immediately possessed of property, had as great an interest in the general protection and security of property, as he who was; and therefore he reprobated all those calls upon the particular exertions of men of property, as tending to excite the idea of an invidious distinction, which did not exist in fact. When the attack on France was called the cause of kings, it was not a very witty, but a sufficient reply, that opposing it might be called the cause of subjects. He imputed bad motives to no man, but when actions could not be explained on one motive, he had a right to attempt to explain them on another. If there were at present such a spirit in this country as in the beginning of the American war, what would be our conduct? To join the combined powers in their war on the internal government of France. He was happy that the public abhorrence of a war on such a motive was so great, that the right hon. gentleman felt himself called upon to disclaim it at great length. But how had ministers acted? They had taken advantage of the folly of the French they had negociated without proposing specific terms, and then broken off the negociation. At home they had alarmed the people that their own constitution was in danger, and they had made use of a melancholy event, which, however it might affect us as men, did not concern us as a nation, to inflame our passions and impel us to war; and now that we were at war, they durst not avow the causes of it, nor tell us on what terms peace might have been preserved. constitution, than all the writers who had scrutinized its defects. He hoped we neither had, nor should have, any treaty with the combined powers, unless our objects were specifically statedbut what might be the moment of discussing these objects? The moment of danger and alarm, with the powerful engine, fear, influencing their decision. He understood, by the promise in his majesty's speech, of employing firm and temperate measures-he understood first, remonstrance on the causes of complaint, then a specific demand of satisfaction, and an armament to give efficacy to both. On his hope of the first two he had voted for the third. The right hon. gentleman said we had received insults that ought not to have been borne for twenty-four hours. These were magnificent words. In the affair of Nootka Sound the aggression by Spain was as direct and unqualified as any that could be stated, and yet we had borne it for twenty-four days. Why was not the same course pursued now? He was now called upon, as a member of that House, to support his majesty in the war, for the war was begun, and he would do it; but he was not pledged to any of those crooked reasonings on which some gentlemen grounded their support of ministers, nor less bound to watch them, because, by their misconduct, we had been forced into a war, which both the dignity and the security of Great Britain would have been better consulted in avoiding. He was never sanguine on the success of war. It might be glorious to our army and our navy, and yet ruinous to the peoHe rejoiced to hear that we had no ple. The event of the last campaigntreaty with the emperor. If our motives procul absit omen-and the example of were now suspected, he hoped our future the American war, had taught him that conduct would be such as to put away we might be compelled to make peace on suspicion. If we joined the emperor and terms less advantageous than could have the king of Prussia, we must make com- been obtained without unsheathing the mon cause with them, or act always with sword; and if this might be the consethe jealousy and suspicion of parties, quence to us, the consequences to our either of whom might secure their own ally, the Dutch, must be such as he views by a separate peace at the expense would not suffer himself to anticipate. of the rest. When we found ourselves The ordering M. Chauvelin to depart the drawn into this common cause, we might kingdom, and the stopping the exportasay that we were forced to what we did tion of corn to France, when exportation not intend; but the fact would be, that we was allowed to other countries, were acts should be wasting the blood and treasure of hostility and provocation on our part; of the people of this country for an object which did not allow us to say, as the prowhich the people of this country dis-posed address said; that the war was an claimed to enable foreign armies to unprovoked aggression on the part of frame a government for France. Such France. Truth and justice were preferaan instance would furnish more argu-ble to high-sounding words, and therefore ments against the mechanism of our he should move an amendment, contain ing nothing that was not strictly true, and in voting which the House might be unanimous. Mr. Fox concluded with moving an amendment, by leaving out from the words "his most gracious message" to the end of the question, in order to insert these words :-" That we learn, with the utmost concern, that the assembly who now exercise the powers of government in France, have directed the commission of acts of hostility against the persons and property of his majesty's subjects, and that they have actually declared war against his majesty and the United Provinces: That we humbly beg leave to assure his majesty that his majesty's faithful Commons will exert themselves with the utmost zeal for the main tenance of the honour of his majesty's crown, and the vindication of the rights of his people; and that nothing shall be wanting on their part that can contribute to that firm and effectual support which his majesty has so much reason to expect from a brave and loyal people, in repelling every hostile attempt against this country, and in such other exertions as may be necessary to induce France to consent to such terms of pacification as may be consistent with the honour of his majesty's crown, the security