16 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 180J. 



ccr) of a similar proceeding adopted 

 by the administration of which he 

 was a member, in the detention of 

 the Dutch ships, before any hostili- 

 ties wci-e declared between the two 

 countries, and the sinking of some 

 of them in the attempt to make them 

 keep up with the convoy by which 

 they had been detained. He la- 

 mented that the noble earl should 

 have stia;niatized this war in the man- 

 ner he had done, because such re- 

 presentations tended to clog the 

 elforts of the people of this country, 

 who had moral feelings which must 

 be consulted and satislicd, before 

 the government could expect to 

 derive the full effect of their zeal and 

 patriotibm. These, he said, were 

 the grounds upon which he must 

 oppose the amendment. 



Lord King spoke in favour of the 

 amendment, and considered this rup- 

 ture as intended by the present mi- 

 nisters to contrast the vigour and 

 energy of their conduct with the in- 

 •apacity and imbecility with which 

 they reproached the late administra- 

 tion. Finding they could make no 

 impression upon France, they 

 ■wreaked their vengeance on the 

 more feeble Spaniards, without 

 making any provision for the secu- 

 rity of Portugal, wliich he appre- 

 hended we were not now able to 

 protect. 



The earl of Westmoreland thought 

 his majesty's ministers could not 

 possibly have avoided this war \\\{\i 

 Spain ; and as to their having made 

 it without a previous declaration, it 

 was neither contrary to the law of 

 nations, nor unprcjcdented in mo- 

 dern and ancient history- 



Lord Darnley thought that the 

 pmi^sion of the formality of a decla- 

 ration, could only be justified upon 

 groiir.ds that were clear not only to 

 I 



ourselws, but to all Europe ; at 

 present, however, he feared that wc 

 had the opinion of all Europe against 

 us. The house then divided on the 

 amendment — Contents 36' — non- 

 contents 1 14 — majority 78. 



The debate being then resumed 

 on the original motion, earl Fitz- 

 william proposed an adjournment, 

 which was opposed by lord Jlawkes- 

 bury, who deemed it unnecessary, 

 ^s the question had been pretty fully 

 discussed already. , 



Lord GreavilJe then rose, and, in 

 a speech of great length, entered 

 in to a general examination of the vast 

 mass of papers on the table, all oC 

 which he thought threw but little light 

 upon a transaction wJiich reflected 

 no credit on the administration, and 

 brought great discredit on the coun- 

 try itself. There appeared in these 

 communications nothing but Jiegli, 

 gence, inattention, and mystery. 

 For the course of 18 months that 

 these ncgociations lasted, there ap- 

 peared but lour dispatches from mi- 

 nisters toMr. Frere at Madrid; and 

 even these were distinguished only 

 by their containing nothing to the 

 purpose, or by being unintelligible 

 or contradictory. A challenge had 

 been thrown out that nothing could 

 be brought against ministers for their 

 conduct in this transaction : he ac- 

 cepted that challenge, and was ready 

 to prove, fisom their own papers, that 

 they were most criminally remiss, 

 silent, and inattentive to all the. 

 eager soIicKations of the Spanish go- 

 vernment to explain their system; 

 that they had even kept their own 

 agent at the court of Madrid igno- 

 rant of their views ; that they had 

 neglected every opening that had 

 been made to them for preventing a 

 rupture ; that they had, in the first 

 instance, treated the court of Ma- 



drt4 



