Слике страница
PDF
ePub

their duty. If those persons who conducted his majesty's councils were unequal to the task, let us not think so meanly of the abilities of the country, as to suppose that there are not others of superior talents, without resorting to the few individuals who ever since its commencement discovered principles inimical to the war. Surely it was not necessary to suppose that all the abilities of the nation were exclusively monopolized by those individuals. But if, on the other hand, the difficulty was ascribed to the nature of the contest itself, which, however, he should much more regret, then would the argument with respect to the misconduct of ministers, or of those concerned in conducting the active operations of the war, be much weakened.

He would now, he said, proceed briefly to take a view of the different stages in which the question of the war had been debated. At the conclusion of last session, he had placed its termination upon two circumstances; first, the being able to procure a peace upon terms likely to render it secure and permanent; and, secondly, an indemnity suitable to the expense which the nation should have incurred in carrying on the war. He had therefore, in the debate at the conclusion of last session, held out as a means, not only of annoying the enemy, but of securing those desirable ends, the propriety of an interference in the internal government of France. Not that he had absolutely insisted upon an entire subversion of that government; he had always asserted that if a peace could be made upon terms of security to this country, no consideration of the detestable characters of the ruling men in France, or of the crimes and horrors with which they were sullied, ought to influence this country to reject such terms.

The hon. gentleman had at that time admitted this principle to be right, both in point of expediency and morality. And here he must advert to an unfair mode of argument which had been employed by the hon. gentleman. He had endeavoured to give a different turn to sentiments, by confounding the periods at which they were brought forward.-When the strict neutrality observed by this country, with respect to France, had been mentioned in his majesty's speech, no injury had then been received from France. When circumstances altered, the same sentiments could no longer apply. If a foreign country, divided into two parties, disco

vered hostile intentions with respect to a nation, it would surely be perfectly fair in that nation to endeavour to oppose those parties to one another; more especially if the continuance of a system was the ground of that enmity, an interference to destroy that system was particularly justifiable. Such was the precise state of the case between France and this country. Last year this interference had been avowed and admitted as a ground of action, and its propriety could not surely be now denied. Since last year, a new scene had presented itself, more eventful and extraordinary even than those which had formerly been exhibited. However the horrors and crimes which had taken place in former periods of the revolution might have exceeded all expectation, and transcended even the utmost stretch of imagination, they now appeared only to have paved the way for fresh horrors and accumulated crimes, beyond whatever fancy could have feigned, or fear conceived. Things had now come to such a crisis, that he had no difficulty to declare, that while that system continued, peace was less desirable to him than a war, under any circumstances of disaster which he could possibly imagine. Not that he would contend that the mere abhorrence of crimes, that the mere detestation of character, except directly bearing upon our own safety, could constitute any reasons why we should engage in a war; but, in the present instance, the reasoning of his noble friend directly applied. That reasoning had gone-first, to show the horror and enormity of the system which now prevailed in France: secondly, the danger of the extension of that system, if not speedily and effectually resisted: thirdly, the measures which were employed for the purpose of extending that system: fourthly, the prospects of success which we derived from the very nature of those measures, in our attempts to crush the progress of that system: and fifthly, that the success of those attempts depended upon the vigorous continuance of our warlike efforts; and that the circumstances of the case were such, as, in the present moment, entirely precluded all negociation. The speech of his noble friend had been styled declamatory; upon what principle he knew not, except that every effort of eloquence, in which the most forcible reasoning was adorned and supported by all the powers of language, was to be branded with the epithet of de

clamation. The propositions which he had brought forward, had been urged, not in a vague and general way-they had been supported by strong facts.

The history of the rulers of France had been taken from their own mouths, from records written under their inspection, and decrees sanctioned by their authority. From the nature of their government, there could be no dependence on the characters of whom it was composed. The shifting of persons took place like the shifting of scenes; but this change of persons produced no alteration in the conduct of the drama, the principles and proceedings still continued the same, or were distinguished in their progress only by increasing gradations of enormity. On the 21st of May, a new government, more dreadful in its character, and more fatal in its effects, than any which preceded it, had taken place-This was the revolutionary government.