of his allies, and the interest of his people," instead thereof. Mr. Secretary Dundas said, that he was certainly desirous of unanimity, but he could by no means agree to purchase it at the price of adopting the amendment, which, under the appearance of affording support to the executive government, seemed totally to take away the idea of any real intentions to do so. For what, was the tendency of that amendment, and of the arguments of the right hon. gentleman? It was no other than this, that they must now fight, because war was declared by France, but that they were about to engage in a war unjust and unprovoked. | Yet he seemed almost to admit, that the French had no justifiable cause for a declaration of war; for though he had made several observations on the recall of lord Gower, the Alien bill, and one or two other topics, he did not seem to consider them to be just causes of war. The right hon. gentleman, indeed, had dwelt rather longer on the subject of the ships sent to the Scheldt, but whatever on that head might have been alleged on the part of France, ministers were entitled to credit, when they solemnly asserted that that was done solely with the view to support our ally, the Dutch, whom they were bound to defend, and with no view to disturb the French in Belgium. With respect to the murder of the king, it had never been mentioned as affording a ground for war with France, though it surely afforded an illustration of the danger of French principles, and to what length they would go, if not successfully opposed. The dismission of M. Chauvelin had been adverted to and blamed, as putting a stop to negociation; but the fact was, that M. Chauvelin was not dismissed, till after he had demanded to be received and acknowledged by this Court, as accredited by the republic; and therefore it was clear, that that was not a measure whereby an end was put by us to conferences with unaccredited agents. As to the propriety or impropriety of re fusing to acknowledge or receive an accredited ambassador, he would not at present say any thing. Even after an embargo had been laid on our vessels by the French, his majesty's ministers had listened to the proposal of M. Dumourier, which had been mentioned by his right hon. friend, and had sent instructions to lord Auckland, to enter into a conference with him, The chain of reasoning made use of by the right hon. gentleman in the subsequent part of his speech, appeared to him most extraordinary; for it seemed to be so managed, as to leave him an opportunity afterwards of attributing the cause of the war, to a wish to interfere in the polity of France. The right hon. gentleman, at the same time that he supposed the emperor of Germany, the king of Prussia, the empress of Russia, and the king of Spain might wish to enjoy absolute power, had paid many compliments to the king of Great Britain, and supposed it was impossible, that after the experience of so many years, his wisdom, justice, and virtue, which were prominent features in his character, could induce him to desire despotic power: at the same time he observed, that he was but a man; that he might possibly become fond of greater power, because he might be so advised by his ministers; and it was pretty broadly hinted at the same time, that his ministers had persuaded him to this war. But could ministers, Mr. Dundas asked, have any influence in producing that conduct on the part of France which was the cause of the war? By aggression, the right hon. gentleman had said, you provoke France to war, and in the progress of that war, you may contrive to ascribe it to a different cause from what is at present held forth. We complain of the decree of the 19th of November, and of the declaration respecting the Scheldt. The murder of the king of France is, no doubt, another ground of complaint, though we do not consider it as a cause of war. We complain also of the addresses from societies in this country being received in the manner they were by the Convention. These causes of complaint would not surely be attributed to ministers, nor would any person suppose that Barlow and Frost were sent by them to Paris. It had been urged, in explanation of the decree of the 19th of November, that France only offered her assistance and fraternity, when the whole country had agreed; in which case any assistance from them would be unnecessary; but at any rate, they reserved to themselves the power of judging when they would join an insurrection in any foreign country, the dangerous consequences of which must be apparent. Their answer on the business of the Scheldt was, that at the end of the war, they would leave the Belgians and Dutch to settle the matter betwixt themselves. Was that a way of talking on a matter solemnly settled and guaranteed by various existing treaties? But when were they to leave the matter to be settled by the Belgians? They were to do so, they said, whenever the Belgians shall have consolidated their liberty; that is, when under the influence of the French arms, they shall have adopted a constitution on the principles of their supposed liberty; or, in other words, when they shall have, in fact, become subject to France. That explanation the French had given as their ultimatum. M. Chauvelin, prior to his dismission, had demanded to be received as accredited from the republic. He had formerly been received as the ambassador of the murdered king; he had been treated with all proper respect. Whether, after the commission of that atrocious act, he could have been allowed to remain, and be received as accredited from the republic, he would leave to the feelings of gentlemen to determine. It had been said, that this was a war without an object, and that it was unjust and unnecessary. In answer to this, he would beg leave to refer to a paper delivered by lord Grenville to M. Chauvelin, in which, after stating certain