Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

of his friend was peculiarly calculated to avert it.

The Master of the Rolls, after proposing to Mr. Fox, or some of his friends, to go on this embassy, made a very humorous comparison between Barlow and Frost, who had already been received by the Convention as deputies from some of the societies in this country, and an ambassador from the king of it. He supposed that on such an occasion the latter would be asked by the French rulers, do you come from the king of Great Britain? If you do there can be no business for you here, as we have vowed enmity to all kings. You may therefore be gone.

Mr. Windhamn contended, that those who argued against the recognition of the republic of France, were not only fortified by experience, but by higher principles, by the interests of nations, and by the dictates of humanity. Thus very powerful arguments ought to be used, more powerful, he said, than any that had been brought, to induce the house to assent to the motion of his right honourable friend; for by recognizing the republic of France, what consequences would Great Britain produce? The complete alienation of those powers with whom she was at present allied; not only the alienation of allies, but by giving the whole weight of her character to France, she would place all the rest of Europe in a situation deplorable indeed; she would arm every subject, of every kingdom, against the powers that governed those kingdoms; she would produce consequences as fatal to the future interests of the world, and as much to be lamented, as the retreat of

the combined armies from France, which he looked upon to be the most fatal event that had ever happened.

If he were to be asked, whether he would submit to an evil, or wait for a necessity, he was not quite sure that he would not wait for compulsion, and take that for his justification. That Great Britain should be the first country to be less shocked with massacre and murder! That she should be the first country to evince a want of feeling, filled him with anguish, and with horror! That she should be the first to preclude herself from forming a part of any confederation, was disgraceful! If submission to France must be the consequence, necessity should first justify that submission. Well did the House know, that no inquiry could be made into the origin of governments; the greater the space of time, therefore, that elapsed from that origin, the smaller was the crime incurred. Evils, by mere time, become less; by time the government of France might become less shocking and less wicked.

Mr. Whitbread made some general observations on the propriety of the motion, and then proceeded to observe, on the doubt expressed by Mr. Windham, whether he should prefer the hazard of an evil from future compulsion, or receive it by immediate submission. “The hon. gentleman has said, that it would be a degradation for us to negotiate with the French at present; but that the time might come when necessity would compel us. What then did we say to the French by this? You are a parcel of assassins; but if you assassins compel us, we must negotiate with

you.

you. Thus our confession that we negotiated from necessity on our side, would, according to the disposition we were pleased to give to the French, justify any act on theirs. We shall have given to a malicious disposition the highest possible provocation, and must bear the effect. In reply to the Master of the Rolls, he stated that there were ambassadors at Paris from several of the European powers. He then proceeded to argue on the subject of the Scheldt, and deprecated it as a cause of war; and after speaking of alarms, riots, and insurrections in a strain of ludicrous observation, he declared his high opinion of Mr. Fox, and that while that gentleman was the leader of their party, he should never despair of his country.

Mr. Grant opposed the motion before the House. All the celebrated writers on the law of nations, he said, had laid it down as a clear and indubitable principle of propriety, that rivers belonged to those who inhabited their banks, just as far, and no farther, than those banks extended. If the banks belonged to different people, then the dominion over the river was divided, each people possessing the part that was contiguous to their domain; and such was the policy of this distribution, that if it had not been so laid down by the ablest writers on the law of nations, it would have been a positive stipulation indispensably necessary under the law of nations, for without it no state could be secure. If the course of rivers was, as is contended by the French, as open and common to mankind as the sea it self, a fleet of French and Spaniards might sail up the Thames,

