/ 
1822.] 
and without noticing the violations of 
express treaties by the British tra- 
ders,” &e. 
But this confession is really an ac- 
cusation ; which, so far from beimg 
supported by due evidence, is hazard- 
ed in opposition to testimony, admit- 
ied as decisive by the minister him- 
self, and denied by none at the time it 
Was given: so that the long endurance 
of the British nation is much more to 
be wondered at than its ultimate and 
eager desire of revenge. 
‘Che inextinguisbable animosity of 
the court of Madrid, displaying itself 
in various forms during a period of 
more than twenty years, unquestion- 
ably originated in the arbitrary and 
upproyoked interposition of Great 
Britain by force of arms,in the quar- 
re] between Spainand Austria relative 
to Sicily, and the consequent destruc- 
tion (August 1718,) of the Spanish 
flect off Messina. ‘This was a conten- 
tion in which England lad no imagi- 
nable motive to interfere, but which, 
on the contrary, was obviously and 
permanently injurious to her best in- 
terests; being calculated wholly and 
solely to promote the pernicious pro- 
jects of Hanoverian aggrandisement. 
The hatred and resentment of Spain 
were afierwards fostered by the insi- 
dious artifices practised upon het, re- 
jative to the restitution of Gibraltar, 
and other causes well known to those 
conversant with the events of those 
times, as originating in electoral am- 
bition. 
In the speech of King George T. de- 
livered Noy. 11, 1718, we hear for the 
first time of vessels fitted out in the 
West Indies against the British com- 
merce, which, under the name of 
Guarda Costas, were in fact priva- 
teers, licensed for the purpose of 
plunder; and whose daring outrages 
on the high seas, notwithstanding the 
nominal restoration of peace and 
amity in 1721, received the strongest 
countenance from the Spanish govern- 
ment. These violences continued 
without intermission for a long series 
of years, in open contempt of treaties, 
particularly of the Convention of Se- 
ville in 1729; and they were followed 
by innumerable complaints, commis- 
sions, memorials, and remonstrances. 
In the memorable debate which took 
place March 3, 1738, on the petitions 
presented by the West India mer- 
chants and others, the minister, Sir 
Montuty Maa. No. 374. 
On a Passage in Coxe’s Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole. 
305 
Robert Walpole, acknowledged “ that 
the British merchants and seamen had 
been often treated most unjustly and 
inhumanly by the Spanish Guarda 
Costas, and that both the honour and 
interest of the nation were concerned 
in obtaining reparation for such inju- 
ries, and a proper security for the 
future.” 
On the 30th of the same month, Sir ~ 
Robert Walpole said, on the subject of 
the resclutions moved by Mr. Pulte- 
ney, ‘‘ I shall most readily agree to any 
motion that can he proposed for show- 
ing it to be our opinion, that our mer- 
chants have fully proved their losses ; 
and that the depredations which have 
been committed are contrary to the 
treaties subsisting between the two 
crowns, and without the least pretence 
or colour of justice ;” and in his con= 
sequent amendment to the resolutions, 
itis asserted, “that before and since 
the treaty of Seville many unjust 
seizures and captures have been made, 
and great depredations committed by 
the Spaniards, which have been’ at- 
tended with many instances of un- 
heard-of cruelty and barbarity; that 
the frequent applications made to the 
court of Spain have proved vain and 
ineffectual; and the several orders or 
cedulas granted by the King of Spain 
have been disobeyed, or totally 
evaded.” 
During the month of March nume- 
rous petitions had been presented to 
the House of Commons relative to the 
inhumanities, as well as depredations, 
committed by the Spaniards. Several 
captains and others, whose characters 
were unimpeached, being examined 
at the bar of the House, gave the 
clearest and most impressive evidence 
of these horrid outrages. Amang 
these witnesses was the famous Ro- 
bert Jenkins, the captain of a West 
India trader, who was called to the 
bar on the 16th and 2ist of March 
(1733). The report of the committee 
to whom the petitions had been refer- 
red, was brought-up March 30th, by 
Alderman Pery, one of the members 
for London. It was calculated to ex- 
cite indignation as well as compassion. 
Mr. Murray (afterwards the celebrated 
Earl of Mansfield,) was heard as 
counsel for the petitioners, and sup- 
ported with irresistible eloquence the 
justice of their complaint, Tha re- 
markable case of Jenkins, in parti- 
eular, so highly inflamed the publie 
Rr mind, 
