to give proofs of his being evil disposed towards the French nation, and of his attachment to the coalition of crowned heads." But notwithstanding 'this assertion, the French have not attempted to shew any act of hostility on the part of his majesty; nor in support of the charge of his attachment to the coalition of crowned heads have they been able to alledge any fact. In short, Mr. Pitt affirmed, that no accession to any such treaty had taken place on the part of the crown of Great Britain. The next charge brought by the national assembly was, that the king of England had ordered his ambassador at Paris to withdraw, because he would not acknowledge the provisional executive council, created by the legislative assembly." After the horrors of the 10th of August, and the 2d of September, after the suspension of the French monarch, to whom alone the ambassador had been sent, it certainly became proper to recall him. He could not remain to freat with any government to whom he was not accredited; and the propriety of his being recalled appears still more evident, when it is considered, that the banditti who had seized upon the government had been obliged, in the course of a month, tó yield to the interest of a different party, but of a description similar to their own. When a government was overturned, it became a fair question how long an interval should intervene till the new powers should be acknowledged and if that change of government was accompanied with the utmost tumult and distraction, it became a matter of extreme hardship that a war : should be the consequence to the nation, which should refuse to acknowledge it in the first instance. Mr. Pitt proceeded to state another reason given by the convention for the declaration of war, "that the Cabinet of St. James's has ceased, since the same period, (the 10th of August) to correspond with the French ambassador at London, on pretext of the suspension of the heretofore king of the French: that, since the opening of the national convention, it has refused to resume the usual correspondence between the two states, and to acknowledge the powers of this convention: that it has refused to acknowledge the ambassador of the French republic, although provided with letters of credit in its name." M. Chauvelin had been received at this court as ambassador of the king, and in no other character. From the period of the suspension of the king, he, for some months, ceased to hold any communication with the government here, or to act in any capacity: nor was it till the month of December that he had received his letter of credence to act here as the ambassador of the French republic. When these letters of credence had been tendered, they were refused; but it was to be considered whether it would have been proper to have recognised them, after the repeated instances of offence, for which no compensation had been made; and of which, indeed, every fresh act presented not only a repetition but an aggravation. And besides at that very moment, it was to be recollected, they were embarked in the unjust and inhuman process which which had terminated in the mur- it has also received the chiefs of the rebels of the French West-India colonies." der of their king. Would it have been becoming in our government first to have acknowledged them at such a moment, when the power they had assumed was thus cruelly and unjustly exercised against that very authority which they usurped ? The following articles of the declaration were then collectively stated: "That the court of St. James's has attempted to impede the different purchases of corn, arms, and other commodities ordered in England, either by French citizens or the agents of the republic. "That it has caused to be stopped several boats and ships loaded with grain for France, contrary to the treaty of 1786, while exportation to other foreign countries was free. "That in order still more effectually to obstruct the commercial operations of the republic in England, it obtained an act of parliament prohibiting the circulation of assignats. "That in violation of the fourth article of the treaty of 1786, it obtained another act, in the month of January last, which subjects all French citizens, residing in, or coming into England, to forms the most inquisitorial, vexatious, and dangerous. "That at the same time, and contrary to the 1st article of the peace of 1783, it granted protection and pecuniary aid not only to the emigrants, but even to the chiefs of the rebels, who have already fought against France; that it has maintained with them a daily correspondence, evidently directed against the French revolution: that With respect to the charge of having stopped supplies of grain and other commodities intended for France, what could be more ridiculous than such a pretext? When there was reason to apprehend that France meditated an attack upon the allies of this country and against the country itself, upon which it depended for the stores and ammunition necessary for carrying on hostilities; could we therefore be such children in understanding, and such traitors in principle, as to furnish to our enemies the means of hostility and the instruments of offence ?—The French also considered it as a very offensive act in the British government, that it had not permitted assignats to be circulated in this country. They had truly great reason to be offended that we would not receive what was worth nothing; and that, by exercising an act which came completely within our own sovereignty, with respect to the circulation of any foreign paper currency, we thus avoided a gigantic system of swindling. Of the same nature was the pretext respecting the alien bill, which was provided to shield us from the artifice of the seditious, and perhaps from the dagger of the assassin. This bill the French considered as an infringement of the treaty of commerce: but how was that possible, when it was expressly declared in the treaty itself, that no act was to be considered as an infringement, unless proper explanation has first taken place. The next ground assigned in the decla ration, ration, was the armament which had taken place in this country. to calumnies and violation of treaties only by remonstrances, founded on the principles of justice, and expressed with the dignity of free men; the English minister has persevered in his system of malevolence and hostility, continued the armaments, and sent a squadron to the Scheldt to disturb the operations of the French in Belgium. The next reason assigned was"That, in the same spirit, with out any provocation, and when all the maritime powers are at peace with England, the cabinet of St. James's has ordered a considerable naval armament, and an augmentation of the land forces.""That this armament was ordered "That on the news of the exeat a moment when the English cution of Louis, he carried his outminister was bitterly persecuting rages to the French Republic to those who supported the principles such a length, as to order the amof the French revolution in Eng-bassador of France to quit the Briland, and was employing all pos- tish territory within eight days. sible means, both in parliament and out of it, to cover the French republic with ignominy, and to draw upon it the execration of the English nation, and of all Europe." But under what circumstances, said Mr. Pitt, had the armament complained of taken place? At the period when the French, by their conduct with regard to the treaty of the Scheldt, manifested their intention to disregard the obligation of all treaties, and had discovered views of unbounded conquest. It was surely necessary at such a time to take measures of precaution, and to oppose with determinations those designs which threatened no common danger to our allies and to ourselves. The succeeding articles of complaint on the part of the French, were "That the object of this armament, intended against France, was not even disguised in the English parliament. "That although the provisional executive council of France has employed every measure for preserving peace and fraternity with the English nation, and has replied "That the king of England has manifested his attachment to the cause of that traitor, and his design of supporting it by different hostile resolutions adopted in his council, both by nominating generals of his land army, and by applying to parliament for a considerable addition of land and sea forces, and putting ships of war in commission. Here, as on every other occasion where the opportunity offers, the French Convention display their enmity to the British constitution, by taking every opportunity to separate the king of England from the nation, and by addressing the people as distinct from the government.