treat with Philip of Spain, as king, at the very time that we were at war to dispute his succession; and was not the recognition of his title far from being considered as admitted by us on that account, actually stipulated as an article of the peace? Did not France, when at war to dispute the accession of William III. to the throne of England, treat with him as king, and was not the recognition of his title also made one of the conditions of peace? Still, however, he would admit, that withdrawing our minister, or not sending another, was not a just cause of war on the part of France; but could it be denied, that to treat one nation in a manner different from others was a symptom of hostility?

None of the alledged grounds in the French declaration could be more absurd, than that the circulation of their assignats were prohibited in this country; for that was purely a measure of internal regulation, as much as it would be to prohibit the circulation of paper issued among ourselves that perhaps stood on a much surer capital. But even here we were not quite impartial; for although that paper was called worth nothing which at present brought fourteen pence halfpenny for half-a-crown, the paper created by that gigantic act of swindling, the assignats issued by the leaders of the combined armies, were not certainly worth more, but we had not thought it necessary to forbid the circulation of them; we had not prohibited the circulation of American paper even during the war, nor was it at all necessary, such paper wanted no prohibition.

The prohibiting the exportation of foreign corn to French ports,

while it was free to other countries, has been said to arise from preceding circumstances; and according to these circumstances, it might be a justifiable or unjustifiable act of hostility: but was an act of hostility so severe, that the circumstances which justified it would have justified a war, and no such circumstances, he believed, could be shewn. The alien bill was not a just cause of war, but it was a violation of the commercial treaty, both in the letter and the spirit. The minister, indeed, had said that the French had made regulations in their own country, by which the treaty had been already compleatly broken and at an end. But did he complain of those regulations; for it was expressly provided by the treaty itself, that no violation should put an end to it, till complaint was made and redress was refused. Our sending a squádron to the Scheldt, was complained of by the French as an injury. And here ministers introduced the popular topic of their charming operations in Belgium; the disturbance of which they thought themselves entitled to resent as an aggression. He was as little disposed to defend their operations in Belgium as any other gentleman, although he saw not for what purpose they were here alluded to, unless to inflame the passions, and mislead the judgment; but if by that squadron we had disturbed them in their operations of war against the emperor, which he admitted we had not done, they would have had just cause to complain. Then, says the right hon. gentleman, they complain of our conduct on the afflicting news of the murder of their king; what, shall we not grieve for the untimely

fate

fate of an innocent monarch most cruelly put to death by his own subjects? Shall we not be permitted to testify our sorrow and abhorrence on an event that outrages every principle of justice, and shocks every feeling of humanity? Of that event he should never speak but with grief and detestation. But was the expression of our sorrow all? Was not the atrocious event made the subject of a message from his majesty to both Houses of Parliament ?

When he, Mr. Fox, proposed sending an ambassador to France, "What," said the right honourable gentleman, "send an ambassador to men that are trying their king!" If we had sent an ambassador, even then; had our conduct towards the French been more candid and conciliating the fatal issue of that trial might have been prevented: but, said the right hon. gentleman, we negotiated unofficially. The importance of this distinction, said Mr. Fox, between official and unofficial negotiation, to any wise purpose, he could never understand: but even to this mode of negotiation, the dismission of M. Chauvelin put an end.. But no sooner was that gentleman sent out of the kingdom, but ministers dispatched their orders to Lord Auckland to negotiate with gen. Dumourier, which reached him too late.

Our king had sat too long on the throne of a free kingdom; he had had too much experience that love of his people was a stronger defence than guards and armies, to forfeit that love, by transgressing the bounds which the constitution prescribed to him, were even his virtues and his wisdom less than they were known to be. What became

of that freedom of speech which was the boast of parliament, if he might not suppose, that by evil counsellors their ears might be poisoned, and their hearts deceived? He therefore feared, that this war would be supposed a war for restoring monarchy in France, and for supporting rather the cause of kings, than the cause of the people. He would be the last to draw a distinction of interest between the rich and the poor; for whatever the superficial observer might think, nothing was clearer, when philosophically considered, than that a man, who was not 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.

The ordering M. Chauvelin to quit the kingdom, and the prohibition to export corn to France, when exportation was allowed to other countries, were acts of hostility and provocation on our part, which, in the opinion of Mr. Fox, did not allow us to say, as the proposed address said, that war was an unprovoked aggression on the part of France. He therefore moved an amendment, which, after generally stating the French declaration of war, concluded in the following manner: "And nothing shall be wanting 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

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."

