and I am persuaded that the alarming state of facts, as well as the strength of reasoning, with which the noble duke has urged, and enforced that necessity, must have been powerfully felt by your lordships. What I mean to say upon this occasion, may seem perhaps to extend beyond the limits of the motion before us. But I flatter myself, my lords, that if I am honoured with your attention, it will appear that the meaning and object of this question are naturally connected with considerations of the most extensive national importance. For entering into such considerations no season is improper; no occasion should be neglected. Something must be done, my lords, and immediately, to save an injured, insulted, undone country. If not to save the state, my lords, at least to mark out, and drag to publick justice those servants of the crown, by whose ignorance, neglect, or treachery, this once great flourishing people are reduced to a condition as deplorable at home, as it is despicable abroad. Examples are wanted, my lords, and should be given to the world, for the instruction of future times, even though they be useless to ourselves. I do not mean, my lords, nor is it intended by the motion, to impede, or embarrass a negotiation, which we have been told is now in a prosperous train, and promises a happy conclusion.*

I did

I perfectly agree with the noble lord. not mean to refer to any thing said by his lordship. He expressed himself, as he always does, with moderation and reserve, and with the greatest propriety. It was another noble lord, very high in office, who told us he understood that the negotiation was in a favourable train.†

* Lord Weymouth. I beg pardon for interrupting the noble lord; but I think it necessary to remark to your lordships, that I have not said a single word tending to convey to your lordships any information, or opinion, with regard to the state, or progress of the negotiation. I did, with the utmost caution, avoid giving to your lordships the least intimation upon that matter.

† Earl of Hillsborough. I did not make use of the word train. I know the meaning of the word too well. In the

This is the second time that I have been interrupted. I submit it to your lordships whether this be fair and candid treatment. I am sure it is contrary to the orders of the house, and a gross violation of decency and politeness. I listen to every noble lord in this house with attention and respect. The noble lord's design in interrupting me, is as mean and unworthy, as the manner in which he has done it is irregular and disorderly. He flatters himself that by breaking the thread of my discourse, he shall confuse me in my argument. But, my lords, I will not submit to this treatment. I will not be interrupted. When I have concluded, let him answer me if he can. As to the word which he has denied, I still affirm that it was the word he made use of; but if he had used any other, I am sure every noble lord will agree with me, that his meaning was exactly what I have expressed it. Whether he said course or train is indifferent. He told your lordships that the negotiation was in a way that promised a happy and honourable conclusion. His distinctions are mean, frivolous, and puerile. My lords, I do not understand the exalted tone assumed by that noble lord. In the distress and weakness of this country, my lords, and conscious as the ministry ought to be how much they have contributed to that distress and weakness, I think a tone of modesty, of submission, of humility, would become them better; quædam causæ modestiam desiderant. Before this country they stand as the greatest criminals. Such I shall prove them to be; for I do not doubt of proving, to your lordships' satisfaction, that since they have been intrusted with the conduct of the king's affairs they have done every thing that they ought not to have done, and hardly any thing that they ought to have done. The noble lord talks of Spanish punctilios in the lofty style and idiom of a Spaniard. We are to be wonderfully tender of the

language from which it was derived, it signifies protraction and delay, which I could never mean to apply to the present negotiation.

Spanish point of honour, as if they had been the complainants, as if they had received the injury. I think he would have done better to have told us what care had been taken of the English honour My lords, I am well acquainted with the character of that nation, at least as far as it is represented by their court and ministry, and should think this country dishonoured by a comparison of the English good faith with the punctilios of a Spaniard. My lords, the English are a candid, an ingenuous people. The Spaniards are as mean and crafty, as they are proud and insolent. The integrity of the English merchant, the generous spirit of our naval and military officers, would be degraded by a comparison with their merchants or officers. With their ministers I have often been obliged to negotiate, and never met with an instance of candour or dignity in their proceedings; nothing but low cunning, trick, and artifice. After a long experience of their want of candour and good faith, I found myself compelled to talk to them in a peremptory, decisive language. On this principle I submitted my advice to a trembling council for an immediate declaration of a war with Spain. Your lordships well know what were the consequences of not following that advice. Since, however, for reasons unknown to me, it has been thought advisable to negotiate with the court of Spain, I should have conceived that the great and single object of such a negotiation would have been, to have obtained complete satisfaction for the injury done to the crown and people of England. But, if I understand the noble lord, the only object of the present negotiation is to find a salvo for the punctilious honour of the Spaniards. The absurdity of such an idea is of itself insupportable. But, my lords, I object to our negotiating at all, in our present circumstances. We are not in that