and we should have no right to molest them until they actually began hostilities. Agreeable to this law of nations, we find every other civilised state had invariably acted. The mouth of the Scheldt, therefore, he contended, being between the banks of Holland, gave them, under the law of nature and nations, a most incontrovertible right to the exclusive possession of that river as far as their banks extended; but, independent of general doctrine, that right has been repeatedly acknowledged and ratified by express treaty with the sovereign power of that country, which alone could have any pretence to interfere. As well might France interpose, therefore, between the Spaniards and English, relative to the regulations of the navigation of the river Mississippi in America. Their interference relative to the Scheldt shews no less arrogance and injustice, than a rooted contempt of existing order and moral obligation. Beside, why should we send an ambassador to France, when the subject matter of contention lay between our allies, the Dutch, and Brabant. The French had not conquered the Netherlands, by their own declaration; they had only restored the sovereignty of the people. Shall France be suffered, therefore, to arrogate to itself the umpirage of all disputes in Europe? The restless, meddling disposition of that country, which an honourable gentleman had declared was so long the scourge of mankind under the despotism of its crown, seemed now no less disposed to blast the happiness of man under the still more wild and unlimited despotism of the people. If France by surprise had seized on Portsmouth, or

any

any other of our harbours, or had declared its intention of doing so, would Englishmen condescend to send an ambassador to negotiate? They have declared publicly their intention of unjustly invading the rights of our allies; and their rights, while faith and honour remained in England, were the rights of Englishmen. What is there to negotiate? The French admit the subsisting treaties, but deny their force. Instead of a statesman, you should send a professor of casuistry. Nothing remained for inquiry but an abstract and metaphysical question on the moral competence of contracts. Shall it be allowed that the first principle of morals shall be controverted, and the community of nations turned into a school of metaphysical sceptics? At least cui bono? Suppose you settle the dispute with the present executive council; their successors, armed with the natural, imprescriptible rights of man, will, by the very same reasons, deny their right to Lettle it. You can obtain nothing short of total abandonment, but what the metaphysical wand of these perverted logicians will destroy as by magic. What? bind by treaty the rights of man! It is impossible, they would exclaim,nature forbids it-right is paramount to treaty. Those with whom you negotiated thus exceeded their powers, and betrayed their constituents, and the contract is therefore void. Having surveyed the motion as it related to right and utility, he adverted, with much additional force, to the indignity such a proceeding would throw on the country, and concluded with giving a decided negative.

Sir William Young opposed a

negotiation with France, considering it in the character of a federal treaty with a foreign power: but in a domestic view, it struck him rather as a commercial treaty for the more easy and ready import of plots and treasons. When the duke of Brunswick, he said, sent to negotiate during his retreat, the haughty answer was that of the Roman to Pyrrhus: "We will not treat whilst you are in our country." Are we prepared for an answer of similar import? Are we prepared, as a preliminary step, to disembody the militia, and lay aside our naval preparations. If England could descend to so base and humiliating a procedure, yet another consideration is to be obviated. Can we acknowledge the constitution of the French ?—or it should rather be asked, have they a constitution to acknowledge?— In short his mind was so framed, that it could admit no argument in favour of the motion that did not savour of national cowardice or treachery of a mean and timid petition to France, or resort to French connections for the support of British treasons..

Mr. Burke, after some animated compliments to the young members who had opposed the motion, and some severe sarcasms on Mr. Erskine, who had supported it, entered, with his usual ardour and eloquence, into the state, condition, and views of France. "Why have the French," said he, "who cherish and protect the traitors, offered to aid and abet the downfal of our government? Because the unfledged republicans have determined to wage war against every monarchy. Having a king who commands the affections of his

people,

people, the criminality on our part is unpardonable in their eyes. Kings are anointed with oil-the new sovereignty of the people with blood! The recent massacres, at which all Europe revolted, heightened this striking likeness; and none but the murderers themselves could help deploring the shocking barbarities, which exceeded all ancient and modern flagitiousness. Those who were advocates for an ambassador to Paris, ought seriously to reflect in what an awkward predicament they placed such a gentleman. They appointed an ambassador to a people who had no government, no administrators, and who had denounced the most implacable hatred against all kings! But, say they, ambassadors have been sent thither from other potentates. Be it so. But let no ambassador go thither from Great Britam If we condescended to acknowledge them by an ambassador, might they not insult him by saying, Who sent you? The king or the people of England? The king, most certainly, answers the ambassador. The king! return from whence you came: we never sent for you: we have passed an irrevocable declaration against all tyranny! And thus, if the motion were agreed to, we should jostle in the dark, and expose ourselves to the insolence of the basest of mankind -monsters who outrage every law, human and divine.

