominions." After this sentence the minister proposed to insert, "That the freedom of navigation and commerce, to which the subjects of Great Britain have an undoubted right by the law of nations, and which is not in the least restrained by virtue of any subsisting treaties, has been greatly interrupted by the Spaniards, under pretences altogether groundless and unjust.

* Chandler.

That before and since the execution of the treaty of Seville, and the declaration made by the crown of Spain pursuant thereunto, for the satisfaction and security of the commerce of Great Britain, many unjust seizures and captures have been made, and great depredations committed by the Spaniards, which have been attended with many instances of unheard of cruelty and barbarity. That the frequent applications made to the court of Spain for procuring justice and satisfaction to his majesty's injured subjects, for bringing the offenders to condign punishment, and for preventing the like abuses in future, have proved vain and ineffectual; and the several orders or cedulas, granted by the king of Spain, for restitution and reparation of great losses sustained by the unlawful and unwarrantable seizures and captures made by the Spaniards, have been disobeyed by the Spanish governors, or totally evaded and eluded. And that these violences and depredations have been carried on to the great loss and damage of the subjects of Great Britain trading to America, and in direct violation of the treaties subsisting between the two crowns.'

These amendments occasioned a long and vehement debate, which, according to the opinion of a contemporary author, "is grossly misrepresented in the parliamentary collections of that time. The gentlemen in opposition had not studied the term of contraband goods with sufficient precision, and confounded them with • Chandler, p. 204.

illicit goods. The difference between the intention and meaning of the treaty concluded with Spain in 1667, and that of 1670, was not sufficiently defined; the former relating to the European commerce, and the latter restricted solely to the American. Neither was there sufficient foundation for a house of parliament to assert the right which the English had of cutting logwood in the bay of Campeachy, and it was certain that right had not only been warmly contested by the Spaniards in former negotiations, but had been tacitly given up by some of the English ministers, and the whole of it was inconsistent with the interest of the South Sea Company. It was maintained by Sir Robert Walpole and his friends, during the course of the debate, that the resolutions moved for by him, contained all that could be reasonably expected from Spain; and that whatever claims the English had to lands in the province of Jucutan, or to cut logwood in the bay of Campeachy, or to other privileges, either of possession or navigation, it could not be affected or weakened by the amendment, which, after a long and vehement debate,* was carried without a division. When the resolution, amended in the committee, was reported to the house by alderman Perry, the minority proposed that it should be re-committed, but the motion was negatived by 224 against 163.† Then alderman Perry carried an address, "beseeching the king to use his endeavours to obtain effectual relief * Tindal, vol. 20. p. 374. + Journals.