This chapter analyses debates in the press and in Parliament over two conflicts with Spain in which Britain was involved from the 1710s to 1720s: the War of the Quadruple Alliance of 1718–20 and the Anglo-Spanish conflict of 1726–29. In particular, it reveals what role a pro-maritime war argument played in these debates, who supported the argument, and how their positions shifted as the conflict went on.

In the late 1730s, the pro-maritime war argument was basically used by the opposition to criticise the government. It is true that, as Philip Woodfine states, there were some sympathisers of the colonial maritime war within the Walpole ministry as well, but, at least in political debates in the press, it was one of the main weapons of the opposition. However, as was shown in Chapter 3, the pro-maritime argument during the War of the Spanish Succession was employed by several different political groups for different purposes: to dispose the nation towards the war or to criticise the former government's war policy. In that period, the pro-maritime war argument was not necessarily a tool of the opposition to criticise the government. How and when did this change happen?

Kathleen Wilson has pointed out that the opposition after 1725, composed of the Tories and dissident Whigs, deliberately incorporated commercial and expansionist grievances into their propaganda. The exploitation of the pro-maritime argument by the opposition can be regarded as a part of this process.