Mr. Burke made the following ludicrous objection to the proposed negotiation :-If, when the British ambassador appears at the bar of the convention, his commission, among other things, happened to state George the Third, by the grace of God," would not

that pious assembly be instantly convulsed with laughter. The president, Robespierre, and Marat, sworn enemies to kings, would scarcely be able to keep their indignation within bounds. On the one side, citizen Frost would inflame their resentment; and on the other, citizen Paine would proceed to denounce us. Mr. Burke concluded a very eloquent but desultory speech, with reading, from a slip of paper, a declaration, which he wished to be avowed as the grounds of the conduct of the executive power, in order that the people of England might know that, if there must be a war, it had arisen from the proceedings of those among themselves, who, by their seditious practices, had provoked it; and that a war with France was necessary for the security of the liberties of England, the interests of Europe, and the happiness of mankind.

Mr. Courtenay arraigned Mr. Burke's opinion of the French, whom he accused of calumniating in a most opprobrious and unmanly manner. After some severe sarcasms on that gentleman, and defending the propriety of attempting to negotiate with France, he entered into an eulogium of the French, rejoiced at their successes, their glorious expedition in Brabant, and the liberation of Flanders. He had lived, he said, to see the genius of liberty inspire the French with a portion of noble ardour, which the slaves of despots found irresistible. From these vaunting descriptions of French valour, he proceeded to indulge his usual vein of pleasantry on the flights of Mr. Burke's imagination; and concluded with declar

ing his high sense of the public and private virtues of Mr. Fox, and if he should ever separate from him, he should consider that day as the most degraded of his life.

Mr. Sheridan began by express ing his astonishment at the perverse manner in which the question had been argued, and the injustice with which the mover of it had been treated. His right hon. friend, he said, had recommended, that, before we plunged into a war, and drew upon the treasure and blood of the people of Great Britain, we should try, if possible, to settle the matter in dispute by negotiation, and shew to the people we had so tried. This his right hon. friend had recommended as a duty which we owed to our constituents, be the character and principles of the power with whom we are disputing what they' may. Was it credible that a proposition of this nature should have been received with such heat? Reason and duty at any other time must have supported it. But the fact was, that the moment was unfortunate; the time was full of heat and irritation; natural and artificial government had thought it their interest to inflame this disposition. Intelligence was

ex

pected of a catastrophe in France, which all humane hearts deprecated, and would equally deplore; in this temper, therefore, the public mind was worked up to a blind and furious hostility against France, and the dearest interests of our own country were to be risqued at the call of a momentary enthusiasm, which, if not bottomed in sound policy and sound sense, was sure not to be lasting. Could there be a stronger proof of this temper,

than the manner in which Mr. Grant had supported his argument, The most successful passage in his able speech, turned upon a pas sionate appeal to the pride and dig. nity of the English nation. He thinks proper to assume, that any thing like negotiation at present, would be a petition for mercy and forbearance from the French nation; and then he triumphantly exclaimed, with a triumphant cry, acknowledging the excellence of his argument," Draw your petition, and where is the man, with a British heart within his bosom, who will sign it!" What unfairness is this! said Mr. Sheridan. Was there no mode between nations of demanding explanations for an injury given or meditated, but by petition? Did we petition the court of Spain in the affair of Nootka Sound? Did we petition France in the dispute respecting this very Holland in 1787 ?

Mr. Sheridan now proceeded to treat in a vein of pointed ridicule the opinion of Mr. Windham, that he had rather the negotiation, if it ever took place, should be a matter of necessity, and not of choice.The question, he said, was not merely whether we should go to war or not, but on what principles, to what end, and with what confederacy we should go to war. For his part he had declared, and he hoped with sufficient fairness and frankness, that, if war must be, the defence of the country and its constitution would be the single consideration in his mind and for that purpose, he would support the executive government, in whatever hands his Majesty placed it. But, in this declaration, he referred to a war, undertaken on the néces

:

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »