tained the approbation and assistance of Mr. Fox and many others upon this occasion; but he experienced the opposition of Mr. Pitt, who, after foiling him, was, in his turn, foiled himself in relation to the same subject. That eloquent minister now endeavoured to amend the Poor Laws, and meliorate the condition of the peasantry and working classes, who at that period called aloud for assistance and relief. For this purpose he brought in a bill for the institution of friendly societies; the more effectual relief of poor families in proportion to the number of their children; and the loan of small sums payable at distant periods. So extensive and at the same time so beneficent was his plan, that he proposed to provide cottagers with cows, and banish the shadow of poverty from the nation. But like most of those who have hitherto tampered with the Poor Laws, he soon discovered that the disease was radical, while the remedies he proposed were merely topical, whereas the plain and practical proposition of the member for Bedford was simply calculated to enable the wages of the labourer to maintain himself, without the degradation or necessity of applying for parochial relief.

It is almost unnecessary here to observe, that Mr. Whitbread was an open, uniform, and avowed enemy to the first French war, in 1793, which he always conceived and maintained to be equally unnecessary and unjust. Whether right or wrong in this opinion he deemed it politic for the country to be always on its guard against both the secret machinations and open attacks of a powerful and vindictive enemy. Accordingly in 1797, when a French squadron appeared off Bantry Bay, and both nations were alarmed at the apparent practicability of an invasion, he condemned the negligence of the ministers on this occasion, and on March 3d moved for a committee to enquire into their conduct. In the course of his speech he stated, that the city of Cork, with stores and provisions to the amount of nearly one million and a half, were in danger of falling into the hands of the foe. On this occasion the Treasury Bench did not court an enquiry; on the contrary its members took refuge under shelter of the previous question.

It was at the same time his declared opinion, that a treaty should take place with, and fair terms be offered, to France, by whatever form of rule she might chance to be governed. In pursuance of this he strenuously insisted on the policy of negociating either with the Directorial or the Consular Authorities; and when Bonaparte, after overturning both in succession, had assumed the supreme command, and presumed to address a letter to the King of England, in which he affected a most ardent desire to terminate hostilities, and the further. effusion of blood; Mr. Whitbread, in open spare Parliament, disagreed with Mr. Dundas*, then Secretary of State, on the propriety of discountenancing these overtures. That minister, having moved an address to the throne in 1800, for the purpose of approving the conduct of His Majesty's government; he seized that opportunity of once more making an explicit avowal of his political sentiments:

"Mr. Speaker-Having been always of opinion that this war might have been avoided in the first instance, and having uniformly opposed its progress, whenever occasion offered, I cannot refrain from delivering my sentiments on the subject of the present negociation. The Right Honourable Secretary has set off artfully enough, by calling the attention of the House to all those enormities which had taken place since the commencement of the French revolution; and asking if any person would now justify it? For my part I have ever maintained but one opinion on the subject; and I am free to say, that had it not been for the interference, the folly, and ambition of the other powers of Europe, the French revolution would, at this time, have borne a very different complexion; but every attempt to repress its evils has only disseminated them wider. Added to all this, a worse effect has followed, which is the extinction of liberty in almost every part of Europe, under the pretext of counteracting the licentious principles of France.

"The right honourable gentleman has remarked, that from the commencement of the revolution France had shewn a sove

The first Viscount Melville.

reign contempt of treaties; and, within these ten years past, has been at war with almost every state in Europe. In saying this the right honourable gentleman has only pronounced his own panegyric; for he has informed the House that he thought it his duty to invite every power in Europe to unite in one common cause against France, the common enemy of mankind. In this he succeeded; but whether from want of good faith, ability, or power, the views of the allies have been frustrated, and the French revolution has always risen superior to their adverse endeavours.

"The right honourable gentleman objects highly to the conduct of the French rulers in respect to neutral nations; but does he not recollect the conduct of Prussia towards Hamburgh? Does he forget Lord Hervey and Lord Hood, who ordered the French ministers to be dismissed from Florence? Does he forget Mr. Drake at Genoa, and the threats which induced that neutral power to dismiss her French inhabitants?

