ing baffled in all our efforts by the pride and obstinacy of the French government, our propositions slighted, and our ambassador insulted, were we now to consent to sacrifice our engagements, and to violate our treaties, because, forsooth, it would be some inconvenience to call their assemblies, in order to cancel a law incompatible with the principle of fair negotiation? Shall we (said Mr. Pitt) so far forget our honour, our dignity, and our duty, as to acquiesce in such conditions? But this is not all the degradation to which they would have us submit: we must engage, and as a preliminary too, to make no professions contrary to their constitution, and the treaties which bind the republic. This restriction is more unreasonable than the other: the republic may have made secret treaties, which we know nothing about; and yet that government expects that we are not to permit our propositions to interfere with these treaties. How can we know what the Dutch may have ceded to France, or whether France may not have an oath, never to give up the territories ceded to her by Holland; what secret article may be contained in her treaty with Spain, guaranteeing the restitution of Gibraltar, or some important possession belonging to his majesty? And after accepting terms of which we are entirely ignorant, in what situation do we stand? We at last arrive at a discussion of the government which France may choose to give to Italy, and of the fate which she may be pleased to assign to Germany; in fact, the point is not how much you will give for peace, but how much you will suffer of disgrace? In these circumstances, then, are we to persevere in the war with an energy worthy of the British name, or, by sending couriers to Paris, to prostrate ourselves at the feet of a stubborn and supercilious govern ment, to do what they require, and to submit to what they impose? He hoped "there was not a hand in his majesty's councils who would sign the proposals, a heart in that house which would sanction the measure, or an individual in the British dominions who would act as the courier." Mr. Pitt concluded with moving an address to his majesty, which was, as usual, an echo of the message. The hon. Thomas Erskine said, that when the right honourable gentleman rose to move the address, he had hoped it would have been very different from what he found it was; and instead of binding the house to prosecute the war, it would have borne a resemblance to the right hon. gentleman's speech, in an early stage of it, wherein he affirms, "that he did not wish to pledge the house to any period to which the war ought to be protracted, or to any terms which ought to be insisted on by the allies." It now appeared, by this address, that he would precisely draw the house into that very situation, to which he had said he would not wish to pledge them. There were two propositions in the speech which he particularly wished to controvert: the first was, that " France was the aggressor in this bloody and expensive war." The right honourable gentleman had gone farther, and declared also, that the obstacles which had been thrown in the way of the late negotiations were entirely to be attributed to the arrogant demands of the present government of France. How did the matter stand at the commencement of the war? Ministers then advised his majesty, that it was incompatible with the interests of this country, that Belgium should be permitted to be united with France. This was immediately communicated to the French, and they unequivocally disavowed every thing which ainisters pretended to fix upon them. In all disputes between individuals, between neighbours, (said Mr. Erskine) it has always been found necessary by those who were to adjust their differences, to inquire into the particular circumstances which were the original causes of those differences. Where negociations were to be entered into between two contending powers, it must be more necessary to look back to ascertain precisely what had been the situation of the parties at the commencement of their quarrel, what was the aggression, what was the extent of it, and by whom made? Let us then (he continued) look back; let us refer to the period alluded to, and see how matters actually were circumstanced. On the 21st of December, 1792, his majesty met the parliament: at that time, M. Chauvelin, the ambassador of the French government, was in England: his majesty, in his speech to both houses of parliament, complained of three things: first, that the French had sent seditious missionaries into this country; secondly, that they meditated an invasion of Holland; and thirdly, that they had opened the Scheldt. Mr. Erskine begged the house to recollect, that Belgium was then in the possession of the French; though not as now; it was not, at that time, ingrafted by the constitution into the territory of France, as an integral part of it. All the correspondence between lord Grenville and the French ambassador was concealed from the house, though M. Chauvelin had given separate and satisfactory answers to all the complaints of our court. He intreated that the king would bring to condign punishmeut those who disseminated sedition in his dominions; announced the determination of France to keep within her own limits, and to respect the rights of other nations. Notwithstanding this plain and specific avowal of all the grounds of hostility, war was declared upon France. He asked, therefore, if France could be considered as the aggressor, who offered peace to this country on terms which the right hon. gentleman (Mr Pitt) would be worshipped, if