surrection on the part of the people was not only a right, but a sacred duty; the consequence was, that if the principles were adopted, there would be an end of the stability of all governments, and consequently there would be an end to the peace and order of society. Nothing could equal the wickedness of the principles of the French revolution, but their complete disregard of them, whenever their interest required that they should abandon them. Thus, though they asserted, that sovereign power necessarily resided in every people, the Convention had annulled the elections of representatives made by the people of the Netherlands, ordered them to proceed to new elections, directed that the French troops should be called out at the time, no doubt for the purpose of securing the freedom of voting, and lastly, that in case of any contested return, the French commander in chief should finally decide the question. Such were the principles that the French were absurd enough to think they could get the people of England to adopt. As to the war in which we were now engaged, when he looked at the means of both countries to carry it on, he could not help looking forward with the most sanguine hopes of success. The noble lord concluded with moving an address similar to that moved this day by Mr. Pitt, in the House of Commons. [See p. 360.] he thought, a question upon which they could now deliberate. If they were in the very zenith of their power, and attempted by the same means to propagate the same doctrines, he would be ready to incur all the dangers of the war; for he thought that we never were engaged in a war, upon the issue of which the very existence of the government of this country was so much at stake. Earl Stanhope said, it was too true that never was this country placed in so imminent a situation. It was, indeed, a most important question upon which they were now to decide; it was no less than whether that House was ready to pledge itself to the support of a war begun by our ministers, and in which we were the aggressors. It was trifling with the understanding of the nation to refine upon the ceremonies and the etiquette that had been so much indulged in this affair. What was the fact? By the second article of the treaty of 1786, it was expressly declared, that, in case of any subject of misunderstanding arising between the two nations, the sending away the ambassador of one of them should be deemed a rupture. A misunderstanding had taken place, upon which the two nations had corresponded, and M. Chauvelin was ordered away in the most ignominious manner. Here, then, was the rupture. He could not, therefore, in his conscience, say, that this was a groundless and unprovoked aggression by France, for he considered it to be a war brought upon us by our own ministers. They had begun it they had taken the very course prescribed by an existing treaty to begin it; and if it was desired that the na The Duke of Portland gave his most cordial assent to the address moved by the noble secretary; for the question was not about the probability of war, or about the means of avoiding it, but whether we should stand upon our own defence:tion should act with becoming vigour upon for the French had declared war. The part which we had to act was unavoidable, and he had no hesitation in saying, that he should give his firm support to a war, the object of which was, to resist doctrines that, in his opinion, went to the overthrow, not merely of all legitimate government, of the security of nations, of peace and order, but even of religion itself, and of every thing for which society was instituted. He pledged himself, therefore, to the support of the war into which we were plunged; declaring, at the same time, that he should not consider this as tending to prevent him from inquiring scrupulously into the conduct of ministers in the way in which they should carry it on. As to what might be the power of the enemy, it was not, the emergency, it was fit they should be told the truth; it was impossible to disguise the fact from Europe, or from posterity. He knew that he should be unpopular during the present phrenzy, by thus declaring his opinion; but though he would have been ready to stand the last hazard in a war, where real and essential injuries had been sustained, he could not, as an honest man, agree to sanction a war where we were the direct and sole aggressors. He charged his noble relation with not being correct in his facts. The legislature had not established the republic; it had been done by the Convention; and surely, if any assembly could ever be supposed to speak the sense of a whole people, it was the present Convention of France; for every man within the territories had a right to his majesty," and to substitute the following: "That, by directing the French ambassador to leave this kingdom, his majesty's ministers have (independently of repeated provocations) produced a rupture between this kingdom and France, inasmuch as, by the second article of the treaty of navigation and commerce, made in the year 1786, between Great Britain and France, it is expressly declared, that the sending away from either nation the ambassador of the other nation, shall be deemed a rupture between the two coun tries; and humbly to represent to his majesty, that, before this House can encourage his majesty to concur in measures for carrying on a war against France, this House humbly requests to be informed of the objects which his majesty proposes to obtain thereby." Lord Stormont complimented the noble duke who had seconded the address, and declared, that if any thing could have raised him still higher in his opinion, it was the manly avowal of those sentiments which had just now taken place. The House was nearly approaching the much to choose his representative. However no- | leave out