war. how to avert still greater evils, to cut off the entail of human misery, but by persevering in hostility against a power which sought the dominion, and with that, the destruction of the world. Besides these most important considerations, there were other reasons which powerfully influenced him in wishing for peace. He was personally interested, as were those other persons, who, with him, formed the administration of the country. By peace, they would be relieved from much labour, much anxiety, much personal responsibility; but this must be a peace with all the attributes of peace. Until he could tell Europe, that he saw in the temper and conduct of the enemy the return of mo, deration and of good principles, he must prefer war. Nor did he doubt but these were the sentiments of the majority of that House. He was not apprehensive, therefore, that the motion he should presently submit would meet with material opposi tion. In substance, that motion would give to his majesty a pledge of the unalterable affection of that House, while the continued support of parliament, the assurances of the zeal and unanimity of his people would yield that animating sanction to perseverance and to constancy, which must give energy and effect to such measures as may be adopted to conduct the great contest to a safe and honourable conclusion. dresses, laid at the foot of the throne the demonstrations of their perfect acquiescence in the propriety of those measures which the servants of the crown had thought it most consistent with the real interests of the country, to recommend and adopt. Unfortunately, the same necessity still existed for persevering in the contest. Nothing in the state and posture of the affairs of Europe admitted of a rational hope that for this country, or for Europe there was any security but in It was not possible to have made the study of the present condition of the world a principal care, without perceiv. ing that a hostile mind still pervaded the whole conduct of the enemy. From the documents on their lordships table, it was obvious, that the same proneness to aggression, the same disregard to justice, still actuated the conduct of the men who rule in France. Under such circumstances, there could be no security for Europe in peace. Peace with a nation whose war was made against all order, all religion, all morality, would be rather a cessation of resistance to wrong, than a suspension of arms in the nature of ordinary warfare. Hence it was incumbent to persevere with increased vigour in the contest. It was incumbent on their lordships to renew that night the pledge of their support of his majesty's crown, and of the dearest and best interests of Englishmen. No man could read the papers on the table, There were two principles material to coupled with the real conduct and appa- the question, which directly resulted from rent views of France, without feeling that this statement, and which must form the it was in war, that the great civil commu- basis of all discussion on it. The first nity of Europe were to find security. was, that France still retained those senThere was then no course for the House to timents, and showed that constancy to take, but to support his majesty in the those views, which characterised the dawn prosecution of those measures of just de- of her revolution. She was innovating, she fence which the nature of our situation is still so ;-she was Jacobin, she is still so ; required. But though he could see no -she was faithless to treaty, she is still so; wise course to pursue, but war, he never--she declared war against all kings, she theless felt that peace might be, would indeed be, a blessing. To negotiate with established governments, was formerly not merely easy, but under most circumstances safe;-to negotiate with the gogovernment of France now, would be to incur all the risks of an uncertain truce, without attaining the benefits even of a temporary peace. Yet; were it not in contradiction to all experience, to believe, that a peace with that republic is attain able and safe, so much did he lament the miseries of war, that he would try negociation. He deplored the sufferings of the nations of Europe, but he knew not continues to seek the destruction of all kings. But he would state the facts, and their lordships would judge of the exactness of his conclusions. Before doing this, it was more in order to state the second principle from whence to reason: and that was, that no safe, honourable, and permanent peace could be made with France, in her present situation, and with her present rulers. Now, what were the facts on which the first of these principles rested for proof and support? The whole history of a war provoked by the ambition and restless spirit of France, and continued in order to check her devas tating progress, may be read instructively for documents and facts. We were, however, to reason from past experience and from present appearances. In the note of M. Talleyrand we found it asserted, that," from the commencement of the revolution, the republic solemnly proclaimed her love of peace, her disinclination to conquests, and her respect for the independence of all governments." Those were the words of the French minister in the note on their lordships' table; but how stood the facts? "Solemnly proclaimed her love of peace," and yet this love of peace, so solemnly proclaimed, was manifested in being at war in the course of eight years with every nation in Europe, except two, Sweden and Denmark, and next to being at war with America. Was it in this that their lordships would find it proved that France had changed her sentiments, and adopted pacific views? If love of peace were eagerness for war, then might M. Talleyrand well urge it in favour of his government, that