he could now procure, [Here Mr. Erskine stopped, and sat down under evident symtoms of indisposition.] Mr. Fox rose, and said he was extremely sorry, on account of his learned friend, as well as for the house, whose information was thus unpleasantly interrupted, sorry for the cause of peace and of Great Britain, which ministers, by their rash and infatuated policy, seemed determined to precipitate to the verge of ruin, that he was obliged to address the house on the present occasion. He felt it however incumbent upon him to come forward, knowing that his opinion entirely coincided with that of his honourable friend, and lamenting, that in consequence of his indisposition, the argument would suffer considerably from the want of that ability with which it would have been enforced by his superior powers. Mr. Fox observed, that the subject demanded the deepest consideration; after a war of four years, which was stated to have been attended with many occurrences highly honourable and advantageous to the British arms, and to have been accompanied with no disgrace; after the immense expenditure incurred in the prosecution of hostilities; after an addition of a sum of no less than two hundred millions to the national debt, and of nine millions to the permanent taxes of the country; after an enormous effusion of human blood, after an incalculable addition to the details of human wretchedness, so far from having gained any object for which we set out in the war, so far were we from having achieved any advantage, that the minister had this night come forward, in an elaborate speech, which had lasted for a considerable space of time, to endeavour to prove, that the only effect had been, that the enemy was become more unreasonable than ever in their pretensions, and that all hopes of peace were removed to a still greater distance. In this speech the right hon. gentleman had affirmed that he formerly had given a representation of the deplorable situation of the French finances from uncertain documents, but now he had been enabled to confirm the same from indubitable authority, the statement of the directory: he, for his own part, was inclined to believe that the documents in both instances were equally authentic. It had been found from experience, that in proportion as the "finances of the French had been acknowledged, even by themselves, to be reduced to the lowest ebb, in the same proportion had their exertions been found to be wonderful and unparalleled. The certain ruin of the French finance is confirmed by an immediate statement from the directory, we are told: Mr. Fox expressed surprize that the right Lon. gentleman did not go farther, and quote the ingenious letter of lord Malmesbury, in which he reported the conversation which took place between him and M. Delacroix. In this conversation the French minister was represented as having paid the highest compliments to the extensive means possessed by this country, as having described it, from its internal sources of wealth, and from its colonies in the Indies, to be mistress of almost boundless resources. Thus, whilst the directory admitted that Great Britain was distinguished by her wealth and her resources, they had no hesitation to acknowledge their own poverty and embarrassments : they acknowledged to all Europe, that from the want of money the army was considerably in arrears, and every branch of the internal administration under circumstances of the greatest embarrassment and distress. But whilst they admitted the ruined state of their own finances, what a striking contrast did their exertions in the present contest, and the success which had followed them afford, to the conduct and fate of those who had been intrusted with the management of the war on our side! Whilst we, in every quarter which it was deemed most important to defend, had been losing city after city: whilst we had been actually driven from the possessions which we conceived to be necessary to the security of our commerce, or to the balance of power, France, resourceless and dispirited, all the while avowing its own distressed situation, and speaking in the most respectful terms of our wealth and resources, had constantly been adding to its acquisitions, and aggrandizing its empire. France, at the present moment, appeared as the conqueror of most important and extensive territories! Belgium was annexed to her empire; great part of Italy had yielded to the force of her arms, and Holland was was now united to the republic by ties of strictest alliance. If, indeed, these acquisitions were to be regained to the cause of Great Britain and her allies by a lofty tone of argument; if the tide of victory was to be turned by the dexterity of debate, and the efficacy of our exertions bore any proportion to the insolence of our boasting, we need not yet be afraid to claim a decided superiority. Mr. Fox said, that, previous to the commencement of the contest, he had used the utmost of his little powers to persuade the government to send an ambassador to Paris, when undoubtedly he would not have met with the treatment which an ambassador of Great Britain was now alledged to have experienced: but when it is asserted that this ambassador was dismissed in a way unexampled in the history of civilized nations, they surely must have forgotten the manner in which M. Chauvelin was sent from this country. At a subsequent period, when the whole of Belgium was regained, when the French were not possessed of one foot of ground in that territory, did I then, continued Mr. Fox, neglect my duty to this country? No. I then renewed my