all the words of the motion made ble lords might object to this mode of elec. by the noble secretary, after the words tion, they certainly could not say that an as-"That an humble address be presented sembly so elected did not speak the sense of the people. The noble lord said, that in going into this war, it seemed to be a principle not to compare our own strength against that of the enemy. We were to be plunged into it headlong, and yet the strength of the French was not an object to be despised. What were their resources? They had declared, what all the world felt to be the case, in every country, that the crown lands were the property of the nation. They have declared what most men conceive, and what, said the noble lord, I conceive is the case here and every where, that the church lands are in truth the property of the nation. I conceive it, my lords, for the simplest of all reasons; they differ from every other species of property; they are not of the nature or essence of property; they are a mere salary, and if a nation chooses, they may withdraw that salary as a nation may withdraw its appointments from any person or body which it chooses to do without. This was not all: they had done what America did in the case of the loyalists, and what we did in 1715 and 1745; they had confiscated the estates of the emi-wished-for point of unanimity; and, ingrants. They had by this means got possession of the property of 29,000 persons; it amounted to no less a sum than 192,000,000l. sterling, upon all which sum, the annual rents of which they are now in the receipt of, they might borrow money. A statement had been laid before the Convention, by which it appeared, that after all the expenses already incurred, and after all the expenses of 1793, they would still have of property in their hands, ready to be converted into the actual sinews of war, 152,000,000l. sterling,-finances such as neither this country, nor all the countries of Europe put together, could equal. Such is the ability of the enemy that we despise. He said, he was sure that the war might have been avoided; he was sure that it might even yet be avoided; and in this sentiment he deprecated the folly, the injustice, the insanity, of rashly declaring that the war was an aggression on the part of France, when it was indisputably the act of our own ministers. He would move an amendment, that would put truth into the address, and by the moving of which, he should at least discharge his own duty to his king and country. He concluded by moving, to deed, how could it be otherwise? A choice of situation was no longer left to us. France by the first act of aggression and hostility, had forced this country into a war. Were we to make a spirited and an early resistance, such as became a great nation, or tamely to expose our bosoms naked and defenceless to the sword which stood unsheathed to pierce us to the heart? Such a conduct would sink us from the happy and exalted station in which we now were placed, to the lowest level of French anarchy and disorder. The intentions of the French towards us had been sufficiently clear. They aimed at nothing less than the overthrow of the government. This was evident from their wish of establishing a national convention among us. Would any man affirm, that we were tamely to submit to this? If so, we sought peace even at the price of our destruction. We supplicated it on bended knees Oremus pacem,et dextras tendamus inermes. A national convention, if at any time convened, annihilated the existing legislature. But France, surely, in her present enfeebled and degraded condition, would never be able to accomplish that, to which the whole power of Louis 14th was incompetent. The distresses of that country were already immeasurable. One of them had said, that to prevent a scarcity of other provisions, they should live two days in the week on rice and potatoes. The noble earl had considered our dismission of their ambassador as an act of hostility, expressly so declared by the treaty of commerce. But was an ambassador not to be dismissed, even if he violated the law of nations, from the observance of which alone he was entitled to protection? Such circumstances might occur as would render such a step necessary and unavoidable; as in the case of count Gyllenburgh, ambassador from Sweden, in the reign of George 1st, whose papers were seized, and whose person was imprisoned. But France had committed the first act of hostility by the seizure of our vessels. This was a violation of the 19th article of the treaty of Utrecht, which was confirmed by the last treaty of Versailles. What was our of fence, complained of by France? That we had afforded protection to the refugees, a race of men driven to our hospitable shores by the adverse blasts of fortune. Were our bosoms to be steeled against every principle of compassion and were we not to be permitted to mitigate those sorrows which we could not effectually remove? The feeling was natural, and the impression irresistible Sunt lachrymæ rerum, et mentem mortalia tangunt. His lordship concluded by deprecating the progress of French principles. They were mischievous in the extreme, and therefore perfectly congenial to men who were the blasphemers of their God, and the murderers of their king. A combination of powers, exerting themselves to crush France, had been censured as an act of impolicy and injustice. But for his part, he should think himself justified in exciting every corner of Europe, in order to suppress that pestilential contagion of opinions, which would otherwise rage to the destruction of mankind. Nay, should we not be able to arrest their progress, rather than fall victims to so dreadful a calamity, he would pray, that an earthquake, or some other convulsion of nature, would bury these islands in the bosom of the deep, while the morals of the country remained pure, and its honour unsullied. The Earl of Lauderdale.