506 
mind, that Mr. Pulteney declared, 
“his very name would suflice to raise 
volunteers.” 
Alse, in the grand debate which 
took place March 8, 1739, on the Con- 
vention of the Prado, Sir ‘Thomas 
Sanderson denounced the same atro- 
cious act in the following language :— 
“Even the Spanish pirate who cut off 
Capt. Jenkins’s ear,—making use, at 
the same time, of the most insulting 
expression towards the person of our 
king, an expression which no British 
subject can decently repeat,—even 
this fellow is suffered to enjoy the 
fruits of his rapine, and remain a 
living testimony of the tameness of 
Britais, and the triumphant pride of 
Spain.” 
More than half a century subsequent 
to these transactions, Mr. Edmund 
Burke, in that bold and assuming tone 
which characterised all the effusions 
of his licentious style of eloquence, 
without the least attempt to disprove 
the evidence, thought proper to speak 
of “the fable of Jenkins’s ears.” Regi- 
cide peace! This apparently encou- 
raged Mr. Archdeacon Coxe to make 
a farther advance. ‘I am inclined 
(says this writer, Memoirs iv. p. 43,) 
to give credit to the suggestion of Tin- 
dal, that Jenkins lost his ear, or part 
of his ear, on another occasion, and 
pretended it had been cut off by the 
crew of a Spanish Guarda Costa.” Of 
Mr. Coxe’s inclination there can be 
no question; but this makes no part of 
the evidence. The words: of Tindal 
are as follow:—‘‘The case which 
made the greatest noise was that of 
one Jenkins, master of an English 
ship, who had, it seems, lost his ear, 
or part of his ear; and he pretended 
it had been cut off by the crew ofa 
Spanish Guarda Costa, with circum- 
stances of the utmost insolence against 
the person of his Majesty and his sub- 
jects.” If the term pretended in this 
passage means falsely aflirmed, the 
ground of the accusation ought to 
have been fally and fairly stated; 
otherwise it must pass fur a mere ca- 
Jumny. There exists not the least 
colour for the gratuitous insertion, 
“that Jenkins lost his ear on another 
oceasion;” and Tindal admits, “that 
the evidence of Jenkins had an incre- 
dible effect both upon Parliament and 
the public.” 
“The effect of this ridiculous story 
(says Mr. Coxe; again improving upon 
* bis author,) on the nation at large was 
Oa a Passage in Coxe’s Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole. 
[ Nov. ] 9 
proportionate to the sentiments of horror 
and vengeance it excited in the House 
of Commons.” But how could such 
sentiments be excited in that House 
by a ridiculous fiction? Assuredly 
there were in that Assembly persons 
not less inclined than Mr. Coxe, and, 
having heard the evidence, far more 
able to detect the imposture, had im- 
posture been attempted. Upon this 
topic the authority of 'Tindal can bear 
no comparison with that of Smollet, 
who was himself professionally em- 
ployed in the West Indies at the pe- 
riod in question; and this historian 
informs us, ‘‘ that Jenkins was master 
of a Scottish merchant ship; that he 
was treated in a most barbarous man- 
ner by the captain of a Spanish Guarda 
Costa, who, after a vain search for 
contraband commodities, tore off one 
of his ears, bidding him carry it to his 
king, with other opprobrious expres- 
sions, filling the House of Commons 
with indignation.” He farther re- 
lates, ‘“‘ that Jenkins was afterwards 
engaged in the service of the East In- 
dia Company; and, in an engagement 
with the pirate Angria, he distinguish- 
ed himself by his extraordinary cou- 
rage aud conduct, by which he saved 
his own ship, with three others that 
were under his convoy.” Surely the 
name of such a man merits to be res- 
cued from the implied charge of per- 
jury and imposture. History, though 
privileged to speak the boldest truths, 
ought religiously to guard against the 
slightest deviation from her charter. 
As to the main question at issue be- 
tween Great Britain and Spain at the 
period alluded to, it is now sufliciently 
obvious, that to insist upon a direct 
renunciation of the “right of search,” 
as it was styled by the latter of the 
contending powers, was the extrava- 
gance of oppesition, as Mr. Pitt him- 
self subsequently and generously ac- 
knowledged in Parliament. On the 
other hand, for England to admit that 
this problematic right extended to the 
privateers, or Guarda Costas, fitted out 
from the Spanish-American ports for 
promiscuous plunder, and existing 
only by depredations, for which no 
redress could cver be obtained, was a 
concession equally compatible with 
national honour, and the principles of 
public justice. Nor would France, at 
any period of Cardinal Fleury’s equi- 
table administration, have armed in 
support of so unwarrantable and exor- 
bitant a pretension. ‘The war was in- 
deed 
——— 