matters which had given cause of offence to this country, a requisition is made, in the most distinct and precise terms, that France should renounce all views of aggrandizement; should confine herself within her own territories, and should desist from violating the rights of other nations. France has now made a declaration of war, and proceeded to hostilities against this country, without any offence on our part, and without previous notice. As to the supposed treaty with the emperor, which had been talked of; although he had stated, that there was no such treaty existing in January, he hoped, he should not be so far misunderstood as to lead to a supposition, that his majesty's ministers would not now endeavour to bring down every power on earth, to assist them against France. With respect to the proclamation, prohibiting the sending corn to France, it did not originate from any necessities of this country, but was a necessary measure of precaution for the purpose of crippling the French. The right hon. gentleman had observed, that his amendment was very innocent, and that every gentleman in the House might safely vote it. Mr. Dundas said it was so innocent, that it would be very pernicious, by withholding the approbation of the House, in the present crisis, to the measures of government. They were going to war, because war had been declared by France, without any provocation on the part of Great Britain, in violation of the law of nations, and contrary to the most solemn engagements of treaties. They were going to war to seeure the best interests of this country, by effectually opposing a set of principles which, unless they were crushed, would necessarily occasion the destruction of this and of every other country. Mr. P. C. Windham supported the amendment. He thought there was something very mysterious in the present war, and that ministers were much to blame. They had made no allowance for the novelty of that situation in which France was placed. He declared that he should vote for the amendment, though in a minority of only five. Mr. Burke began with declaring, that, in his opinion, his majesty's ministers had so clearly, so satisfactorily, and so completely justified their conduct in regard to the war, that he thought it unnecessary to add any thing in vindication of that measure. So much, however, had been thrown out, in the course of the speech of the right hon. gentleman touching the acknowledged policy and fundamental principles of that House, that, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, and his own want of strength, he had to request the attention of the House. It must have occurred to a gentleman possessing such clear, perceptive powers, as the right hon. gentleman who moved the amendment, that an attempt to reconcile discordant parts, and connect contradictory opinions, served only to confound them. The right hon. gentleman had, on a former occasion, lamented the smallness of his party, and it now seemed as if that party endeavoured to make amends for the smallness of their numbers by the discordancy of their voices. He imagined some of them would find it difficult to account for their conduct in opposing the measures of ministers on the present critical occasion. In their censures on France gentlemen had shown a great deal of dexterity; but it certainly had too much the appearance of stratagem. The right hon. gentleman had complained bitterly of the misrepresentation of his expressions in that House. To him it appeared very extraordinary how a person of talents, so clear, so powerful, and so perspicuous, could possibly be misunderstood-how a person who took so much pains by repetition, and going over the same grounds again and again, to bring his superior powers to the low level of the vulgar eye, could possibly be subject to misrepresentation-how a gentleman, whose friends out of doors neglected no human art to display his talents to their utmost advantage, and to detail his speeches to the public in such a manner, that he, though a close observer of the right hon. gentleman, had never been able to recollect a single idea of his that had escaped the industrious attention of his friends, while those of a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Windham), whose abilities were equal to his virtues, were so mangled and so confused, in the reports that were made of them, as to be utterly unintelligible to the public. That the right hon. gentleman should be misrepresented or misunderstood, under such circumstances, was hard indeed. The right hon. gentleman had said, that he hoped he was not reputed an advocate for France. To this he would say, that if the cause of France was an honest cause, it was justice to this country, and to mankind, to undertake her defence. The true skill of an advocate was, to put forward the strong part of his client's case, and gloss over or hide the weak; to exhibit all its right in the brightest point of view, and palliate the wrong; when he could no longer palliate, to contrive that the punishment should be as slight as possible, or to bring his writ of error, and by every quirk evade it as well as he could; and no man possessed that power in a greater degree than the right hon. gentleman. To his speeches he always attended with admiration and respect. That which he had just heard he could not help estimating less highly, seeing that he had read every part of it in Brissot's speeches in the National Convention, one part only excepted, and that was the part in which the right hon. gentleman had asserted, "that France had used every means to conciliate the regards and good will of Great Britain." The right hon. gentleman had taken great pains to acquit himself, and apologise for his vehement endeavours to exculpate France from the charge of aggression. He professed that he was almost at a loss to see what it was that made him so prompt to exculpation. If France meant nothing but what was right, and England nothing but what was wrong, he certainly owed no apology for the part he had taken in her cause. But to take the right hon. gentleman's speech in a serious view, it insinuated that the charge of the French was, that the king of Great Britain had determined on war against the sense of his ministers, against the sense of the parliament, and against the sense of the people, in order to augment his own power. If this was the case, ministers had betrayed their country by their acquiescence, and it was the duty of the House to address the king to remove them, and put into their places those whom they thought more fit for advice, more fit to do the duty of a minister, and more likely to possess the confidence of the nation, if such there were.