"There certainly was a great oversight committed by the right honourable gentleman, in complaining so much of the French for that very crime in which we ourselves were equally involved.

"The want of good faith had been alleged as a reason for not negociating with France. I should be glad to know if His Majesty's ministers have always acted upon principles of good faith in their former negociations with that country?

"The jacobin government existing at the time of Lord Malmesbury's embassy, was no obstacle to a negociation in the estimation of his lordship, or of those who sent him. He was not commissioned to insist on a renunciation upon their part of existing principles, or on acknowledgments tending to their own crimination. Yet without these essentials, these preliminaries, his lordship expected good faith on their part to any treaty that might have been concluded; otherwise his attempt at negociation could not have been sincere. But how did the present professions of ministers agree with this their past conduct? or how could the declaration of His Majesty be at all justified, unless we clearly understand that even a jacobin

government may be treated with on principles of reciprocal good faith? For His Majesty, even at a time when the country was elated by the victory of Lord Duncan, had declared his pacific wishes to the French nation.

"Things, however, were now changed; and His Majesty's ministers had abandoned the idea of treating with a jacobin government, though it had been before no interdicted thing; for His Majesty had fairly and fully declared that he was ready to negociate with such a government. Two attempts were made to this effect; nor were the French to be justified for any share they might have in rendering them ineffectual.

"In the second negociation at Lisle one set of plenipotentiaries was recalled, and a more jacobinical set sent in their places: still no objection was started to further negociation; but His Majesty declared in the face of all Europe that he was ready to conclude a treaty with them, if their overtures had been at all reconcilable to the honour and interests of his subjects and his allies.

“A revolution in France now puts in power one person instead of five. That person thinks proper to make overtures to His Majesty; and this he does in a manner agreeable to the rights of civilized nations, and in no way incompatible with that respect which is due from one crowned head to another. In saying crowned head, Mr. Whitbread disclaimed every intention on his part of softening, by any terms, whatever crime attached to the first consul of France in his late assumption of

power.

"His power, however attained, if once consolidated, must, he said, be respected as well as the most legitimate. But, as it now precariously stood, the House was called upon to consider on the propriety of negociation; to discountenance which many arguments had been drawn from the character of the first consul, who was represented both as an infractor of treaties, and an unprincipled blasphemer. Every topic that could revile, and every art that could blacken, had been resorted to, for the purposes of political slander; and he was very sorry to see that the intercepted correspondence, strengthened and embellished

with notes, and, perhaps too, garbled, had made its appearance with a view to prejudice the country against the chief consul, and thereby to set at a distance every hope of a negociation for peace.

"It had been said by the right honourable gentleman, that since Bonaparte had been known to mankind, in no one instance had he ever observed a treaty, or kept an armistice. But before attention was paid to such vague assertion, or the House came to any conclusion, they should turn their eyes to matter of fact. It was not general declamation alone that should influence persons to vote for the proposed address. If assertions had been made which were not true, the House should beware of reposing any further confidence in those who had misled them.

"It was well known that the preliminaries of Leoben were not broken, or the peace with Austria infringed, by Bonaparte; for before these events took place, he had left Europe. Even by any influence in the councils of France he could not be supposed to have had a hand in the infractions of those treaties.

"The conduct of Bonaparte at Venice Mr. Whitbread did not attempt to defend, any more than he did that of Austria. They were both alike culpable; and both, so far as their transactions at Venice went, equally unworthy of being treated with. France at all times had been notorious for her want of faith in keeping treaties; but it was known also that other governments kept them no longer than they were found beneficial. England was now smarting under the treachery of Prussia, who took a subsidy from this country, and then ran away from her engagements. England,' however, was said to be actuated by nobler views, and to respect and adhere firmly to treaties.

66

"I will now demand of His Majesty's ministers whether they have not endeavoured repeatedly to provoke Austria and Prussia to an infraction of their treaties? Their charity he was afraid, in this instance began at home. This general charge of want of good faith he did not mean as any justification of the violation of treaties; but to shew that if ministers would treat with

1