gracious intention to meet any disposition to negociation on the part of the enemy, with an earnest desire to give it the fullest and speediest effect, cannot at the same time avoid expressing the deep regret they feel, that your majesty should ever have been advised to consider the internal order of things in France to have been such as should not have induced your majesty at any time to meet a disposition to negociation on the part of the enemy:-And, your majesty's faithful Commons feel themselves, at this conjuncture, the more forcibly called on to declare this opinion, because if the present existing order of things in France be admitted as the motive and inducement to negociate, a change in that order of things, may be considered as a ground for discontinuing negociation begun, or even for abandoning a treaty concluded:- Wherefore your majesty's faithful Commons, duly reflecting on the calamitous waste of treasure and of blood, to which, it is now manifest, the acting on this principle has so unfortunately and so largely contributed, and greatly apprehensive of the grievous and ruinous consequences to which the persevering to act on such a principle must inevitably tend, do humbly and earnestly implore your majesty, that it may be altogether abandoned and disclaimed; and that the form of government, or internal order of things in France, whatever they may be, or shall become, may be no bar to a negociation for restoring to your majesty's subjects the blessings of peace, whenever it can be effected on just and suitable terms for your majesty and your allies:-And, as the principal bar to a negociation for peace appears to have been your majesty's having been hitherto advised to consider the order of things in France, as precluding your majesty from meeting a disposition to negociation on the part of the enemy, your faithful Commons now humbly beseech your majesty to give your distinct directions, that an immediate negociation may be entered on for the above salutary object." Mr. Wilberforce said:-I must confess, Sir, that I am surprised at that construction of mind, which can take up the address now proposed, in the light in which it has been considered by the hon. gentleman. The event to which the address refers has always been regarded as one desirable to all parties, however they might differ as to the means of attaining their object. It is therefore rather singu lar, that any objections should be interposed, when all are ready to come into the same proposition. At the moment when his majesty declares that he is prepared to give the fullest effect to any dispositions for peace, that may appear on the part of France, it is a bad return for his goodness to call into question, or cavil at that declaration. The address has my warmest assent. What are the objections to it? We now say, that there is such an order of things established in France, as affords a reasonable expectation for a secure and permanent peace. Last session when I brought forward my motion for peace,* the majority were of a different opinion. They now admit, that the period has at last arrived, when the government in France no longer presents an obstacle to negociation. The hon. gentleman says, that he sees no difference between the former and the present government of France. Does he not admit that there may be various gradations between the two extremes; that there may be different shades and modifications, which may materially affect the character of a government, and its conduct towards foreign powers? Is there not a considerable difference between that no-government, that wild democracy, which formerly prevailed in France, and the more regulated form of government which they have now adopted? The hon. gentleman says, that my right hon. friend has had only five weeks experience of the nature of this form of government. I thought my right hon. friend had expressly guarded against this misrepresentation, when he stated, on the first day of the session, that if the order of things then proposed in France should be put in execution, he should no longer have any objection to treat on secure and honourable terms. What, I ask, is the effect of the message and the address? Seeing a government established in France, which assumes a more moderate and permanent shape than has hitherto appeared, the government of this country readily seizes the opportunity of coming forward with a declaration of their readiness to treat on just and suitable terms. The hon. gentleman asks, what is the difference of the system which the new government in France has established? Is it merely that the old men are to meet in one place, and the young men in another? Does he not know that obtained, which, he thought, there was ground to expect from the present disposition of the enemy. He should therefore vote for the address. by this regulation, the danger is entirely guarded against, which this country had chiefly to apprehend, namely, the mischief of haste and precipitance in their councils? Is he so ignorant of human nature, or of the effect of situation upon character, as not to be aware, that from this separation of the two bodies, different opinions will arise, and different interests will prevail? What is already the consequence of the new system? They have taken precautions to prevent riot and insurrection, greater even than those which would be admitted in this country. They have shown their determination not to be overawed by mobs, and have taken steps to secure their meetings from the pernicious effects of such tumultuary interference. I said, on a former occasion, that I conceived a government something like that of America, would be the most suitable for France. I said so because I conceived that to be the government which the people were most disposed to receive. The event has so far confirmed my opinion. We know what use has been made of the discontents, real or supposed, in this country, for the purpose of misrepresentation, in