-So much has been said respecting unanimity on the [VOL. XXX.] important subject of this night's debate, that I feel some difficulty in the manne of my address to the House. There is not one of your lordships who more ardently wishes for unanimity than myself, in every question that may respect the welfare of the country, the dignity of the crown, or the honour of your lordships. It is always unpleasant, and peculiarly so upon this occasion, to differ from the majority of this House, and what is of infinitely greater consequence, to differ, perhaps, from the majority of the people of England. If the public opinion was under no improper influence; if the minds of men had not been agitated by groundless fears; if the most designing arts had not been employed to warp their judgment; if the most interested and despicable characters had not too well succeeded in their impostures, I should feel myself perfectly safe in appealing to this or the most public tribunal, upon the necessity or policy of the war into which we are about to be plunged. But is there a man in Great Britain ignorant that the most wicked arts have been practised, to irritate and mislead the multitude? Have not hand-bills, wretched songs, infamous pamphlets, false and defamatory paragraphs in newspapers, been circulated with the greatest assiduity, all tending to rouse the indignation of this country against France, with whom it has been long determined, I fear, to go to war? To such low artifices are these mercenaries reduced, that they have both the folly and audacity to proclaim, that the New River water has been poisoned with arsenic by French emissaries. My lords, these tricks cannot long succeed. The jugglers are suspected, and the public will soon unveil their impostures. The language of the address appears to me to be very objectionable as far as respects the persons who exercise the executive power in France. Have not your lordships repeatedly charged the Convention with using low, indecent, and scurrilous language, when they alluded to the constitution or government of this country? A noble lord has cited passages from Condorcet and others, to prove their violence and want of decorum whenever they spoke of this country. If the noble lord was correct, let us beware of imitating bad examples. Let it not be said of us that we copy the French in nothing but their low and levelling epithets. Would to God your lordships kept yourselves at [2 E] a distance from their politics also! But here I shall be told that their proceed ings are adverse to us, and that they have commenced hostilities and are at open war with us. My lords, give yourselves the recollection of a moment, and say, upon your honour, who were the aggressors; who in fact, commenced hostilities. Did not the government of this country, in open violation of treaty, detain foreign corn in our ports destined for France, before they had given us the least provocation, much less a justifiable cause for this pointed outrage? Did you not, at the same time, suffer corn, and other things perhaps of more importance, to be transported to powers at open war with them, who had invaded their country, and who had threatened them with utter destruction? His majesty's ministers have not scrupled to say, that this embargo was laid to embarrass the enemy. I wish they had condescended to give us some instances wherein the French had at that time discovered their enmity to us. Although pressed to it again and again, we have had only vague surmises, instead of proof. But it is plain to demonstration, that the French were at that time treated by us as enemies, and that we had long determined to force them into hostilities to afford a pretext for our going to war with them. Another irrefragable proof that ministers were determined to involve the two countries in hostilities, is adduced from their conduct towards M. Chauvelin who had been sent here as ambassador of Louis 16th and could not be acknowledged at the British court in any other capacity. Fearing however, that his representations to the ministers might be inade public, and that this country should be convinced that it would be wise, or at least prudent, to enter into some sort of negociation with him, they cut the matter short, and, by virtue of the powers granted to them by the alien bill, he was peremptorily ordered to quit the country within eight days. The indecency of this measure is forgotten when we recollect that it was tantamount to a declaration of war against France. It is positively provided for by the commercial treaty, that if the ambassador shall be dismissed from either country, it shall be considered as an act of open hostility.-It has been said, that strangers in France are under the same restrictions that are imposed upon aliens in this country; and an allusion has been made to my personal expc rience upon this subject. I admit that strangers cannot travel through that country without a passport, and that the natives are in the same situation. But who has been obliged to apply to a mayor or custom house officer for a certificate before he can stir a step from the place of his landing? Who has afterwards been obliged to apply for a passport to enable him to go to the place of his destination, having previously undergone the severest examination respecting his most material concerns? Let any noble lord inform me, whether, when these ceremonies are complied with, a foreigner cannot change the place of his abode without obtaining a fresh passport; and whether it is not allowed to him to reside at a greater distance from Paris than fifty miles, and within ten miles of the coast? If all these things were so in France, still an insuperable objection remains to the alien bill; it makes an