-Another ground which the French had assigned for their vindictive resentment against us, was the grief which had been expressed in the British court at the fate of their unhappy monarch. Thus it appears that they make war upon us, first, because we love our constitution; secondly, because we detest their proceedings; and, lastly, because we presumed to grieve at the death of their murdered king. Thus would they deprive us of the last resource of humanity, to to mourn over the victims of sorrow and injustice. It might be asked of them, in the emphatic words of the Roman writer. Quis gemitus populo Romano liber erit ?They would not only endeavour to destroy our political existence, and to deprive us of the privileges which we enjoyed as subjects of the most excellent constitution, but they would eradicate our feelings as men; they would make crimes of our sympathies, which were excited by the distresses of our common nature. They would repress our sighs and restrain our tears. Thus, except the specific fact, which was alledged as a ground of their declaration of war, namely, the accession of his majesty to the treaty between Austria and Prussia, which had turned out to be entirely false and unfounded, or the augmentation of our armament, a measure of precaution, indispensibly necessary for the safety of the country and the protection of its allies, all the others were nothing more than unjust, absurd, and frivolous pretexts; which never could have been brought to justify a measure, of which they were not previously and strongly desirous; and which shewed that, instead of waiting for provocation, they only sought a pretence of aggression. After some further observations on the conduct of France, Mr. Pitt proceeded to move an address, in answer to his majesty's message. Mr. Powys seconded the address. He thought it the duty of every man to stand forward on the present occasion, in support of the government and constitution of the country. He promised to take upon himself the responsibility of laying burthens upon his constitu ents, where the cause was their protection and security. It had been asserted, he observed, that the present war was a war of kings against men; but in this country, the constitution of which is a limited monarchy, he considered the king as the key stone of it; and that to declare war against the king, is to declare war against the people. If it were asked, he said, what we should get by going to war; we should get, he would answer, just what we should lose by not going to war.-There were many who asserted that the constitution of this country had not been in danger; but he declared it to be his honest opinion that it had recently been in danger, from the combinations of bad men at home; and for his part, he less feared the arrows that fly by day, than the pestilence that walketh by night. Mr. Fox said, if the minister had moved an address, simply alledging the cordial co-operation of the House in prosecuting a just and necessary war to a safe and honourable peace, to such an address, whatever might have been his opinion of the previous conduct of ministers, whether he had thought it temperate and conciliatory, or arrogant and provoking, he should have agreed. But the House was now called upon to vote that ministers had given no cause or provocation for the war, to give them indemnity for the past, and support for the future. This was the manifest tendency of the address; and to prevent the want of unanimity, which such an address could not but occasion, he should move an amendment, in which, he trusted, the warmest advocate of the war might concur. But But he must first examine the alledged causes of the war. They were, as it appeared to him, in no respect different now from what they were under the government of Louis XIV. or Louis XVI. What then were these causes? not an insult or aggression, but a refusal of satisfaction when specifically demanded: what instance had ministers produced of such demand and of such refusal? He admitted that the decree of November 19th, entitled this country to require an explanation; but even of this they could not shew that any clear and specific explanation had been demanded. Security that they would not act upon that decree was indeed mentioned in one of Lord Grenville's letters, but what kind of security, was neither specified nor even named. The same might be said with respect to the opening of the Scheldt, and their conquest of Brabant. We complained of an attack on the rights of our ally; we remonstrated against an accession of territory, alarming to Europe; but we proposed nothing that would be admitted as satisfaction for the injury; we pointed out nothing that would remove our alarm. Lord Grenville said something about withdrawing their troops from the Austrian Netherlands; but if by that was understood a requisition to withdraw their troops, while they were at war with the emperor, without any condition that such evacuation of territory conquered from the enemy was to be the price of peace, it was such an insult as entitled them to demand satisfaction of us. The same argument applied to their conquest of Savoy from the king of Sardinia, with whom, in his opinion, they were at war, as much as with the emperor. Would it be said that it was our business only to complain, and theirs to propose satisfaction? Common sense must see that this was expecting too much from one independent power to another. There was much in the decree, by which the French declare war, which could not be fairly alledged as just cause of war. But under the former good government of France, was it unusual to croud into a manifesto, setting forth the causes of war, every complaint that could be imagined, good, bad, and indifferent? To have suffered earl Gower to remain at Paris, after the 10th of August, would have implied no recognition of the government which succeeded that to which he had his formal mission, any more than to have negotiated with that government in the most safe and direct way, in preference to one that was the most indirect and hazardous. But the minister, who could not get rid of the idea of recognition, exclaimed, "Would you recognize a government which by its own confession is no government; which declares itself only provisional till a government can be framed?" This he would answer was the safest of all recognitions, if a recognition it must be; for the go vernment being only provisional, we could only be understood to recognize provisionally, and were at liberty to act as the case might require, with any other power that might arise in its stead. But did not history shew us, that to treat and to recognize were not considered as the same? Did not we treat |