the declarations of the jacobin societies in this country, declared war against it. It had been stated, with triumph, that we now were forced to adopt that very conduct which we form rly had rejected but was there no difference between the present government of France and those which existed formerly?

He would do the gentleman, on the other side of the house the justice to say, that if they really were of opinion that we could have avoided the war or had rejected any fair occasions of procuring peace, they had been consistent in their conduct for they regularly every session brought forward motions expressive of these sentiments. But was France now what France was then? At one period when the motion of peace was made, the faction of Robespierre prevailed: at another the convention had just declared that they would make peace with Holland but not with England. It was then they avowed that treaties might and sometimes ought to be violated. This was first broached by M. Brissot, and this was the season chosen for the second motion for peace. He desired to know by which of the governing powers of France any disposition for it had been shewn, from Barrere, Robespierre, Tallien, or the directory. During that which was called the moderate period, after the destruction of Robespierre, many persons entertained hopes that they would manifest a desire for it; he never was of that opinion, for the same system of resentment was displayed against this country. When the separate peace was made with Prussia, the report er stated to the convention that they had made it separately, in obedience to their orders. If any further proof was necessary, let us look to their last campaign, when

it was their object to compel the emperor to a separate peace, and with the same view was their last offer to that monarch. These offers were rejected with a magnanimity that did the highest honour to the faith of our ally-of that ally whom we had been called upon to desert!

It was needless to recal to the recollection of the house the proposal of Mr. Wickham, or the negotiation of lord Malmesbury, of which last he should only remark, that the French had never contradicted that statement; and if we were to make any application under the present circumstances, the enemy might suppose we were driven to it from the recent occurrences at the bank.

It had been said that the members of that house had lost the con fidence of their constituents; how did that appear? was it from doing too little or to much? for ministers had been accused of both, He conceived this country to be possessed of abundant wealth, notwithstanding our temporary embarrassments; and we had only to act with spirit, and we should find ourselves strong and rich: on the other hand, if we displayed unreasonable parsimony or pusillanimity, we should find ourselves both weak and poor, and he hoped they would not adopt such shallow policy as would tend to degrade the dignity and the character of the country. It had been asked what had been gained by the war? He answered, it was a defensive war, and therefore this was not a proper question. But we had retained our character, achieved great conquests, and made a discovery of easy means of preserving internal tranquillity. We had nearly destroyed the marine of France, and given a severe blow to that of Spain; we had in a great

degree

degree stopped those dangerous principles which were abroad, and secured our honour, our liberty, and, be trusted, our constitution. Upon these grounds, he should move the order of the day.

Mr. Fox, in a speech of considerable length, reprobated the proceedings of the minister, who, after having had so large a share in producing the present calamities, persisted in desiring the confidence of the house in his measures. He is ever (said Mr. Fox) the same character, though he comes before you in different shapes. When he is called upon by those who are most willing to trust him, to take some step conducive to peace, he comes forward with a promise that he will do it; nay, that he is actually doing it. Promises you have had from him in abundance, but not one of them has been fulfilled. We are now told that a gentleman is going to Vienna, the object of whose mission was to be explained to the house this evening: but had it been explained? No: yet upon this mere declaration, the minister expects you to stop at once in the performance of your public duty. But it seems he is going on the subject of peace, and under this general view (supposing his employers to be sincere) he would go with the unanimous wish of the country-but he had some doubts of the sincerity, and feared it would resemble that which took place when the French arms were victorious, when the situation of the emperor was critical, as admitted by all; desperate, as thought by many. Some persons chose to forget dates of these events, because, when lord Malmesbury went to Paris, the French had met with some defeats. That we were more prosperous then, than we had been

some time before, was true; but when the measure was taken which led to that embassy, we were in a situation most disastrous.

Mr. Fox said, he would not question, because he could not prove, how far the minister was sincere when he adopted that measure; but he was inclined to think that he was sincere in his endeavours to make peace when it was impossible to make a good one. But there was another point to be considered with respect to that embassy; it took place when a loan, was to be obtained, and he continued at Paris till it was concluded. We are now at a period when the French have been victorious, and the emperor's situation desperate, and we are now to negotiate a loan, and are called to confide in the professions of the minister, who tells us, do not put difficulties in my way by your interference, it is a principle that the house of commons should confide in the executive government when they are to negotiate for peace."