My noble friend began by stating, that one of the leading features of this government was the abolition of religion. It will scarcely be maintained that this step could tend only to affect opinions, and have no influence upon the conduct of a nation. The extinction of religious sentiment was only intended to pave the way for the introduction of fresh crimes, and entirely to break asunder those bands of society which had been already loosened. It was intended only to familiarize the mind with guilt, and, by removing the obstacle of fear, to relieve it from the restraints of conscience. Infidelity, as my noble friend remarked,was only meant to go hand in hand with insurrection. A second measure of this revolutionary government was, the destruction of property, a precedent which tended not less to destroy all ideas of justice, than the former to extinguish all sentiments of piety. Not less detestable was their conduct in their mode of inflicting punishments-a mode which took away from the accused all privilege of defence, and from their trials even the appearance of legal forms. All these crimes, however, they contrived to convert into sources of revenue. From the pillage of the churches-from the destruction of property-from the confisca tion of the effects of those who were con demned-they derived the means for conducting their military operations. They pushed every resource to its utmost extent; as, for instance, the unbounded circulation of assignats, and the imposition [VOL. XXX. ]

of a forced loan. What can be expected from a system of acting upon such principles, and supported by such resources? Resources so desperate afford in themselves the most certain symptoms and indications of the approaching decay of that system with which they are connected. If then such be the system, if such the means of its support; and if France in consequence has, during these few months, experienced a degree of distress; the greatest, perhaps, ever known in that country during the same space of time; what prospect can there be of either stability or permanence to the present order of things? Can it be supposed to rest on that something approaching to instinct-that spirit of enthusiasm which has been so highly extolled by the gentlemen on the other side? What can we think of the probability of the duration of a system which has sent as many suspected persons to the prison or scaffold, as it has sent recruits to the field?

But it has been urged, that the French have distinguished themselves in the field; nor will it be denied, that, independently of any other circumstance, the spirit of a people, called forth by the impulse which acts so strongly in such a situation, may have the effect to make them brave in the moment of action. But their efforts are merely the result of a system of restraint and oppression, the most terrible and gigantic that has, perhaps, ever existed. They are compelled into the field by the terror of the guillotine-they are supported there only by those resources which their desperate situation affords; and, in these circumstances, what can be the dependence on the steadiness of their operations, or what rational prospect can there be of the permanence of their exertions? On this ground, the more monstrous and terrible the system has become, the greater is the probability that it will be speedily overthrown. From the nature of the mind of man, and the necessary progress of human affairs, it is impossible that such a system can be of long duration; and surely no event can be looked for more desirable than a destruction of that system which at present exists, to the misery of France and the terror of Europe.

As to the question of the hon. gentleman, whether I am never to make peace with the Jacobins, it is extremely difficult to anwser, and it would be neither prudent nor rational in me to give him any definitive reply in the present moment. [4 N]

It is a question, the solution of which
must depend upon a combination of events.
As circumstances may vary, a different
line of conduct must necessarily be pur-
sued; nor would it be proper to bind up
my discretion to act with a regard to
those contingencies that may arise, by
pledging myself at present to one set of
measures. In the present circumstances,
I have no hesitation to declare, that I
would rather choose to persevere in the
war, even amidst the worst disasters, and
should deem such a conduct much more
safe and honourable, than to conclude a
peace with the ruling powers in France
on their present system. The question
of pursuing the war must, in every in-
stance, depend upon the convenience with
which it can be carried on to ourselves;
and of that you must be best qualified to
judge. On this great and interesting cri-
sis, I have no hesitation to state, that I
should think myself deficient in point of
candour, if I did not most unequivocally
declare, that the moment will never come,
when I shall not think any alternative pre-
ferable to that of making peace with
France, upon the system of its present
rulers. The question I do not now mean
to argue at large, both from the very ad-
vanced hour, and from the full discussion
which it has already received. I shall
only touch on one or two points which
have been brought forward by the hon.
gentleman in the course of his argument.
His motion is certainly couched in very
general terms, and such as might take in
every thing that I have contended for. It
recommends to his majesty to conclude a
peace whenever it can be done upon safe
and advantageous terms, without any re-
ference to the nature and form of govern-
ment which may exist in France. I like-
wise am of opinion, that a safe and advan-
tageous peace ought to be concluded;
but that the security and benefits of that
peace must depend upon the establish-
ment of a government essentially different
from the present. Though the motion,
however, from the general terms in which
it is expressed, is calculated to gain no
precise object, it is yet capable of doing
much mischief. It means and says, that
this House entertains sentiments different
from those expressed by his majesty in
his speech. It holds out to our allies that
they are no longer to consider us as eager
in the cause, or acting upon the principles
in which we embarked along with them;
while it must impart encouragement and
confidence to our enemies.

