Secret Diplomatic History of The Eighteenth Century · Karl Marx
FOOTNOTES:
Foremost as the Earl of Sandwich was in entangling England in war with her North American colonies, with France, Spain, and Holland, we behold him constantly accused in Parliament by Fox, Burke, Pitt, etc., "of keeping the naval force inadequate to the defence of the country; of intentionally opposing small English forces where he knew the enemy to have concentrated large ones; of utter mismanagement of the service in all its departments," etc. (See debates of the House of Commons of 11th March, 1778; 31st March, 1778; February, 1779; Fox's motion of censure on Lord Sandwich; 9th April, 1779, address to the King for the dismissal of Lord Sandwich from his service, on account of misconduct in service; 7th February, 1782, Fox's motion that there had been gross mismanagement in the administration of naval affairs during the year 1781.) On this occasion Pitt imputed to Lord Sandwich "all our naval disasters and disgraces." The ministerial majority against the motion amounted to only 22 in a House of 388. On the 22nd February, 1782, a similar motion against Lord Sandwich was only negatived by a majority of 19 in a House of 453. Such, indeed, was the character of the Earl of Sandwich's Administration that more than thirty distinguished officers quitted the naval service, or declared they could not act under the existing system. In point of fact, during his whole tenure of office, serious apprehensions were entertained of the consequences of the dissensions then prevalent in the navy. Besides, the Earl of Sandwich was openly accused, and, as far as circumstantial evidence goes, convicted of PECULATION. (See debates of the House of Lords, 31st March, 1778; 9th April, 1779, and _seq._) When the motion for his removal from office was negatived on April 9th 1779, thirty-nine peers entered their protest.
"_Lord North_," says the complacent writer from whom we have borrowed the last lines, "_thus effectually served the cause of his ally_ (Catherine II.), _and facilitated the treaty of peace_ (of Kutchuk-Kainardji) _between Russia and the Porte_." Catherine II. rewarded Lord North's good services, first by withholding the aid she had promised him in case of a war between England and the North American Colonies, and in the second place, by conjuring up and leading the armed neutrality against England. Lord North DARED NOT _repay, as he was advised by Sir James Harris_, this treacherous breach of faith by giving up to Russia, and to _Russia alone_, the maritime rights of Great Britain. Hence the irritation in the nervous system of the Czarina; the hysterical fancy she caught all at once of "entertaining a bad opinion" of Lord North, of "disliking" him, of feeling a "rooted aversion" against him, of being afflicted with "a total want of confidence," etc. In order to give the Shelburne Administration a warning example, Sir James Harris draws up a minute psychological picture of the feelings of the Czarina, and the disgrace incurred by the North Administration, for having wounded these same feelings. His prescription is very simple: surrender to Russia, as our friend, everything for asking which we would consider every other Power our enemy.
The despatch, said to be sent on the 5th of April, in which "the Admiral is ordered to use the _largest discretionary power_ in blockading the Russian ports in the Black Sea," is not read, nor any replies from Admiral Dundas. The Admiralty sent _Hanoverian_ troops to Gibraltar and Port Mahon (Minorca), to replace such British regiments as should be drawn from those garrisons for service in America. An amendment to the address was proposed by Lord John Cavendish, strongly condemning "the confiding _such important fortresses as Gibraltar and Port Mahon to foreigners_." After very stormy debates, in which the measure of entrusting Gibraltar and Minorca, "_the keys of the Mediterranean_," as they were called, to _foreigners_, was furiously attacked; Lord North, acknowledging himself the adviser of the measure, felt obliged to bring in a _bill of indemnity_. However, these foreigners, these Hanoverians, were the English King's own subjects. Having virtually surrendered Minorca to Russia in 1780, Lord North was, of course, quite justified in treating, on November 22, 1781, in the House of Commons, "with utter scorn the insinuation that _Ministers were in the pay of France_." Let us remark, _en passant_, that Lord North, one of the most base and mischievous Ministers England can boast of, perfectly mastered the art of keeping the House in perpetual laughter. So had Lord Sunderland. So has Lord Palmerston.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.