the republic solemnly proclaimed her love of peace. But not only was the republic at war with all the nations of Europe, except the two already named, but is at this moment, if not at war, at least on terms of threatening hostility with one of those two states. Their lordships would conjecture that he here alluded to Sweden, whose ambassador recently quitted the metropolis of the republic with precipitation, and the probability of his being replaced was very doubtful. On the other hand, if war has not been formerly declared by France against those two northern powers, their subjects, and the commerce carried on by them, have suffered in aggravated instances from the cruizers of the republic, a series ofinjuries, ofinsults, and injustice; tolerable in war, because common to it; but most intolerable in peace, because directly repugnant to the principles of any just peace or recognized neutrality.-He had already remarked, that even America could not escape that ravaging republic. The fact had indeed been, that next to a state of active and inveterate war, was the state of those two republics for a long time. Then surely it was not in those facts that noble lords were to look for proofs that the principles and views of the republic were at length changed from wild, anarchic, and destructive hostility, to a system of justice and love of order. These, however, were not the only facts he had to state as proofs of the hostile mind of France. The war was an aggression in its origin. No single act of their government was free from the direct charge of meditated oppression, or matured contempt for the laws of nations and the rights of individuals. Would any man state, that the original character of the republic is changed, that security for peace is to be seen in their more recent declarations and conduct? But how is it with this other assertion in the note of their minister, "The republic proclaimcd her disinclination to conquest." She did; and we have accordingly seen her march her armies to the Rhine, seize the Netherlands, and annex them to the republic. Have we not witnessed her progress in Italy? Are not the wrongs of Switzerland recent and marked? Do we in those transactions discover that disinclination to conquest which the republic proclaims? But it is not in Europe only that France has developed her plan of dominion and her projects of conquest. Even into Asia has she carried her arms, and separated from the Porte a vast portion of its empire. "The republic proclaimed her respect for the independence of all governments." We had here a very important inquiry, on entering upon which it was right to observe, that nations at war, might, in many cases, respect the independence of other nations. It is not necessarily the condition on which new provinces are conquered, that the conqueror shall violate the independence of those provinces. States may, indeed, change their rulers, but the form and spirit of the general and established institutions may be respected and preserved. Hence could the right of France to extend her line of territory by conquest be admitted, still would it be a violation by her of the laws and rights of nations not to respect the independence of other states. But, with the right of conquest denied her (for how could a government, itself an usurpation, possess that right), her interference in the internal government of other nations added to the criminality of her conduct. Did not Jacobin France attempt the overthrow of every government? Did not Jacobin France arm governors against the governed; and when her politics suited it, did not she arm the governed against the governors? What had been her conduct in Switzerland? In Italy the whole scheme of civil society was changed, and the independence of every government violated. The Netherlands, too, exhibit to mankind | sumed the command of her armies; and, monuments of the awful veneration with to give permanence to the usurpation, imwhich the republic has regarded the in- posed on her a government not new merely dependence of other states? Was it part in form but in name. If again armistice of the system formed to give permanence has been followed by negotiation for peace, to their abhorrence of all interference with negotiation for peace has seldom been the internal government of other coun- productive of much else than protracted tries, to their respect for the independence ruin, or has been the prelude to more deof all other nations, to publish their me- structive war. The history of her negomorable decree of November 1792? That tiations was the history of wickedness, decree had not slept a dead letter on their the record of crimes. It was the teeming statute book. No, it was still the active annals of hollow, deep, inflexible perfidy, energetic principle of their whole conduct, of treaties made to be violated without and the whole world was interested in the shame, and of alliances formed to be extinction of that principle for ever. He outraged without Through claimed it, therefore, as the fair result of all Europe these truths were acknowthe facts he had adduced, that the asser- ledged, because through all Europe the tions of the minister of France were con- effects had been felt, and deprecated, of tradicted and proved to be false, by a re- the terrible wreck of thrones and the ference to the events of the war, and to overthrow of states, which were the issues the history of the rise and progress of the of French alliance and the pledges of revolution. The House must have felt, French faith. The grand duke of Tuscany that every fact tended directly to prove was among the early sufferers by a treaty that no change had taken place in the sen- of peace with the republic. In every thing timents and views of the government of that