motion for peace: and I now ask, if an attempt had then been made to negotiate, whether we might not have expect ed to obtain peace on terms equally honourable and advantageous with any which we can now possibly claim? This was at the period before the powers combined against France had gained the fortress of Valenciennes: but when it was certain that it must fall, I contended then was the period to make peace. In order to show how greatly ministers miscalcalated the nature of the contest; when I thus argued, it was said: "What! make peace before you 1797. have achieved a single conquest, and when you are just beginning to make advances in the country of the enemy?" Such was the style of reasoning brought forward in opposition to my repeated motions for an end of carnage. The right hon. gentleman, said Mr. Fox, in talking formerly of the contest, made use of a memorable expression; he intimated that it was such, that our exertions ought to know no bounds, except so far as they were limited by our resources; that our efforts must be extended to the utmost pitch, before we could hope for an honourable termination of the struggle, or the permanent enjoyment of peace; that we ought not to cease till we could be able to say, Potuit quæ plurima virtus The difficulties attendant upon negotiation had been stated as arising from two circumstances: first, the difficulty in all cases of proposing overtures, without being able to ascertain what reception they were likely to experience; secondly, the particular obstacles, from the relative situation of the two countries. Mr. Fox said, he could state a third, more weighty than either:-In every negotiation, the difficulty of coming to any definitive arrangement must be infinitely increased in proportion to the degree of distrust entertained by the parties respecting their mutual intentions. If we had some reason to suspect the sincerity of the directory, had not they at least equal grounds to suspect our views in negotiation? After every epithet had been exhausted by ministers to vilify their characters, was it to be expected that they would readily listen to terms of peace dictated by those ministers, except they were brought F into into a state of necessity which precluded them from an alternative, and compelled them to an uncondi tional compliance with any proposition that might be presented to their acceptance? When lord Malmesbury, in addressing the French minister, so often brought forward his profession of high consideration, Mr. Fox said, he could not but smile, when he recollected that lord Auckland was made a peer, merely because he declared that the men whom he now addressed in such respectful terms, "ought to be put under the sword of the law," and because he denounced them as miscreants and traitors to all Europe. By this declaration, brought forward in a public capacity, he showed, that, acting on the part of Great Britain, he was not slow to be their executioner and their judge. There was one part of the address omitted to be noticed, but to which he could by no means subscribe: that his majesty had neglected no proper opportunity to conclude the war. A few years ago, when he earnestly pressed the propriety of negotiation, the right honourable gentleman had contended that the French were not capable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity. In what respect were they now become more capable? Will the minister affirm, that then there was only a provisional government, and that there now exists a permanent constitution? Surely he would not venture to press that argument, aware of the extent to which it must lead him: and if such was the case, Mr. Fox declared he had no hesitation to state, that the assertion in the address was false, and as such must meet his decided negative. The result of the negotiation had proved to be what was not difficult to have been foreseen, both from its commencement, and the mode in which it had been conducted. If the country, indeed, considered the administration of the right honourable gentleman to be a blessing, they must take their choice between the continuance of that blessing and the restoration of peace. It was evident that those individuals who had conducted the war with such notorious incapacity, and entailed so many mischiefs on the country, must of all others be the most unfit to repair them, and secure the enjoyment of permanent peace. But in order to ascertain the sincerity of ministers on this point, and the fairness of the means employed towards the attainment of this object, it was necessary to enter a little more minutely into the history of the negotiation. The first step which was taken was, the communication at Basle, in which Mr. Wickham had been engaged as the agent for the British government. As he was not authorized to take any definitive measure, or to make any declaration binding on the government, but little stress could be laid on the circumstance. Those who attended to the details of that transaction would not be disposed to draw any inference very favourable to the sincerity of ministers. The mission of lord Malmesbury was unquestionably what they wished to be considered as the grand effort for peace, and as affording an unequivocal proof of, their sincere wishes for its attainment. Of the details of that negotiation we were able to judge, from the papers which had been laid before the house. Till the publication of his majesty's manifesto, he said he was only acquainted with the circumstances of that transaction, from the statement of the public prints: nor was he a little surprized when the mani festo |