6 And here the right honourable gentleman 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 the right honourable 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,' said the right honourable 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 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 ?* And now he would ask the few more candid men, who owned that they thought this event alone a sufficient cause of war, what end could be gained by further negotiation with Chauvelin, Maret, or Dumourier? Did ministers mean to barter the blood of this ill-fated monarch for any of the points in dispute; to say, the evacuation of Brabant shall atone for so much, the evacuation of Savoy for so much more? Of this he would accuse no man; but, on their principle, when the crime was committed, negotiation must cease. He agreed, however, with the right honourable gentleman, and he was glad to hear him say so, that this crime was no cause of war; but, if it were admitted to be so, it was surely not decent that the subject of war should never be even mentioned without reverting to the death of the King. When he 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 On the 28th of January, 1793. 6 + Although, after the recall of Earl Gower, no British ambassador had been sent to Paris, yet M. Chauvelin was encouraged, both by Lord Grenville and Mr. Pitt, to enter into explanations which might tend to the preservation of peace. M. Maret, an agent of the Duke of Orleans, and who came to London solely on his business, pretended to have power from the French Government to treat; and he obtained the appointment of an audience for an unnamed coadjutor of his, to open a discussion with Mr. Pitt, who was desirous to treat with M. Maret, as a confidential person from the Executive Council; but when they explained themselves, it was discovered that neither had the slightest pretensions to a public character, nor to any authority. Mr. Pitt, instead of displaying any irritation or annoyance, advised M. Maret immediately to despatch a courier to Paris, for authority and instructions; but the Executive Council commanded him to abstain from all intercourse with Mr. Pitt on the subject of politics, and to return immediately.—Adolph. Hist. of the Reign of Geo. III. vol. v. p. 336. 6 more candid and conciliating, the fatal issue of that trial might have been prevented. But,' said the right honourable gentleman, we negotiated unofficially.' The importance to any wise purpose of this distinction between official and unofficial negotiation, of this bartering instead of selling, he could never understand; but even to this mode of negotiating the dismission of M. Chauvelin put an end. But M. Chauvelin, it was said, went away the very day after he received the order, although he might have stayed eight days and negotiated all the while! Was it so extraordinary a thing that a man of honour, receiving such an order, should not choose to run the risk of insult, by staying the full time allowed him; or could he imagine, that his ready compliance with such an order would be considered as an offence? When M. Chauvelin went away and M. Maret did not think himself authorized to negotiate, ministers sent a message to Lord Auckland, to negotiate with General Dumourier, which reached him too late.* Admitting this to be a proof of their wish to negotiate, while negotiation was practicable, what was their conduct from the opening of the session? If he or any of his friends proposed to negotiate-' Negotiate!' they exclaimed, 'we are already at war.' Now it appeared that they did negotiate with unaccredited agents, although the Secretary of State had said that such a negotiation was not compatible with his belief; and, last of all, (strange conduct for lovers of peace!) they ordered to quit the country the only person with whom they could negotiate in their unofficial way. He was happy to see the right honourable gentleman so much ashamed of this mutilated farce of negotiation, as to be glad to piece it out with Lord Auckland and General Dumourier. Then was asked the miserable question, What interest have ministers in promoting a war, if, as it has been said, the ministers who begin war in this country are never allowed to conclude it? Admitting this to be true, for which he saw no good reason, then surely they who endeavoured to avert a war, ought to be allowed some credit for the purity of their motives. But ministers never opened a fair communication on the points in dispute with France. They acted like men afraid of asking satisfaction, for fear that it should be granted-of stating the specific causes of war, lest they should lose the pretext. "An opinion somewhere stated had been adverted to, that the people might consider this as a war in which kings were more interested than their subjects. He felt great respect for monarchy, and it was neither his practice nor his inclination to speak harshly of kings. He had already said, that monarchy was the corner, or rather the key-stone, of the British constitution, which was a limited, not an unlimited, monarchy. But, with all due reverence On the 23rd of January, 1793, Dumourier wrote a letter, dated at Paris, to Lord Auckland, the British Minister at the Hague, proposing a conference with a view to a pacific arrangement. A conference was appointed, but on the 14th of February Lord Auckland was informed that Dumourier had received orders from the National Convention not to hold it.