As a general principle he did not dissent from this; but the question was not, whether any minister should have the confidence of the house, but whether the present minister under the present circumstances deserved it. Then came the common-place argument, that every minister must be interested in ob taining peace was not lord North in the same situation during the last war? Had not every minister been in it? What then was there peculiar in the character or situation of the present minister which could lead us to suppose he was more sincere in his professions than another? Upon the occasion to which Mr. Fox said he alluded, the present minister had said, he should be ready to negotiate whenever the

enemy

enemy should appear capable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity. What happened then? -He prevailed upon the house to do then, what he asks them to do, now-Confide in his sincerity! The house did not interfere as it ought to have done with its authority, but did what it ought not to have done confided in the idea, that a negotiation would soon take place; none, however, was attempted, and after a considerable period, when it was attempted, failed. The subject came to be discussed in the house; and we were told, that after every means had been used to evade all measures which could tend to serious negotiations, there was not a heart in England so profligate as to wish, nor a hand so dastardly as to sign, nor could there be found a man so degenerate as to be the courier of a commission sent to France, to stipulate for peace." The courier, however (continued Mr. Fox), will, and must, be found; and, he trusted, the hand seen which would sign a peace with France. We had tried our executive government enough to be confident no good could be done to our country by trying such means any longer. He asked, if any man in that house, or in this country, thought our chance of obtaining peace would be as good, by confiding in the promise of ministers, as if the house came to a declaration upon the subject? Could any one believe, that with all "our advantages, and the profit we had gained by the easy means we had discovered of quieting the people of this country," that we should attain our object of peace more easily, by continuing to trust the minister, than by interposing the authority of the house?

Our means of quieting the people of England was, by repealing

some of the best provisions of the bill of rights; and were we to say to Europe, that this war was carried on to quiet them; and that we could not pass these measures but when we had a standing army, which ostensibly was raised against a foreign fce, but which, in reality, was intended to enable our government to quiet the people: he acknowledged he could not congratulate the lat ter on " these easy means of bereaving them of their privileges." It had been said, that it was wise to sacrifice a part of liberty to save the remainder; but the part which we had sacrificed appeared to be the most material of our constitution. We were now to grant millions to the emperor, not to enable him to march to Paris, but to prevent (as we are told) the French from marching to London; this, he professed, he did not believe, but this was urged by those who opposed the motion; nor did he think we were under any obligation to shew our good faith at the commencement of the war, excepting with regard to Holland, and there our assistance was not asked; on the contrary, we were told, that our friendship would be more dangerous than our neutrality. He wished a peace might be obtained conjointly with the emperor; but between two evils, he had no reluctance to declare, that a separate peace between the emperor and France, or between Great Britain and France, would be a less evil to us than the continuance of the war.

After all that could be said of the credit of this country, it could not be dissembled, that we were lower in this respect than at any former period of history. All our conquests in St. Domingo never would bring back the millions we had squandered, and the lives we had devoted. We entered upon this war with the idea,

that

that all the powers of Europe would enter into an alliance with us: the result of that policy was seen; France had gained the alliance of Spain, the powers of Italy and the Netherlands; they had obtained the neutrality, at least, he believed, the friendship of the king of Prussia: these are its allies, to say nothing of Holland. But it seems, the French would be encouraged if this house should interfere with the executive government. Would they really think less of our energy, if we took our affairs into our own hands, instead of trusting the minister?-Would they expect to make better terms, through the medium of representatives, than with the present government? He apprehended quite the reverse: and that, as we should expect more justice from the French people than we did from any faction amongst them, so would they of Great Britain; and he would hope that, neither the republic would be hostile to England, nor the limited monarchy of this country to the just claims of the republic. What better pledge could we give of our sincerity in desiring peace, than by telling them, by a vote of the house of commons, that we were willing to negotiate. Let us not imagine (said Mr Fox) that we can deceive the public by our professions; they are too well informed: they feel too much to be imposed upon. Let as not perpetually talk of our wishes for peace; let us use means for obtaining it (hear! hear! hear! resounded through the house). Let us trust to ministers no longer; let us rote for peace. He then spoke a few words upon the motion, which desired the king to explain the reason why negotiations had not been re. newed; this, he observed, was high.. ly necessary, as those already assigned were much too equivocal.

The minister had said, the French had misrepresented: perhaps they had; but an explanation on his part was not therefore less necessary The minister was always explicit in the house, no doubt, since he convinced the majority of it; but it must be confessed, that out of the house, no man was more unfortunate in his explanations. The French directory had misunderstood him; the contractors for the loan misunderstood him; the lord lieutenant of Ireland, and even the directors of the bank of England who took notes of his conversation for the express purpose of accuracy, had also misunderstood him.

Mr. Fox concluded, with wishing, that for the future, the minister would employ some other person in public affairs, whose knowledge of words was more upon a level with the rest of mankind than his own, that men of ordinary capacity might stand a chance of comprehending his meaning. He recommended it earnestly to the house, to consider the admirable, the astonishing, patience of the people under the calamities which the minister had heaped upon them, and the duty which he owed to them when they boldly spoke out their wishes for peace.

Mr. Pitt declared, he had no inclination to have spoken again upon the present subject; he should only offer a few reasons for voting for the order of the day. The honourable gentleman had himself stated, amidst his digressions, that the question for the consideration of the house was, whether peace was likely to be accelerated, by leaving it to government to act as seemed to them best calculated to produce, that effect, or by the previous declaration of parliament on that subject? Mr. Fox had taken some pains to prove,

that