invidious distinction between Frenchmen and Englishmen: it puts the former into complete bondage without affecting the latter; whereas in France, and every other civilised country the government allows greater latitude of freedom to the stranger than the native. Although this bill had given great and just cause of complaint to the National Convention, and although they felt it as a direct attack upon their nation, yet they refrained from reprisals; they did not abridge the liberties of Englishmen ; they did not break off all communication with us, but authorized M. Maret to treat with our government, and to accede to almost any terms that should be imposed upon them. It would be useless to mention the reception he met with. He was ordered peremptorily to quit the country, and thus insult was added to insult. The same infatuation marked the proceedings of his majesty's ministers by the ambaesador in Holland. General Dumourier, who had been invested by the Executive Council of France, with full powers to treat with lord Auckland at the Hague, not only offered to enter into a negocia tion with him there, but proposed to come into this country, if it should be more acceptable to ministers, to settle terms of lasting peace and friendship. It is well known that he was not more successful than M. Chauvelin or M. Maret. The reason is obvious. War had been determined upon in this country, and when we were bent upon it, pretences and occasions were easily furnished. the same grounds as France had done. He affirmed that the war was unprovoked by any act of ours that could be construed into an insult; and concluded with a warm panegyric on the duke of Portland, for his patriotic declaration of support to a war, which he had truly said was in favour of the dearest rights of society. The Marquis of Lansdown said, he had co-operated with the noble duke, in his zealous opposition to two wars-the American war, which was a war against principles also, and the Dutch war, which was a war without aggression. In the outset of these wars they had heard the same lofty tone, the same inflammatory language; but, conscious that they were discharging their duty, they had given as firm an opposition to these wars, as he believed any noble lord was disposed to give to this. It was the peculiar duty of that House to give sound advice to the throne. Their best character was that they were a council, not a register of edicts, and therefore, thinking himself called on to deliver his opinion freely, and the benefits of free debate were too well known, and too often felt in the wisdom of hearing and re-hearing every bill that came before them, that it was wonderful that, on a subject of such magnitude as a war, twenty-four hours was all that was to be given to a question upon which the very fate of England might depend. Mi Was this the conduct we manifested towards other nations upon similar occasions? Did we treat Spain in this manner when they had seized Falkland Is. lands; or, upon a more recent occasion, when they had actually seized the ships and imprisoned the subjects of this country? Although the minister had made formidable preparations for war, yet he condescended to enter into explanations with that power, far less formidable than France. He listened then to the voice of justice, moderation, and humanity. The blood and treasure of the nation was spared, and a happy reconciliation took place. The same measure ought to have been adopted respecting France; and then, instead of having provoked a war, the most wanton, the most fruitless, the most dangerous, and to which no end can be affixed, we should have renewed our commercial treaty, so advantageous to this country, and settled the peace of Europe upon a basis that could not have been shaken for ages; I cannot, therefore give my assent to the address now proposed. His lordship concluded with moving the following Amendment: "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 your majesty's subjects; and that they have since actually declared war against your majes-nisters themselves should be anxious to ty and the United Provinces. We humbly beg leave to assure your majesty, that we will exert ourselves with the utmost zeal in the maintenance of your majesty's crown, the vindication of the rights of your people, and nothing shall be want ing on our part that can contribute to that firm and effectual support which your 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 your majesty's crown, the security of your allies, and the interests of your people." Lord Hawkesbury went into a detail of the breaches of treaties by the French, and the insults and injuries offered to this country. He said, that the alien bill was the same in respect to all nations, and that all the nations of Europe might equally complain of it, and declare war upon avoid taking the nation with this sort of surprise. A stock-jobber might practise a surprise by some ingenious fraud, from which he was to make a sudden profit, and which was to be at an end the next day : a lawyer might exert a lucky thought and gain his process, by a doctrine which he himself would cast off, and reprobate the moment he had done with it; but for the ministers of a country to take a whole nation by surprise, to inflame them by artifice, to cajole them over to a purpose by appeals to their passions, was so monstrously impolitic as well as mischievous. that it could not be sufficiently reprobated It was a mockery of their lordships to. say that they expected unanimity. They contrived to prevent unanimity-they had thrown the die-they had involved the nation- and they now came down to. eke out their former arguments with all the shreds and fragments they had left. They had rallied all the little vagrant reasons which had strayed from the main body the day before, and what were they? |