France. The amendment would give tenfold force to that misrepresentation, and encourage the idea that the government were forced to sue for peace by the complaints and remonstrances of the people. But I object to it on constitutional grounds. It is not the business of this House to interfere with the executive government, except when called upon by strong necessity. That interference cannot be called for at a moment when government comes forward with a sentiment, in which all have expressed their concurrence. I congratulate the House on this declaration, and trust that it will be attended with the happiest effects. I re. joice that provision has already been made for the expenditure of the year; because I think that by showing we have the means to prosecute the war with vigour, we take the most likely method of bringing about a secure and honourable peace. Mr. M. Robinson said, he perceived no peculiar improvement in the French government, nor was he solicitous to inquire whether it resembled, or ever would resemble, the American constitution; but if we were to wait till France had settled a regular government, he was afraid our hopes would be deferred to a very distant period. Peace, on honourable terms, was much to be wished for, if it could be [VOL. XXXII.] Mr. Grey said:-As I consider the amendment a complete record of the sentiments of those who have uniformly opposed the principles on which this war was commenced, and the manner in which it has been conducted, I cannot but give it my support. My hon. friend is blamed for his mode of argument; but are opinions so much changed, that we are become the accusers, and administration the panegyrists of the French government? What is the wonderful difference in the order of things, which has given rise to such a change? The government which the French have chosen, is the same in principle with that with which we went to war, and which ministers formerly declared to be so odious and dangerous, that its total destruction could alone be looked upon as the attainment of the object in view. The present government is indeed worse than that with which we went to war. We first engaged in war with the Brissotines; they who are now in power are the successors of that party, more moderate indeed, but acting on the same principles; the wonderful difference is, that the form is varied; they have a council of ancients, instead of a committee; and a council of five hundred instead of a national convention. Is it for this trifling difference that we have shed oceans of blood? Ministers were accus. tomed to state, that all success depended on our being able to re-establish the old hereditary despotic government of France; and that in any manner to countenance the proceedings of the murderers of Louis 16th was virtually to depose the king of England. This was attempted, but all their schemes have failed; the confederacy is dissolved; we have every where been baffled, except at sea; we have spent 50 millions sterling, and added above 80 millions to the capital of the national debt. There is little difference in the sitration of affairs, and no additional security. I put it to those gentlemen then, how they can reconcile their sentiments and conduct; when at one time they declare that nothing but the total eradication of certain principles will be sufficient to pave the way for peace, and afterwards, taking advantage of a slight difference in circumstances, follow that line of conduct which has hitherto been re[2 P] they could; but these hon. gentlemen, I suppose, thought they could not. There is one phrase in the message and address extremely equivocal. We are to look for a disposition on the part of the French to negociate; thus, though the minister may acknowledge the competency of the French government for negociation, it may be any time he pleases before he discover a proper disposition manifesting itself. In short, looking upon it, until contradicted, as a sort of assurance on the part of ministers, I may, for some time, suspend my motion on this subject; and feeling as I do, I shall vote for the amendment. commended to them in vain? I am aware that I may appear to argue against myself; but while I sincerely say, that let a bona fide peace be made by whom it will, I shall rejoice; yet I contend it is proper that the matter should be fairly stated to the country, and that ministers should not be allowed to arrogate to themselves that merit in the transaction to which they are by no means entitled. It may be said that the present message even goes farther than my motion, in which I wished to confine myself to a point of time; but the real difference between the sentiments of this side of the House and those of the other consists in this; we at all times asserted the propriety of negociation; and Mr. Pitt said:-I prefaced the address although we may have used the expres- which I had the honour of proposing with sion, that the existing government of very few words, because I certainly conFrance at the time such motion was ceived there could be no difference of opimade, should be no bar to entering into nion upon the subject. I formed this opiany treaty or negociation, we meant not nion, from adverting to the nature of his to deny that any other existing form of majesty's message itself, the situation of government would have been equally com- the contending parties, and the existing petent to maintain the accustomed rela- circumstances of the war. But what was tions of peace and amity. They, on the most calculated to confirm this opinion contrary, have, up to the present mo- was, the conduct of the hon. gentleman ment, objected to every idea of negocia- himself who has now sat down, and who tion. To set this matter in its true light yesterday, when I introduced the preis, I conceive, the object of the present sent subject, after mature consideration, amendment. I certainly, above all things, said he would not press the motion of wish the honour of the country to be which he had given notice. I am, really saved: but by whatever circumstances at a loss to understand what is now his these gentlemen may be influenced, I wish object: it would seem, that had he folministers to acknowledge the French re- lowed his own inclination, there would, public, and shall rejoice to think that they and ought to have been no amendment, are determined to negociate. I wish to and yet he votes for that proposed. consider this message as an assurance to the same time, too, he seems inclined to that purpose, and that the minister is sin- put the same construction on the meancerely resolved to take the earliest oppor- ing of the message and address that is intunity of concluding a peace. Is this tended to be conveyed by the amendreally so?