66

"disaffected. By the accession of these new allies, as I may justly call them, the real but concealed Jacobites "have succeeded even beyond their own expectation.' So crushing was this retort, that the Patriots prudently refrained from dividing. But in a subsequent debate they derived great advantage from the folly of Colonel Mordaunt, who, speaking on the Ministerial side, narrowed the question to a party one, by declaring that he thought "the keeping up an army absolutely necessary "for supporting the Whig interest against the Tory." Lord Polwarth immediately rose, and, in a speech impressive both from its eloquence, and as coming from the heir of one of the first Whig families in Scotland, exclaimed that this argument could mean only that because the people were discontented, therefore they must be oppressed. "For my part," said he, "I think no interest "nor any party of men ought to be supported if a standing army becomes necessary for their support."t The division which ensued gave 164 votes to the Opposition, but 249 to the Minister.

66

In their second object, to embroil their country with Spain, the mock-Patriots were more successful. For many years had the traders to South America complained of grievances; for many years had the desire of Walpole to adjust them amicably been branded as tameness and timidity. Imperious as he seems at home, cried the Opposition, he is no less abject and crouching abroad! Some powerful lines, ascribed to Bishop Atterbury, and therefore written before 1732, sum up Sir Robert's character by calling him "the cur dog of Britain and spaniel "of Spain!" This cry was now revived as the commercial complaints increased. Yet a careful and dispassionate inquiry may convince us, that this case of the merchants was mainly founded on error and exaggeration; that no allowance was made for the counter claims on the side of Spain; and that in many instances their alleged hardship, when stripped of its colouring, amounts only to this-that they were not permitted to smuggle with impunity.

* Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 400.

† Ibid. p. 460. Atterbury's Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 414.

1738.

ILLICIT TRADE TO SOUTH AMERICA.

265

The commercial relations between Spain and England had been regulated by treaties in 1667 and 1670. In neither were the expressions sufficiently clear and well defined; the jealousy of the Spaniards inducing them rather to connive at than to authorise the commerce of strangers, and to withhold a plain acknowledgment even where they could no longer refuse the practical right. The second treaty, however, distinctly recognises the British dominions in America, but provides that our ships shall not approach the coasts of the Spanish colonies, unless driven thither by stress of weather, or provided with a special license for trade. The first treaty as distinctly admits the liberty of seizing contraband goods, and of searching merchant vessels sailing near the ports or in the seas of the respective nations. It was afterwards contended that this right applied only to the mother countries, and not to the colonies of either*; nevertheless, it is certain that this right was constantly exercised by the Spanish Guarda Costas (or Guard Ships), in the West Indies, with greater or less severity, according to the fluctuations of Spanish policy, or the changes of Spanish governors. Sometimes the right of search dwindled into a mere form, sometimes it swelled into a vexatious and oppressive grievance.

The treaty of Seville, in 1729, professed to replace the trade to America on its former footing. But the development of British commerce and the ingenuity of British merchants were always overleaping the narrow bounds prescribed to them, and whenever they received a short indulgence, next claimed it as a constant right. Every artifice was employed to elude the Spanish regulations, and a vehement clamour raised whenever those regulations were enforced. It is admitted that the annual ship which the South Sea Company had been empowered to send, was always attended by other vessels which moored

*The Opposition in 1738 were by no means unanimous on this point. Lord Carteret, in his speech of May 2., maintains, that the stipulations of 1667 are only for Europe, while Pulteney, on the 16th of March, had contended, in the other House, that "this treaty of "1667 is a general treaty, which comprehended America as well as "every other part of the world." However, both speakers took care to come to the same conclusion.

at a distance, and as it disposed of its cargo, supplied it with fresh goods; thus fulfilling the letter whilst violating the spirit of the treaty. It is admitted that other vessels, and even squadrons, frequently put into the Spanish harbours, under pretence of refitting and refreshing, but with the real object of selling English merchandise.* In some cases, again, the vessels did not enter the harbours, but hovered off the coasts; where the long-boats of smugglers repaired to them, and unshipped their cargoes. By such means was English merchandise largely poured into the Spanish Colonies: their revenue consequently suffered; and the annual fair of Panama, intended as the mart of South America, and once the richest in the world, became shorn of its splendour, and deserted by its crowds.