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 proposed by the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Fox) 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, he asked, was the tendency of that amendment, and of the arguments of the right honourable 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 honourable gentleman, indeed, dwelt rather longer on the subject of the ships sent to the Scheldt; but whatever on that head might have been alledged 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 Belgia. 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 negotiation; 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 refusing 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 minister's had listened to the proposal of M. Dumourier, which had been mentioned by his right honourable 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 honourable 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 policy of France.

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 nade in the most distinct and

precise

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 formerly stated that there was no such treaty existing in January, he hoped he would 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. Upon the subject of the proclamation, prohibiting the sending corn to France, he had been correct in his former statement, which was a necessary measure of precaution for the purpose of crippling the French,

Mr. Dundas concluded, by declaring that Great Britain entered into the war to secure her best interests, by effectually opposing a system of principles, which, unless they were crushed, would necessarily end in the destruction of this and of every other country.

Mr. Burke said, though he always attended with admiration and respect to the speeches of Mr. Fox, he could not help estimating that which he had just heard at a less account, as he had read every part of it in Mons. Brissot's speeches in the national convention, one only excepted, and that part was, " that France had used every means to conciliate the regards and good will of Great Britain." The right honourable gentleman had taken

great pains to acquit himself, and apologize for his vehement endeavours to exculpate France from the charge of aggression: but he professed, that he was at a loss to see what it was that made him so prompt to exculpation. If France meant nothing but what was good, and England nothing but what was bad, he certainly owed no apology for the part he took in her cause. As to the sentiments of the right honourable 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?

Unlimited monarchy, the right honourable gentleman had said, was the object against which France directed the shafts of 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 mno narchy, and to the limitation, as limitation,

limitation. The aristocracy of this country, all corporations, all bodies, whether civil or ecclesiastical, were the objects of her enmity. She shewed the most determinate malice, in the most express terms, against all parts of the British government, equally to those that limit or support monarchy; not to this or to that, but to the whole. If conquered by Louis XVI. we might be sure of our established forms being unmolested; but if by her, of total extinction. Gentle

men had, with much pertinacity, asked, "Have you asked satisfaction for this?" This, he contended, was all an error, either of misconception or of will. The acts of France were acts of hostility to this country; her whole system, her speech, every decree, and every act, bespoke an intention preclusive of accommodation. No man, he would venture to say, had a more lively sense of the importance of the question before the House, or of the evils of war than himself; a war with France, under such circumstances as now governed her conduct, must be terrible, but peace much more so. A nation that had abandoned all its valuable distinctions, arts, sciences, religion, law, order, every thing but the sword, was most formidable and dreadful to all nations composed of citizens who only used soldiers as a defence; as such, France should be resisted with spirit, vigour, and temper, without fear or scruple. In a case of such importance to this country, and to mankind, as the present, gentlemen should examine whether they had any sinister motive, as if in the Divine presence, and act upon the pure result of that examination.

VOL. XXXV.

He declared he had no hesitation to pronounce, as if before that presence, that ministers had not precipitated the nation into a war, but were brought to it by over-ruling necessity.

The putting the king of France to death, was done, not as an example to France, not to extinguish the race, not to put an end to monarchy, but as a terror to monarchs, and particularly to the monarch of Great Britain. This new-created empire of theirs, Mr. Burke said, was only secondary to the accomplishment of their plans of shaking all governments. This had been

professed out of the mouth of their minister Cambon. He declared that the limits of their empire should be those that nature had set to them, not those of justice and reason; that is to say, the sea on one side, and the Alps and the Rhine on the other, together with a large cut of the Appenines, and all for the benefit of mankind, of liberty and equality. They directed their invectives and reproaches more at England than any other place. They executed their unhappy, innocent monarch, whom they well knew to be no tyrant, principally, as they alleged, for a warning to all other tyrants, and an example to all other nations. Even a few hours after the execution of Louis XVI. their minister of justice, Garat, addressing their convention, said, "We have now thrown down the gauntlet to a tyrant, which gauntlet is the head of a tyrant." He next read the declaration of the members who voted for the death of the king, some saying, "the tree of liberty could not flourish till sprinkled with the blood of tyrants;" others [F] declaring,