-He appears to give his dissent ment. It is really singular to observe the to this; then let him openly say so. I, in- mode in which this question has been taken deed, distrust every thing which comes up, to attend to the arguments which have from him in the shape of words. Last generally been used by gentlemen on the year, in the amendment to my motion other side. They have proposed an amendfor entering into negociation, he stated, ment to this address, not recommending us that he would be ready to negociate when- to meet a negociation on just and honoraever such a government should be estable terms; but to enter into treaty inblished in France as was likely to main- instantly, whether a disposition to this tain the accustomed relations of peace purpose manifests itself on the part of and amity, leaving it entirely to conjec- the enemy or not. One would expect ture what sort of government that might certainly, that these gentlemen would exbe, and not even saying whether the ex- ert their talents in a different manner on isting government at that time was such this occasion. They have always expresa government or not. At that time, we sed an ardent wish for peace; but now, found that other governments, such as when that is brought forward as an object Denmark, Sweden, and America, thought more likely to be obtained than at any other former period, they wish to persuade the House not to adopt any rational resolu * See Vol. 31, p. 1228. At tion the subject; and insist that the pre- | but I likewise stated, that it would be of sent address cannot be agreed to, without most important consequence, were it to branding our former declarations on the terminate only in stemming the torrent, subject with inconsistency and folly. and turning the tide which threatened to They affect to rejoice in the prospect of overwhelm in ruin every thing sacred and negociation, and yet they pursue a con- valuable in society. If in such a defenduct to render it impracticable. The hon. sive war, it be asked, for what have we gentleman agrees to our motion, but says, sacrificed our blood and treasure? I unthat it does not go far enough, and that doubtedly answer, that all we now have, the amendment supplies the deficiency. It we may well be said to have gained; for is very remarkable that he has said no- we should otherwise have been deprived thing in favour of the proposed additions, of it; and what we may gain more, is but he and his friends kindly wish to show that indemnity which we find ourselves that we cannot consistently agree to what entitled to demand. I cannot omit obwe ourselves propose. If we examine by serving here, that those who call out, what means they propose to produce this what have you gained? what are you to effect, we shall find that their arguments gain? seem to wish to prevent any thing proceed, either on a total forgetfulness, or from being gained, by actually wishing to a complete misrepresentation of the mo- bind the hands of the executive governtives and principles by which we have ment, by taking from them all discretion been actuated during the whole of this in the management of a negociation, and most important contest. They, in the depriving them of the power of rendering first place, bring forward an observation, it successful. On the second point relawhich has again and again been confuted, tive to the object of the war, let us have that the war originated in the aggression a little more justice and candour. I cerof this country. In the second place, tainly said that the war was not like others, they wish to fix us with having asserted, occasioned by particular insult, or the that the grand object of the war, the sine unjust seizure of territory, or the like, but qua non to be obtained, was the re-estab- undertaken to repel usurpation, connected lishment of the ancient government. In with principles calculated to subvert all the third place they affirm, that between government, and which, while they flouformer periods of the French revolution rished in their original force and maligand the present, there is no practical dif- nity, were totally incompatible with the ference. And, lastly, that the establish- accustomed relations of peace and amrity. ment of a council of ancients is a trifling We professed also, that many persons in formal distinction. On each of these heads that country felt the pressure of the cait will be necessary to make some remarks. lamities under which it laboured, and were Upon the first point, I shall not tread ready to co-operate in the destruction of over the ground that has been already so the causes which produced them. fully occupied, nor imagine that it is in right of war, a right never very sethe power of any hon. gentleman to reason riously denied, entitled us to take every the majority of this House into the per- advantage of this circumstance; and we suasion, that this war was not, in the most undoubtedly said, that this might be atemphatical sense of the word, defensive tended with the re-establishment of a syson the part of this country; and, at the tem of government in that country, more same time, the most important in a gene- likely to be beneficial in