66

66

That the Spaniards should strive to prevent this illegal traffic was just; that they should do so with occasional violence and outrage, was natural and perhaps unavoidable. The Guarda Costas would sometimes exercise the right of search beyond their coasts, or in the open seas; in several cases men were severely treated, in several others ships were unjustly detained. Upon the whole," writes Mr. Keene from Madrid, "the state of our dispute seems to be, that the commanders of our vessels always "think that they are unjustly taken if they are not taken "in actual illicit commerce, even though proof of their "having loaded in that manner be found on board of "them; and the Spaniards, on the other hand, presume "that they have a right of seizing, not only the ships "that are continually trading in their ports, but likewise "of examining and visiting them on the high seas, in "order to search for proofs of fraud which they may "have committed; and, till a medium be found out be"tween these two notions, the Government will always "be embarrassed with complaints, and we shall be con"tinually negotiating in this country for redress without ever being able to procure it."†

* Coxe's Bourbon Kings of Spain, vol. iii. p. 300. On this whole subject Macpherson's History of Commerce is very meagre and unsatisfactory. Compare vol. ii. p. 542. vol. iii. p. 215.

† To the Duke of Newcastle, December 13. 1737.

There is no doubt that though the English were most frequently to blame in these transactions, several cases of injustice and violence might be imputed to the Spaniards. These cases were carefully culled out, and highly coloured by the British merchants: these were held out to the British public as fair samples of the rest, while a veil was thrown over the general practice of illicit traffic in America. The usual slowness of forms at Madrid and the difficulty of obtaining redress, even in the clearest cases, added to the national indignation in England: it was also inflamed by a denial of the right to cut logwood in the bay of Campeachy, and disputes on the limits of the new settlement which the English had lately formed in North America, and which, in honour to the King, had received the name of Georgia.

These grievances of the British merchants, embodied in angry yet artful petitions, were urged by the Opposition in repeated attacks and with combined exertions. First came a motion for papers, next the examination of witnesses, next a string of Resolutions, then a Bill for securing and encouraging our trade to America. The tried ability of Pulteney led the van on these occasions, and under him were marshalled the practical knowledge of Barnard, the stately eloquence of Wyndham, and the rising genius of Pitt. William Murray, the future Earl of Mansfield, also appeared at the bar as counsel for the petitioners, and thus commenced his brilliant public career. Every resource of oratory was applied to exaggerate the insults and cruelties of the Spaniards, and to brand as cowardice the Minister's wise and honourable love of peace. It was asserted that the prisoners taken from English merchant-vessels had been not merely plundered of their property, but tortured in their persons, immured in dungeons, or compelled to work in the Spanish dock-yards, with scanty and loathsome food, their legs cramped with irons, and their bodies overrun with vermin. Some captives and seamen who were brought to the bar gave testimony to these outrages, and were then implicitly believed. Yet our calmer judgment may remember that they were not examined upon oath, and had every temptation to exaggerate, which interest, party zeal, or resentment can afford; that to inveigh against

the Spaniards was then considered a sure test of public spirit; and that they were told to expect, upon the fall of Walpole, a large and lucrative indemnity for their pretended wrongs.

But the tale that produced the most effect upon the House, and found the loudest echo in the country, was what Burke has since ventured to call "the fable of "Jenkins' ears."* This Jenkins had been master of a trading sloop from Jamaica, which was boarded and searched by a Spanish Guarda Costa, and though no proofs of smuggling, were discovered, yet, according to his own statement, he underwent the most barbarous usage. The Spanish Captain, he said, had torn off one of his ears, bidding him carry it to his King, and tell His Majesty that were he present he should be treated in the same manner. This story, which had lain dormant for seven years, was now seasonably revived at the bar of the House of Commons. It is certain that Jenkins had lost an ear, or part of an ear, which he always carried about with him wrapped in cotton, to display to his audience; but I find it alleged by no mean authority, that he had lost it on another occasion, and perhaps, as seems to be insinuated, in the pillory. His tale, however, as always happens in moments of great excitement, was readily admitted without proof; and a spirited answer which he gave enhanced the popular effect. Being asked by a Member what were his feelings when he found himself in the hands of such barbarians,

66

"I

recommended," said he, "my soul to God, and my cause to my country." These words rapidly flew from mouth to mouth, adding fuel to the general flame, and it is almost incredible how strong an impulse was im

* Thoughts on a Regicide Peace, p. 75.

46

Tindal's Hist. vol. viii. p. 372. Coxe expresses a doubt whether Jenkins was really examined at the bar of the House, because, as he states, no traces of his evidence are to be found in the Journals." (Memoirs of Walpole, vol. i. p. 579.) Yet early in the Journals of March 16. 1738, appears the following entry: "Ordered, that Cap"tain Robert Jenkins do attend this House immediately." Later in the same day we find that the House went into Committee on the Spanish grievances, with Alderman Perry in the chair, and that he reported to the House, "that they had heard counsel and examined "several witnesses." Amongst these in all probability was Jenkins.