abused prince strove to conform his France. How truly the second principle conduct to the views of France; but the was founded on just conceptions of the train had been laid, and, at a moment views and conduct of the republic, would when the honour of the republic was appear presently. It would appear, "that pledged for the security of his state, he no safe, honourable, and permanent peace saw the troops of his ally enter his capital, could be made with France in her present the governor of Florence imprisoned, his situation, and with her present rulers." subjects in a state of rebellion, and himThe proofs in this case were numerous. self about to be exiled from his dominions. Every power with whom the republic had It was to this prince, however, that the treated, whether for armistice or for republic repeated her assurances of attachpeace, could furnish melancholy instances ment; but the republic that sought not of the perfidy of France, and of the am- conquest, that would not interfere with bition, injustice, and cruelty of her rulers. the government of other states, deposed Did she agree to a suspension of arms, it the sovereign, and gave a democracy to was in order to be admitted into the state the Florentines! The king of Sardinia of the negotiating prince, that she might opened the gates of his capital to the rethe more successfully undermine his publican arms, and, confiding in the intethrone, by corrupting the principles of grity of the French government, expected his subjects. In no stage of their pro- to find his possessions guaranteed by the gress have her generals disguised that treaty which recognized his title and his they entered neighbouring countries only rights, and which guaranteed to France to despoil the rich of their inheritances; adequate advantages. He was forced to and even poverty itself has been stripped resign his continental dominions, while of her rags, of those relics of wretchedness Turin was treacherously taken possession of which the storm had not quite torn away, by the republicans. History would record that the republic might yet persevere in these events with the minuteness which her war of extermination to all people and belong to them, and in that succession in to all kings. The fate of Switzerland was which, to the misfortune of all nations, in the recollection of noble lords. Swit- they opened on mankind. The change of zerland concluded a truce with the repub- the papal government was part of that lic; the republic excited insurrections in system. It was schemed by Joseph BuoSwitzerland; overthrew her institutions; naparte in his palace; and after that amoppressed her people with contributions; bassador had excited an insurrection, we degraded, deposed, or exiled her magis- saw the revolution effected by him at the tracy; seized on her strong places; as-head of the Roman mob. In the exam ple of Naples was displayed the same contempt of the laws of war and of the rights of peace. The king of that state might have hoped, that towards him the faith of treaty would be observed; for he had done nothing to provoke the wrath, or excite the cupidity of the republic. It was true, indeed, that a war had broken out between that prince and the Roman republic; but was there a man living who doubted but that that republic, in itself, neither inclined nor prepared to commence a war, was instigated by France to provoke hostilities? The subsequent events of the war most fully proved that France was in reality the author of it! for no sooner did the armies of these two states take the field, than the republicans joined the troops of Rome, and, not satisfied with defending the capitol, carried their destroying arms into the heart of Naples. Fortunately, those sovereigns had regained their dominions; but so deep had the principles of anarchy and disloyalty been every where sown, that not even at this hour were the states of Italy in possession of half the comforts of peace; nay, it might be feared, that they experienced rather those hardships which are the concomitants of war. Prussia could not be fairly said to have sustained no infraction of the rights of peace, though Prussia might possibly be considered as having peculiarly shared the tender solicitude of the republic, to avoid war. It was five years since France and the court of Berlin ceased to be enemies in the field; but those who knew what was the sensation produced at that court at the time, could clearly see an infraction of the faith of treaty in the proceedings of France towards Hamburgh. In this city, whose independence Prussia guarantees, the agents of the republic levied large contributions; and all Europe must be convinced that Prussia regarded such conduct as a violation of the pledged friendship of France. Look at Holland and Spain, her allies, or rather her tributaries: how had her treaties with them been observed? The privateers and armed vessels of the republic, that swarm of Buccaneers fitted out to pirate the trade of the whole world, took and carried into the ports of France the vessels of those friendly powers. This was not all; for, in contempt of the acknowledged law of nations, the republic decreed the property of the subjects of her allies lawful prizes, and, to fill the measure of injustice, even appointed consuls in the ports of those very states to regulate the commerce in captured commodities-in the commodities of an allied republic, and an allied kingdom! Reverting to the intercourse of the republic with the states of the empire, the same want of faith was to be discovered through. out. The armistice concluded by the archduke with the general of the republic, was succeeded by the treaty of CampoFormio. And was this treaty better observed than any of those which went before? It generated the