recollect the expression of the Duke of Marlborough: "I find many very ready to say what I ought to have done when a battle is over; but I wish some of these persons would come and tell me what I ought to do before the battle." Notwithstanding these expressions, he was accused of having spoken on both sides of the question. "I am accused," he thereupon retorted, "of speaking on both sides, because I have not from friendship towards the Ministers, forborne to state my objections to many parts of the measure under discussion; and because I have not, in complaisance to the Opposition, withheld my tribute of applause to the principle. The fact is, that throughout life I have stood aloof from parties. It constitutes my pride and my principle, to belong to no faction, but to approve every measure on its own ground, free from all connection. Such is my political creed."
The debates on the French Treaty did not end without his becoming involved in a violent controversy with one of his former colleagues. He had observed that some representation ought to have been made during the negotiation of the treaty, on the fortifications in the course of erection at Cherbourg. The Duke of Richmond, Master-General of the Ordnance, then declared that England had nothing more to do with Cherbourg than France had to do with Portsmouth or Plymouth. Lord Lansdowne replied that he did not think it at all probable that the French would object to our fortifying our coast, since in the event of an invasion they would take possession of the fortresses as advantageous posts. Roused by this sarcasm, the Duke of Richmond accused him of having approved those very fortifications in 1782, and appealed to Mr. Pitt in support of his statement, while Lord Lansdowne produced a letter from the Duke of Richmond himself as evidence on the other side. The altercation was renewed several nights in succession, and became so acrimonious, that it put an end to the friendship of the two illustrious disputants,