-Gifford's Life of Pitt, vol. iii. p. 343. See Dumourier's Letter to Lord Auckland, in Appendix C. to the above vol. for crowned heads, was it impossible to conceive that kings might love, not limited, but unlimited, monarchy; and that resistance to the limited monarchy attempted to be established in France, in the room of the unlimited monarchy, by which that country was formerly governed, might have been the true cause of the combination of some of the crowned heads of Europe? Our King had sat too long on the throne of a free kingdom; he had had too much experience that the 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. But had not kings the frailties of other men? Were they not liable to be ill-advised? 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 to be 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. "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 honourable 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 negotiated without proposing specific terms, and then broken off the negotiation. 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. "He rejoiced to hear that we had no treaty with the Emperor. If our motives were now suspected, he hoped our future conduct would be such as to put away suspicion. If we joined the Emperor and the King of Prussia, we must make common cause with them, or act always with the jealousy and suspicion of parties, either of whom might secure their own views by a separate peace at the expense of the rest. When we found ourselves drawn into this common cause, we might say that we were forced to what we did not intend; but the fact would be, that we should be wasting the blood and treasure of the people of this country for an object which the people of this country disclaimed-to enable foreign armies to frame a government for France. Such an instance would furnish more arguments against the mechanism of our 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 stated. But what might be the moment of discussing these objects? The moment of danger and alarm, with the powerful engine, fear, influencing their decision. By the promise in his Majesty's speech, of employing firm and temperate measures, he had understood, first, a 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 honourable gentleman said we had received insults which ought not to have been borne for twenty-four hours. These were magnanimous 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 as then? 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 as to the success of a war. It might be glorious to our army and our navy, and yet ruinous to the people. The event of the last campaign-' procul absit omen '—and the example of the American war, had taught him that we might be compelled to make peace on terms less advantageous than could have been obtained without unsheathing the sword; and if this might be the consequence to us, the consequences to our ally, the Dutch, must be such as he would not suffer himself to anticipate. The ordering M. Chauvelin to depart the kingdom, and the stopping the exportation of corn to France, when exportation was allowed to other countries, were acts of hostility and provocation on our part, which did not allow us to say, as the proposed address said, that the war was an unprovoked aggression on the part of France. Truth and justice were preferable to high-sounding words, and therefore he should move an amendment, containing nothing that was not strictly true, and in voting which the House might be unanimous." Mr. Fox concluded with moving his amendment as follows:-"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 in the maintenance of the honour of his Majesty's crown, and the vindication of the rights of his people; and 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 interests of his people." Mr. Fox's amendment was rejected, and the address proposed by Mr. Pitt agreed to without a division. MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT. In the spring of the year 1792, an association was formed under the name of the Friends of the People," consisting of one hundred persons; twentyeight of whom were the most active members of the House of Commons in opposition to the Government, with the exception of Mr. Fox, who did not belong to this association. They immediately published a short declaration, signed by all the members; and also an address, of considerable length, to the people of Great Britain, signed only by Mr. Grey, the Chairman. In the former, they set forth that their object was to obtain a Parliamentary reform, by extending the suffrage, and by a more frequent exercise of the right of electing their representatives; and in the latter they explained their design more fully, and invited such as agreed to their principles to join the asso ciation. In conformity with a resolution entered into at a meeting of the association, Mr. Grey, on the 30th of April, 1792, gave notice of his intention to submit to the consideration of the House of Commons, in the course of the next session, a motion relative to a reform in the representation of the people.* 1793. May 7. Agreeably to that intimation, Mr. Grey now made his motion for a reform in Parliament. After a variety of petitions, pointing to the same object, had been laid on the table of the House, he presented one from the society of "the Friends of the People." It stated, with great precision and distinctness, the defects which existed in the representation of the people in Parliament. The number of representatives assigned to the different counties was grossly disproportioned to their comparative extent, population, and trade; insomuch, that Cornwall alone sent more members to Parliament than Yorkshire, Rutland, and Middlesex, put together. The elective franchise was so partially and unequally distributed, and in so many *Tomline's Life of Pitt, chap. xiv. † See the Petition, Parl. Hist. vol. xxx. p. 788. |