him rather _the work of
some American_." In 1777, we find Sandwich again blustering: "he would
hazard every drop of blood, as well as the last shilling of the national
treasure, rather than allow Great Britain to be defied, bullied, and
dictated to, by her disobedient and rebellious subjects." 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.

[10] Sir James Harris affects to believe that Catherine II. was not the
author of, but a convert to, the armed neutrality of 1780. It is one of
the grand stratagems of the Court of St. Petersburg to give to its own
schemes the form of proposals suggested to and pressed on itself by
foreign Courts. Russian diplomacy delights in those _quae pro