The hon. gentleman has said, that a treaty with the French government would afford us as good a security for the continuance of peace, as that which we derived from the treaty of Ryswick or Utrecht. He then, in his usual way, entered into a declamation against kings, and said that we might place equal dependence on the good faith of the present government of France, as on that of the court of Louis 14th. This I expressly deny; and I affirm, that had that king even succeeded in his ambitious projects to their full extent, what we should then have suffered might have been considered as a deliverance, compared with what must be the consequence of success attending the present French system. All the splendour of his court, all the abilities of his generals and discipline of his armies, all the great exertions which he was enabled to make, proceeded from a high sentiment of honour. The exercise of that power which he possessed, however directed to the purposes of his ambition, was regulated by certain principles, and limited within certain bounds. No such principles actuate the conduct of the present French rulers. They have contrived to banish all restraints, and, with an ambition more insatiable, they have at their disposal means of destruction much more formidable than that monarch ever possessed in the plenitude of his power.

The hon. gentleman has inaccurately stated, that I attach the same degree of importance to the restoration of monarchy in France, as to the destruction of the present system. This is by no means the case: I attach importance to the restoration of monarchy, from an opinion that, in the present state of France, some settled form should take place, in which the greater part of the people may be disposed to concur. The ancient government I consider as affording the best materials upon which they could work, in introducing any change into the fabric of their constitution. Besides, as I have thought it incumbent, in any interference which I proposed, in the internal affairs of that country, to consult chiefly the happiness of the people, monarchy appeared to me the system most friendly to their true interests. In another respect, the hon. gentleman has misrepresented me, by stating the restitution of monarchy as an event which must necessarily be preceded by the conquest of France. I consider monarchy only as the standard under

which the people of France might be united, the more especially as it is that form of government which my noble friend has proved to be most agreeable to the wishes of two-thirds of the inhabitants. But it has been said, that even the re-establishment of royalty would afford us no additional security for the permanence of peace, and that the French would still be equally formidable to this country. It is, however, surely a wild and extravagant assertion, that the monarchy of France, stripped as it would then be of much of its power, and diminished in its revenues, should be as formidable as a system which has proved itself to be more dangerous than monarchy ever was, in the plenitude of its power and the height of its greatness.

But there is one part of the argument of my noble friend to which I must particularly call your attention, and which, independently of every other consideration, precludes even the possibility of our treating with France in the present moment. A decree has been passed by the convention, forbidding to treat with any enemy till they shall have evacuated the territories of the republic; and on the 11th of April it was again decreed, that those persons should be punished with death who should propose to treat with any power which should not have previously acknowledged the independence of the French nation, and the unity and indivisibility of the republic, founded upon liberty and equality. Thus by any proposal to treat, we should not only incur the disgrace of the most abject humiliation, but absolutely put ourselves at their mercy, and subject ourselves to the necessity of receiving any terms which they might be disposed to dictate. Are you then to withdraw your armies, to deprive yourself of the co-operation of your allies, to forego all your acquisitions, to give up Condé, Quesnoi, Tobago, Fort Louis, all the factories in the East Indies? Are you to abandon all these acquisitions, the rewards of your past labours, and the pledges of your future success? Should you consent to do all this, should you even hasten to send an ambassador to treat with the convention, (and the right hon. gentleman, I believe on a former occasion volunteered himself for that service,) you not only must acknowledge the unity and indivisibility of the French Republic, but you must do so in their own way. You must acknowledge it as