situation in which a great and powerful nation is permitted to negotiate. A foreign power has forcibly robbed his majesty of a part of his dominions. Is the island restored? Are you replaced in statu quo ? If that had been done, it might then, perhaps, have

been justifiable to treat with the aggressor upon the satisfaction he ought to make for the insult offered to the crown of England. But will you descend so low? Will you so shamefully betray the king's ho nour as to make it matter of negotiation whether his majesty's possessions shall be restored to him or not? I doubt not, my lords, that there are some important mysteries in the conduct of this affair, which, whenever they are explained, will account for the profound silence now observed by the king's servants. The time will come, my lords, when they shall be dragged from their concealments. There are some questions, which, sooner or later, must be answered. The ministry, I find, without declaring themselves explicitly, have taken pains to possess the publick with an opinion, that the Spanish court have constantly disavowed the proceedings of their governour; and some persons, I see, have been shameless and daring enough to advise his majesty to support and countenance this opinion in his speech from the throne. Certainly, my lords, there never was a more odious, a more infamous falsehood imposed on a great nation. It degrades the king's honour. It is an insult to parliament. His majesty has been advised to confirm and give currency to an absolute falsehood. I beg your lordship's attention, and I hope I shall be understood, when I repeat, that the court of Spain's having disavowed the act of their governour is an absolute, a palpable falsehood. Let me ask, my lords, when the first communication was made by the court of Madrid, of their being apprized of their taking of Falkland's Island, was it accompanied with an offer of instant restitution, of immediate satisfaction, and the punishment of the Spanish governour? If it was not, they have adopted the act as their own, and the very mention of a disavowal is an impudent insult offered to the king's dignity. The king of Spain disowns the thief, while he leaves him unpunished, and profits by the theft. In vulgar English, he is the receiver of stolen goods, and ought to be treated accordingly.

If your lordships will look back to a period of the English history, in which the circumstances are reversed, in which the Spaniards were the complainants, you will see how differently they succeeded. You will see one of the ablest men, one of the bravest officers this or any other country ever produced (it is hardly necessary to mention the name of sir Walter Raleigh) sacrificed by the meanest prince that ever sat upon the throne, to the vindictive jealousy of that haughty court. James the First was base enough, at the instance of Gondomar, to suffer a sentence against sir Walter Raleigh, for another supposed offence, to be carried into execution almost twelve years after it had been passed. This was the pretence. His real crime was, that he had mortally offended the Spaniards, while he acted by the king's express orders, and under his commission.

My lords, the pretended disavowal by the court of Spain is as ridiculous as it is false. If your lordships want any other proof, call for your own officers, who were stationed at Falkland Island. Ask the officer who commanded the garrison, whether, when he was summoned to surrender, the demand was made in the name of the governour of Buenos Ayres, or of his catholick majesty? Was the island said to belong to Don Francisco Bucarelli, or to the king of Spain? If I am not mistaken, we have been in possession of these islands since the year 1764, or 1765. Will the ministry assert, that, in all that time, the Spanish court have never once claimed them? That their right to them has never been urged, or mentioned to our ministry? If it has, the act of the governour of Buenos Ayres is plainly the consequence of our refusal to acknowledge and submit to the Spanish claims. For five years they negotiate; when that fails, they take the island by force. If that measure had arisen out of the general instructions, constantly given to the governour of Buenos Ayres, why should the execution of it have been deferred so long?