730 
ENGL 
war, the general allowed they would admit of an eafy ac¬ 
commodation. But the court of Spain thought the other 
two articles of much more importance ; and that the re- 
fufal of the Englifh court to enter into any negociation 
refpefting the claim of Spain to fifh on the banks of New¬ 
foundland was violent and harfh, efpecially as coupled 
with the abfolute determination of England not to relin- 
quifli her acknowledged ufurpations on the coaft of Hon¬ 
duras, except his Catholic majefty would previoufly 
allure to them the right to which they pretended of cut¬ 
ting logwood within that territory. In other words, he 
affirmed this was faying, “ I will give up the dwelling 
of which I have taken forcible polTefiion, but firft you 
ftiall engage to give me what I want to take.” 
When the forbearance of Spain refpefting the logwood 
was compared with the exclufive claim of England to 
the Newfoundland fifhery, which was of fo much im¬ 
portance to Spain, as an article not of luxury but fub- 
liftence, the Spanifh minifter faid, he thought the Englifh 
themfelves would hefitate to boafl of the fuperior juftice 
and equity of their condudt. In his fubfequent difpatches 
of September and October, the earl of Briftol informed 
the court of London, “ that umbrage had been taken by 
the court of Madrid at the additional fortifications re¬ 
ported to be going forward at Gibraltar, and that general 
Wall had afked, if it were poffible that England could 
be ferioufly apprehenfive of a rupture with Spain; affirm¬ 
ing, that at no time had the Catholic king been more in¬ 
tent upon cultivatinga good underftanding with his Britan¬ 
nic majefty than at the prefent; that the flota had arrived 
at Cadiz, but that the treafure belonging to the crown 
was much lefs than had been expedted; that great abufes 
and malverfations had been charged againft the Spanifh 
viceroys and governors in the Weft Indies; and that his 
Catholic majefty’s minifters had ftrongly fuggefted to him 
the impracticability of reforming effectually the old de¬ 
fective fyftem of government, fftould the court of Madrid 
embroil itfelf in the prefent troubles of Europe ; that 
the Spanifh minifter, don Ricardo, urged the evacuation 
of the more recent fettlements on the Honduras coaft, 
which he faid would ferve as a falvo for the honour of 
Spain, and greatly facilitate the final adjuftment of her 
differences with England. General Wall, faid the am- 
baffador, has ever aCted in too ingenuous a manner for 
me to fufpeCt the leaft duplicity in his conduCt: the am- 
baffador added, that on the notification of the king’s mar¬ 
riage to the court of Madrid, he was particularly enjoined 
to afture the king of England of the (hare his Catholic 
majefty would ever take in all events that contributed to 
his happinefs ; that the Spanifh minifter expreffed a tho¬ 
rough concern at the breaking off the conferences between 
the courts of Verfailles and London ; and faid it was the 
opinion in Spain, that the French minifters had gone as 
great lengths in conceftions as could be expeCted, confi- 
dering the engagements of France with her allies.” Pre¬ 
vious, however, to the arrival of the laft difpatches, Mr. 
Pitt was no longer minifter. Llaving received certain in¬ 
telligence that a treaty of alliance was recently concluded 
between the two courts of France and Spain, and being 
firmly perfuaded that the articles of this treaty were in 
the higheft degree inimical to Great Britain, and that 
Spain waited only the favourable moment to atb openly 
againft her, he ftrongly urged in council the policy and 
necefiity of an immediate declaration of war againft that 
power; and recommended that a ftrong fquadron (hould 
be immediately fent to the Mediterranean, to intercept 
the flota actually on its paffage from Carthagena to Cadiz. 
In this opinion he was fupported only by his brother-in- 
law earl Temple, lord privy leal ; and finding his influ¬ 
ence in the cabinet at an end, he refigned the feals, Octo¬ 
ber 9, 1761, in order, to ufe his own words, “ not to 
remain refponfible for meafures which he was no longer 
allowed to guide.” 