founded on liberty and equality. You must subscribe to the whole of their code, and by this act sanction the deposition of their sovereign, and the annihilation of their legislature. It may be said that they would not insist upon all this to its full extent; but of this I can have but little confidence, when I compare their past declarations and their conduct. To whatever pitch of extravagance they may have reached in what they have said, they have always outstript it by what they have done. The absurdity of their expressions has in every instance been surpassed by the outrages of their conduct; nor can we have any hopes of more moderation from any change of parties. In all revolutions that have hitherto taken place, the first recommendation to favour has been hostility to England. The most violent party have always predominated. The leading feature in their character at present is a spirit of military enterprise, exerted, not for the purposes of ambition, but every where spreading, in its progress, terror and desolation. We are called in the present age to witness the political and moral phenomenon of a mighty and civilized people, formed into an artificial horde of banditti, throwing off all the restraints which have influenced men in social life, displaying a savage valour directed by a sanguinary spirit, forming rapine and destruction into a system, and perverting to their detestable purposes, all the talents and ingenuity which they derived from their advanced stage of civilization, all the refinements of art, and the discoveries of science. We behold them uniting the utmost savageness and ferocity of design with consummate contrivance, and skilled in execution, and seemingly engaged in no less than a conspiracy to exterminate from the face of the earth all honour, humanity, justice, and religion. In this state, can there be any question but to resist, where resistance alone can be effectual, till such time, as by the blessing of Providence upon our endeavousr, we shall have secured the independence of this country, and the general interests of Europe. It cannot be doubted, that there are many other points brought forward by the hon. gentleman with respect to the conduct of the campaign, and the treatment of neutral powers, which I am extremely anxious to meet, but into which the lateness of the hour forbids me to enter. My own strength, as well as the patience of the House, is already ex

hausted; and I the more willingly post- | artillery in the world. They had no less pone them on the present occasion, as they will with more propriety form future and separate subjects of discussion. The House divided on Mr. Fox's amend

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

than 700,000 muskets. The next point upon which the public had been deluded by the ministers, in the commencement of this war, was, upon the quantity of ammunition which the French had at that time, and their ability to increase it. The public were told, that unless the French were supplied by others, they soon would be without ammunition. The fact here again was notoriously otherwise; for at this time they had powder actually made sufficient for all their armies for seven years to come, and saltpetre for seven more. They were making saltpetre at this moment with prodigious expedition, as well as other articles for carrying on the war; in which they were extremely right. By reflecting on these facts, ministers would see they had abominably misled the public, and brought the people to form very erroneous notions of the power of the French, and of the probable continu

"I return you my most cordial thanks for this loyal and affectionate address.--It is with great satisfaction that I receive the assurances of your continued and de-ance of the war. The next thing, on cided support in the prosecution of the just and necessary war, in which we are engaged. This full and explicit declaration of your sentiments cannot fail to produce the most salutary effects in the sent important conjuncture."

pre

Earl Stanhope's Motion for acknowledging the French Republic.] Jan. 23. Earl Stanhope rose, to make his promised motion. In the course of what he had to submit to the House, he should call on ministers to point out any of the promises they had made to the deluded people of France, which they had not broken. He should call upon them likewise to point out any one of their own predictions, at the commencement of the war, which had not been belied by the event. During the last session, a measure was debated in both Houses, under the title of the Traitorous Correspondence bill. In the course of the debates on that bill, ministers held out to the public, that if France could not get arms from this country, she could not carry on the war. If it should appear that the people of this country had been deluded into something like a consent to go to war, that was highly criminal in mi nisters, and the public should be undeceived. So far was the supposition, that the French would be unable to carry on the war if deprived of arms from us, from being true, that the event had belied it wholly; for the French, it was notorious, had arms in abundance, and the very first

which the public were deluded, was, that the army of France was in want of cloathing, and that they must perish in great numbers under the inclemency of the winter. So far was that from being the case, that he was assured, there was no army in Europe so well cloathed as the French troops; but supposing the French troops were badly cloathed, did their lordships imagine that men, fighting under the ardour of liberty, would feel the want of cloathing as much as mercenary troops must? The next thing insisted upon, as a proof of the weakness of the French, and of their inability to carry on this war, was, their want of money. This observation really surprised him. After what we had seen with respect to America, he really expected that such an idea would not have been hinted at. We all knew that money was not the only means of carrying on war; for money there were many substitutes to be found in pressing times; and as the late sir George Savile had said, “ things that were much estimated in time of peace, were not so much wanted in time of war, and nothing was of so much value then, as the measure of estimation; and whatever we substituted for money was of that nature, and would always answer all the purposes of specie." But, in point of fact, there was no want of money in France; on the contrary, he would venture to assert, without fear of contradiction, there was more silver, more gold, and more bullion in France, than in

« ПретходнаНастави »