its effects, both ral point of view, that ever was under- to them and to us. This has always most taken, involving the interests and well-be- unfairly been misrepresented, and coning of Europe, nay, of all mankind. When founded with the idea, that no end was to that war was once commenced, it cer- be put to the war without actually actainly became a most material question, complishing the re-establishment of one when shall we again look for peace? The particular system. As to the particular. answer could not but be, Not until we expression of bellum internecinum, it never have repelled unjust aggression, and pro- was mentioned on this side of the House, cured, reasonable hopes of future se- but for the purpose of repelling it, as not curity. On the first day of the session, I at all applicable to the manner in which stated, that it would have been more sa- we were determined to conduct the pretis factory to me, had the present contest sent war. I have even said, when the terminated in the utter dissolution of those French government was most objectiondetestable principles in which it originated, able, that some circumstances of necessity. The might compel us to treat with them; and as to the idea of restoring the monarchy, I boldly maintain, that I never held that forth as the sine qua non. What we looked for was a reasonable expectation of stability in the government with which we should treat. The next question will be the terms; but at present we certainly say all that can be required when we affirm, that we wait only for a favourable disposition on the part of the enemy. The next point I have to allude to, is the bold denial on the part of opposition, that there is any substantial difference, with respect to the French government, between the present and former periods. This they argue in an elaborate manner, but like all practical questions, it must be decided by general experience. They have said, that all times were proper for negociation, and that the only question was concerning the terms. We assert, that the present is the first proper opportunity, and the only one that has occurred. It is rather remarkable that they should now, for the first time, turn round and think this not altogether the proper time. One would almost be inclined to believe that they begin to lose sight of the interest of their country. In examining this question, it is unnecessary to go to any length. On the first day of the session, I said, that the circumstance of the new constitution in France, the exhausted state of their finances, and the difference which had evidently taken place in the general temper of the people, were strong grounds to entitle me to say, that the prospect of affairs was extremely improved. Some of these statements it was impossible to deny -The hon. gentleman who spoke last, made what I rather imagine was an accidental slip, when he spoke of change of conduct. Does he mean to say, that things are so reversed, that they who were formerly the defenders of the French government and their measures do now seriously attack them? For my part, I do not mean to defend any of their measures, far less to become their panegyrist. I wish only to consider their conduct in a comparative view. But it is certainly of the utmost moment that this House and the nation at large, should observe the sentiments of a certain set of individuals in this country. Yes! those who have in duced into this island, Jacobin principles, Jacobin names, and Jacobin acts, were the defenders of the French government. But they now attack their new constitu tion. Why? Because it approaches too near to the despotism of England. This of itself proves to me the advantage the new constitution has over any thing which preceded it. But does any man mean seriously to assert, that no difference has taken place? When the Rights of Man were fully acted upon, there was but one representative body, containing in itself all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, the only lawful centre from which every thing was to proceed. The new constitution is a complete disclaimer of this theory. Besides, they have introduced the system of artificial distinctions. They are now far removed from a state of pure democracy. Is it no material difference of situation, that in consequence of the division into two Houses, the representative body can no longer rashly and wildly pass the most pernicious decrees, and are not likely to be again controlled by a sanguinary mob, a lawless rabble? Is it no material difference that they should have infused into their constitution, the elements of a mixed govern. ment, and have placed in separate hands the legislative, judicial, and executive powers? As to the question, whether they have done well; I am of opinion that they do well in proportion as they come nearer that description of government, which experience has proved to be benefi. cial to mankind. But the difference in the form of government is to be taken combined with other circumstances, external and internal. We ought to weigh the disposition of the enemy, the means by which the end may be accomplished, and the difficulties attending it. The disposition of the enemy is to be collected from their present principles and conduct, and from the general temper of mind in the country. I am asked, are you sure the present form of their government is stable? To this I answer, that they have no better means of rendering the government stable, than by making peace on such terms as Europe has a right to expect, and by abolishing every measure of force and terror. The exhausted state of their finances is in this point of view, of considerable importance. The subject has already been amply discussed. As an additional argument, I appeal to the dying confession of the old government, and to the infant acts of the new. If such be their exhausted state, it can hardly be supposed that they will be long disposed to maintain the contest. The circum |