—The right hon. gentleman had contended, that when ministers brought the nation into a war, they should declare how they intended to prosecute it, to what length they intended to carry it, and what the object of it was. For his part, he had never heard or read of any such principle, or of any such practice. The first question he conceived to be, was, whether there was just cause or foundation for the war? The second, how it should be carried on to the greatest effect? He said, that in no instance whatever had any power, at the commencement of a war, declared what period was intended to end it, what means to carry it on, or what the object of it was. It was contrary to the policy of this and every other country; it was never heard of. In this, and in every case of the kind, the common object of the alliance should be pursued to gain the grand end. War had been declared by the French; but they had not declared that they did not intend the ruin, the destruction, and total subversion of this country and every establishment in it. Was it pretended that they had done, in declaring war, that which gentlemen had prescribed as the duty of this country? No; they declared war with the professed intention to bring it, in the most formidable shape, attended with insurrection and anarchy, into the bowels of this country, to strike at the head of the stadtholder, and to put no limits to their views in the war; while gentlemen would have Britain cramped and tied by a premature declaration of her object. As to the sentiments of the right hon. gentleman respecting the declaration of a specific object of the war, as well as the delicacy of interfering in the internal government of France, were they adopted by the House, this should be their language" France! you have endeavoured to destroy the repose of all the countries of Europe, and particularly of England: you have reduced your own country to anarchy and ruin, and murdered your king; nevertheless, you may be assured, that, however horrible your crimes, though to the murder of your king you should add that of his infant son, his unfortunate queen and sister, and the whole remains of his family, not one hair of your heads shall be hurt. You may war against us, threaten us with destruction, and bring ruin to our very doors; yet shall you not be injured." Was ever, he exclaimed, such a declaration made in such circumstances? Much pains had been taken by the right hon. gentleman to make light of the power of France, and to persuade the House that there was nothing to be feared from it. He would answer this by showing what the right hon. gentleman had said on a former occasion. Here Mr. Burke began to read a part of a speech spoken by Mr. Fox on the com mercial treaty, strongly demonstrative of the necessity of keeping down the overgrown power of France-[The Speaker called Mr. Burke to order; it being disorderly to read any debate on a former occasion. Mr. Burke said he would beg leave to read from a pamphlet in his hand. The House called Read! read! Here he read from a speech of Mr. Fox, that the effect of all our wars had been carried on with a view to repress the power of France, and to support all the other powers of Europe against her; that France only changed her means, but that her ends were ever the same.-The Speaker again interrupted Mr. Burke, and requested that he would abstain from reading, as he knew it was against the orders of the House.] Mr. Burke said, he could not but lament that the rules of the House sometimes weakened the force of argument; but he considered order to be so far more necessary than argument, that he would willingly forego the latter to maintain the former. To return, therefore, to his argument, without the conclusive aid he should derive from tha right hon. gentleman's own language, in the book in his hand, he contended, that the whole body of policy of this country for ages was, that whatever country was the enemy of France was naturally the ally of Great Britain. If that opinion was founded in true policy before the revolution, what reason was there to alter that opinion since? If the new republic has shown no disposition to increase her dominions, if she has not annexed Savoy, Avignon, Liege, Nice, &c., to her territorial possessions, if she has not declared war against all subsisting governments, and confiscated the properties of all corporations, if she has not held out the mask of confraternity as a signal and temptation to rebellion in all countries, but particularly in England, then statesmen have a right to change their opinions and systems of policy with respect to her. Unlimited monarchy, the right hon. gentleman had said, was the object against which France directed the shafts of her enmity. But he would be glad to know whether gentlemen would pretend to say that she was a friend to limited monarchy. No; she was an enemy to limited monarchy, as monarchy, and to the limitation, as limitation. The aristocracy of this country, all corporations, all bodies, whether civil or ecclesiastic, were the objects of her |