on the tyrant Louis. They hope to frighten us. But no! a people who has made itself free; a people who has driven out of the bosom of France, and as far as the distant borders of the Rhine, the terrible army of the Prussians and Austrians; the people of France will not suffer laws to be dictated to them by a tyrant. The king and his parliament mean to make war against us! Will the English republicans suffer it? Already these freemen shew their discontent, and the repugnance which they have to bear arms against their brothers, the French. Well! we will fly to their succour; we will make a descent on the island; we will lodge there fifty thousand caps of liberty; we will plant there the sacred tree; and we will stretch out our arms to our republican brethren: the tyranny of their government will soon be destroyed. Let every one of us be strongly impressed with this idea.— MONGE."-Such is the declaration of the sentiments of the minister of marine: a declaration which separates not only the king, but the king and parliament of Great Bri tain from the people who are called republicans. What faith can be put in assurances given on the part of France by M. CHAUVELIN, on the 27th of December, when in four days after, we find the minister of marine writing such a letter? It was to be hoped we might have seen reasons, perhaps, in consequence of friendly explanations, for not going to war. But such explanations as this communication contains have been justly rejected. I fhall not detain the House longer on this subject.

"I shall state now what appears to be the state of the negociation. I take the conduct of France to be inconsistent with the peace and liberty of Europe. They have not given us satisfaction with respect to the question in issue. It is true, what they call explanations have taken place; but their principles, and the whole manner of

their conduct, are such that no faith can be put in their declarations. Their conduct gives the lie to their public professions; and instead of giving satisfaction on the different articles, on which you have a right to claim a clear and precise explanation, and shewing any desire to abandon those views of conquest and aggrandizement, to return within their ancient limits, and to set barriers to the progress of their destructive arms, and to their principles still more destructive; instead of doing so, they have given-explanations I cannot call them, but an avowal of those very things you complain of. And in the last paper from M. CHAUVELIN, which may therefore be considered as the ultimatum, are these words: "After so frank a declaration, which manifests such a sincere desire of peace, his Britannic Majesty's ministers ought not to have any doubts with regard to the intentions of France. If her explanations appear insufficient, and if we are still obliged to hear a haughty language; if hostile preparations are continued in the English ports, after having exhausted every means to preserve peace, we will prepare for war, with the sense of the justice of our cause, and of our efforts to avoid this extremity. We will fight the English, whom we esteem, with regret, but we will fight them without fear.""This is an ultimatum to which you cannot accede. They have neither withdrawn their armies from the neighbouring nations, nor shewn the least disposition to withdraw them. If France is really desirous of maintaining friendship and peace with England, she must shew herself disposed to renounce her views of aggression and aggrandizement, and to confine herself within her own territority, without insulting other governments, without disturbing their tranquility, without violating their rights. And unless she consent to these terms, whatever may be our wishes for peace, the final

iffue must be war. As to the time, as to the moment when war is to commence, if there is yet any possibility of satisfactory explanation, and security for the future, it is not to the last moment precluded. But I should disguise my sentiments to the House, if I stated, that I thought it in any degree probable. This country has always been desirous of peace. We desire it still, but such as may be real and solid, and consistent with the interests and dignity of Britain, and with the general security of Europe. War, whenever it comes, will be preferable to peace without honor, without security, and which is incompatible either with the external safety, or the internal happiness of this country.

"I have endeavoured to comprehend as much as possible, though I am sensible I have left a great deal untouched. If any topic fhould afterwards arise, I trust I shall meet with the indulgence of the House in stating it. I fhall now move, "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, to return his Majesty the thanks of this House for his most gracious message, and the communication of the papers, which by his Majesty's command have been laid before us.

"To offer his Majesty our heart-felt condolence on the atrocious act lately perpetrated at Paris, which must be viewed by every nation in Europe as an outrage on religion, justice, and humanity, and as a striking and dreadful example of the effects of principles which lead to the violation of the most sacred duties, and are utterly subversive of the peace and order of all civil society.

"To represent to his Majefty, that it is impossible for us not to be sensible of the views of aggrandizement and ambition which, in violation of repeated and solemn professions, have been openly manifested on the part of France, and which are connected with the propagation

of

of principles incompatible with the existence of all just and regular government; that under the prefent circum stances, we consider a vigorous and effectual opposition to those views, as essential to the security of every thing that is most dear and valuable to us as a nation, and to the future tranquillity and safety of all other coun

tries.

"That impressed with these sentiments, we shall, with the utmost zeal and alacrity, afford his Majesty the most effectual assistance, to enable his Majesty to make a further augmentation of his forces by sea and land, and to act as circumstances may require in the present important conjuncture, for maintaining the security and honor of his crown, for supporting the just rights of his allies, and for preserving to his people the undisturbed enjoyment of the blessings, which, under the divine Providence, they receive from the British constitution.”

Mr. Fox faid, "that although some words had fallen from the right honourable gentleman [Mr. PITT] which might lead him to think that war was not absolutely determined upon, yet the general tenor and impression of his speech was such as to induce him to enter somewhat at large into the subject-as to convince him that there never was a time when the duty, not merely to his immediate constituents, but to the whole people of Great Britain, of whom the members of that House were indivi. dually and collectively the virtual representatives, more imperiously called upon him, and upon every man, to speak out and declare his sentiments frankly and fairly. The misrepresentations and misconstructions of what he and those who thought as he did, had already said in the course of the present session, left him no room to doubt, that what he now must say, would be equally, and perhaps as successfully misrepresented and misconstrued. This

only served to shew, that they were only on a service of honor as well as danger; but if misreprefentation and calumny were to deter him from delivering opinions, because they might be unpopular, from deprecating a war with France, as an evil to be avoided by every possible means consistent with the honor and safety of us and our allies, he should basely betray his trust to his constituents and his country.

"The right honorable gentleman had introduced the several grounds of dispute with France, ably and accurately; but the reasons for going to war, he did not mean to say for arming, had not been very accurately treated. The crimes, the murders, and the massacres that had been committed in France, he did not view with less horror, he did not consider as less atrocious than those who made them the perpetual theme of their declamation, although he put them entirely out of the question in the present debate. The condemnation and execution of the king he pronounced an act as disgraceful as any that history recorded; and whatever opinions he might at any time have expressed in private conversation, he had expressed none certainly in that House, on the justice of bringing kings to trial; revenge being unjustifiable, and punishment useless, where it could not operate either by way of prevention or example; he did not view with less detestation the injustice and inhumanity that had been committed towards that unhappy monarch. Not only were the rules of criminal justice, rules that more than any other ought to be strictly observed, violated with respect to him; not only was he tried and condemned, without any existing law to which he was personally amenable, and even contrary to laws which did actually exist, but the degrading circumstances of his imprisonment, the unnecessary and insulting asperity with which he had been

treated,