Mr. Pitt was fucceeded in the office of fecretary of ftate 
by the earl of Egremont j and the king, in order doubt- 
AND. 
lefs to mollify the refentment of the retiring minifter, 
granted him a penfion of three thoufand pounds perannum, 
a reward which his praife-worthy negledl to accumulate 
riches rendered it neceffary, though with fome rifk to his 
popularity, to accept ; and his lady was created baronefs 
of Chatham, with remainder to her heirs male, Mr. Pitt 
in his own perfon declining the honours of the peerage. 
In this meafure, the determination' of the cabinet could 
not but be approved by the reflecting and intelligent part 
of the nation, who faw no clear proofs of any intention in 
the court of Madrid hoftile to Great Britain; and who 
were of opinion, that to precipitate the nation, already 
loaded with a debt of one hundred and thirty millions, 
into a new and dangerous war, becaufe a treaty had been 
concluded by Spain with France, which might, when the 
articles were divulged, poffibly be found contrary to good 
faith and amity, was a mode of proceeding not to be jus¬ 
tified by an appeal to the voice of reafon, or the law of 
nations. It could not but be remarked, that the refig- 
nation of Mr. Pitt under thefe circumftances, favoured 
more of pride and paffion than of wifdom or patriotifm ; 
and that an oppofition of fentiment in the cabinet on 
fuch a point, did not juftify him in withholding his fer- 
vices at a crifis which peculiarly demanded the exertion 
of his great and acknowledged talents. Neverthelefs, an 
unanimous vote of thanks palled the court of common- 
council of London to the right honourable William Pitt, 
in the moft flattering terms of refpeCt and applaufe, for 
•his great and eminent fervices. 
Had the new minifters determined to avoid_ that rup¬ 
ture with Spain, for which no political neceflity feemed 
to exift, they would have been entitled to indifputable 
praife. But hefitating between their own conviction of 
the inexpediency, and their anxious defire to fupport 
their character with the nation for refolution and vigour, 
they adopted that equivocal line of condudt which aimed 
at no determined objedt, and which was really calculated 
to accelerate the cataftrophe they earneftly wifhed to 
avert. On the 28th of October, the earl of Egremont 
wrote to the ambaffador lord Biiftol, that it was highly 
expedient the court of Spain fhould in the prefent mo¬ 
ment be apprifed of the fentiments of that of Great Bri¬ 
tain, and that the king of England had nothing more at 
heart than to cultivate the moft cordial friendfhip of his 
Catholic majefty; but that his Britannic majefty cannot 
imagine that the king of Spain fhould think it unreafon- 
able to delire a communication of the treaty acknowledged 
to have been lately concluded between the courts of Ma¬ 
drid and Verfailles, or of fuch articles thereof as can by 
particular and explicit engagements immediately relate 
to the interefts of Great Britain, before he enters into 
further negociation on the points depending between the 
two crowns; and the ambaffador is inftrudted to ufe the 
moft pi effing inftances to M. Wall to obtain fuch commu¬ 
nication as is above mentioned. The amballkdor is fur¬ 
ther allured, that the refignation of Mr. Pitt will only ani¬ 
mate the prefent mjniftry to a more vigorous exertion of 
their powers ; and that the moft perfeft harmony, unani¬ 
mity, and confidence, now reign in his majefty’s councils. 
This difpatch being written with a view to a confidential 
communication of its contents to the Spanifh minifter, 
the ambaffador is informed in a feparate and “ moft fecret” 
letter, that if the court of Spain fhould propofe to give 
his majefty folemu afturances of the innocence of the 
treaty in queftion in relation to the interefts of England, 
he is not totally to rejeft the alternative, but to take it 
in referendum-, provided always, that the faid afturances 
be given upon his Catholic majefty’s royal word, figni- 
fied in writing either by the Spanifh fecretary of ftate, 
M. Wall, or by the count de Puentes, the Spanifh mi¬ 
nifter in London, to his Britannic majefty’s fecretary of 
ftate, and. not otherwife. The earl of Briftol, in a letter 
written to the earl of Egremont, dated November the 2d, 
remarks the fudden alteration of behaviour in the Spanifh 
minifter^ and the haughty language now held by the court 