causes of the war which now rages for the second time through Europe. The republics of Italy that might have hoped to find some indulgence from the republicans of France, were next outraged and overthrown by the same arts which we saw successful against princes. After concluding the business of the armistice with the Emperor, and the subsequent preliminaries to a treaty, the French directed their arms against Venice. Here they proclaimed that they came as deliverers, who would release them from the yoke of Austria, which, according to the French generals, had long insulted, betrayed, and oppressed the republican Venetians; but it was a mere proclamation: for in no long time was the republic raised by themselves annihilated, and Venice sold to that very emperor, whose vaunted aggressions and extortions afforded the original pretext for the inva sion of the French. Genoa received them as friends; and that the debt of gratitude might be paid in the style of the new school Genoa was revolutionized, and a new government hurried up, while, under the authority of a mock constitution, we saw the people plundered and the country pillaged. But, if injustice against princes and aristocracies forms part of the creed of the modern revolutionist, was justice better observed towards the republics raised especially under the wings of France her own offspring, and affiliated with her? Was it in any or in all these facts that noble lords saw the security to this country from a peace concluded with such a power? But it would be said, that those were not the acts ofFrance more than they were inevitably the result of a state of war. This was easily answered by a reference to the report of a principal member of the new government, who tells the committee of elders, that neither the revolutionary nor the constitutional government was capable of maintaining the relations of friendship and peace with the powers of Europe; that treaties (as with Austria) were only made to be broken; and that there was no security for Europe, or even the republic itself, while such a mass of absurdity, of folly, and error, continued to form the basis of the government. So much did the actors in the last revolution believe the statement of this reporter (Boulai de la Meurthe), that they founded their claims to the approbation and assent of the people of France, on the declaration, that their government is founded on a just view of those vices and defects, and on principles which are to stop the revolutions of the republican order. the king as the proper act of the king. The effect of this declaration was, however, but too soon felt by his imperial majesty: for in 1792, when the French invaded his dominions, so unprepared was he, that the Netherlands speedily fell into the hands of the republic. England not only did not mean to interfere with the internal affairs of France, but actually authorized her ministers on the continent to become the mediators between the powers at war. Even M. Chauvelin and M. Talleyrand admitted this. Here his lordship took a general view of the correspondence at that If, then, the declarations of the rulers period, and insisted, that in all respects it of France so entirely support all that his proved the aggression to have originated majesty's ministers have, from time to time, with France. He next took a view of the stated on the subject of war and peace, limited question of the practicability of what other course would wisdom bid Great negotiation at this time, and maintained Britain adopt, but to await the event of that the reception of our ambassador at things, to await the result of future expe- Paris and at Lisle, the final result of the rience, and not to enter on negotiation at negotiations there attempted, and the prea time when no one advantage can fairly sent temper and conduct of the governbe expected from it? To attempt to ne- ment of France, were such as not to wargotiate, would in fact be, to impeach all rant any man in considering negotiation former decisions, to libel the past decla- practicable. But suppose negotiation rations of that House, and the good practicable, were we quite sure that it sense and spirit of the people of England; would not be turned against us into an enbut, above all, it would betray the interests gine of destruction? Had not the same of our allies at a moment when the whole thing happened to other nations, and did world hails with impatience the renewal we all at once forget the sworn hatred of of that vigorous resistance to the aggres- the Jacobins against England? Here his sions of France, which has already pro-lordship commented with much success on duced such signal good, and which, under the blessing of God, may yet lead to the deliverance of Europe from the principles and the arms of the common enemy of man. Thus long he had detained their lordships attention to a mere statement of facts; and so conclusive did those facts appear to him, that he would not attempt to diversify their aspect by arguments. There had just occurred to him a topic which should have preceded much of what he had been stating. This was, the assertion in the note of M. Talleyrand, that this country was the original aggressor in the war. Here his lordship entered into the detail of that question, and reiterated the arguments of ministers to prove that France was the aggressor. He disclaimed all alliance and connexion with any power or powers whatever for the purpose of overthrowing the government of France, especially the pretended treaties of Pavia and Pilnitz: and observed, that so far was the Emperor from meditating such interfer ence, he expressly notified to all the courts of Europe, that he considered the acceptance of the new French constitution by the note of the French minister; and with |