who spoke with great emotion and even with tears in his eyes, said, “It is somewhat strange, that generals, who have acted to the best of their understandings, and have lost their limbs in the service, should be examined, like offenders, about insignificant things.”
On Tuesday, January 9th, the two lords being present, Lord Galway’s statement was read, and so were Lord Peterborough’s five answers. The chairman asked Lord Galway if he had anything to add to his own paper — to which he replied, “My memory suggests nothing more to me at this time, but if the House is pleased to allow me a copy of the Earl of Peterborough’s paper, I may make some remarks upon it.” His request was granted.
The chairman then said to Lord Tyrawley, “Are you willing to communicate to the Lords what you know concerning the council held in Valencia, the 15th of January?” — Lord Tyrawley replied, “The reason why I was shy of speaking last Friday was that I thought myself accused; and as my doubt still continues, and nobody is obliged to accuse himself, I desire to know, Am I accused or not? — And if I am, I desire a copy of the accusation that I may put in my answer.” This led to a discussion, in the midst of which the two heroes were called on to withdraw. And on being recalled, Lord Tyrawley, the question having been simply repeated, said, “Being apprehensive that I might be accused, I thought I ought to be on my guard, but as I hope this illustrious assembly will not take advantage of anything I may say, I will frankly acquaint them with all I know about that council of war. It is a hard matter to charge one’s memory with things so far distant (1707), but I remember in general that several schemes were proposed for the ensuing campaign. An offensive war was resolved upon by a majority of voices. Besides the Lord Galway, Mr. Stanhope and myself, all the Portuguese, namely, the Marquis das Minas, the Count d’Oropeza, the Condé de Corsana, and the Portuguese Ambassador, were of that opinion. The operations of the campaign were left to the determination of subsequent councils. As to the battle of Almanza, it was unanimously resolved upon, not one general opposing it, and Monsieur Freishman, who commanded the Dutch, and was very jealous of anything that regarded the service of his masters, did not speak one word against it.” The Earl of Nottingham rose to order, and said, “Lord Tyrawley was not questioned about the battle of Almanza.” The witness was therefore removed and the objection considered. Lord Peterborough agreed with Lord Nottingham. Lord Halifax differed. And the Duke of Marlborough said, “He has answered fully the question put to him.” The Earl of Godolphin moved that Lord Tyrawley might proceed. And he was again called in, but answered, “I have no more to say.” Lord Cowper asked him, “Was a march to Madrid agreed upon in that council of war?” He replied, “It was resolved to march to Madrid, but the further operations of the campaign were reserved to the determination of subsequent councils after we had beaten the enemy.” Lord Peterborough inquired, “By whom were these resolutions taken?” Lord Tyrawley answered, “By the majority of several councils of war, which were held twice a week. And as far as I can remember, the king did not declare his opinion.” The two Irish Peers withdrew.
The Earl of Ferrers moved “That the Earl of Peterborough has given a very faithful, just, and honourable account of the Councils of War in Valencia.” The Bishop of Sarum (Burnet) proposed an amendment; he thought it premature to use the word “just,” as the Earl of Galway’s promised remarks ought first to be heard. The Bishop added, “I readily agree to the word ‘honourable.’” The common sense of this criticism is obvious. Let it be admitted that Lord Peterborough’s intentions were honourable, yet all his reminiscences may not have been accurate. However, the Duke of Argyle (though he had long had a seat in the House as Earl of Greenwich) seems to have wished the English lords to feel that one advantage of the Union with Scotland was the importation of metaphysics. The Scottish Duke said, by way of reply, “All that is honourable must be just, and all that is just is honourable.” The House then divided, when there appeared Contents 59, Not Content 45. [That Lord Galway could conclusively answer Lord Peterborough was shown in the paper which he handed in, promptly, but not soon enough for the feverish haste of his adversaries.] The Earl of Poulett gave notice of a motion to censure the generals at the bar.
The House of Lords returned to the charge on Thursday the 11th. An officer of the House, being sent to the door, reported that the Earl of Galway was not in attendance. The Earl of Poulett then made a long speech, in which he characterized the generals in Spain as mere political favourites, who had felt so secure that they
