(8.) The French now insist on the discussion of prelimina ries. Our proposal was received and allowed by the then to hear what they had further to ask!9 Is French plenipotentiaries, and trans- it possible to suppose that such a thing could be mitted for the consideration of the listened to by any country that was not prepared Directory. Months had elapsed in to prostrate itself at the feet of France; and in sending couriers weekly and daily that abject posture to adore its conqueror, to sofrom Paris to Lisle, and from Lisle to Paris. licit new insults, to submit to demands still more They taught us to expect, from time to time, a degrading and ignominious, and to cancel at consideration of this subject, and an explicit an- once the honor of the British name? His Majswer to our project. But the first attempt of the esty had no hesitation in refusing to comply with Directory to negotiate, after having received our such insolent and unwarrantable demands. Here, project, is worthy of remark. They required again, the House will see that the spirit of the that we, whom they had summoned to a defini- violent part of the French government which, tive treaty, should stop and discuss preliminary had the insolence to advance this proposition. had points, which were to be settled without know- not acquired power and strength in that state of ing whether, when we had agreed to them all, the negotiation to adhere to it. His Majesty's we had advanced one inch. We were to dis- explanations and remonstrances for a time precuss, (1) whether his Majesty would renounce vailed; and an interval ensued in which we had the title of King of France, a harmless feather at a hope that we were advancing to a pacification. most in the crown of England. We were to dis- His Majesty's refusal of this demand was received cuss, (2) whether we would restore those ships by the French plenipotentiaries with assurances taken at Toulon, the acquisition of valor, and of a pacific disposition, was transmitted to their which we were entitled upon every ground to government, and was seconded by a continued hold. We were to discuss, (3) whether we and repeated repetition of promises that a counwould renounce the mortgage which we might ter-project should be presented-pretending that possess on the Netherlands, and which engaged they were under the necessity of sending to much of the honorable baronet's attention; but their allies an account of what passed, and that it does so happen that what the honorable bar- they were endeavoring to prevail on them to aconet considered as so important was of no im- cede to proposals for putting an end to the caportance at all; for a mortgage on the Nether-lamities of war-to terminate the calamities of lands we have none, and consequently we have none to renounce. Therefore, upon that condition, which they had no right to ask, and we had no means of granting, we told them the true state of the case, and that it was not worth talking about.8 (9.) They next surrender of all made by En The next point which occurred is of a nature which is difficult to dwell upon withderoand the out indignation. We were waiting the conquests the fulfillment of a promise which had gland, as a pre- been made repeatedly, of delivering liminary. to our embassador a counter-project, when they who had desired us to come for the purpose of concluding a definitive treaty, propose that we should subscribe, as a sine qua non preliminary, that we were ready, in the first instance, to consent to give up all that we had taken, and It may be remarked as to the first of these preliminary points, that all the French kings for three centuries had allowed this part of the title of the English monarch ("King of France") to stand at the head of treaties, and it was, therefore, certainly frivolous to raise any question about it. As to the second, touching the ships taken at Toulon, there was more plausibility in the claim, because they were given up on the condition of being "restored in the event of peace." But they were given up by French Royalists to create a diversion against the Republic, and the peace referred to was, therefore, plainly a peace with the regal government, and not with a revolutionary body like the Directory. The third preliminary related to a lien which England had on the hereditary possessions of Austria, as security for certain loans made to the Emperor; and the Directory demanded to know whether the Austrian Netherlands (then incorporated into France) were considered as subject to this lien. Mr. Pitt answered them as stated in the text. We were that war into which those allies were forced; in The This extraordinary demand was made on the ground (never mentioned or alluded to before) that "there exists in the public and secret treaties by which the French Republic is bound to its allies, Spain and the Batavian Republic, articles by which those powers respectively guarantee the territories possessed by each of them before the war. French government, unable to detach itself from these engagements, establishes as an indispensable preliminary of the negotiation for the peace with England, the consent of his Britannic Majesty to the restitution of all the possessions which he occupies, not only from the French Republic, but further and formally, of those of Spain and of the Batavian Republic." It is obvious that this was an afterthought to impede the negotiation, and that France, which overruled Spain and Holland at her will, had no difficulty on this subject except as she chose to make one. ally demand of has not power to do this, he shall obtain it from his gov ernment. England to | or that such a negotiation was likely to lead to a emy at once all you have in view! And they will only tell you from time to time, as to them shall seem meet, what demands they shall make. of professions, what was the first step taken [by the French], to go on with the negotiation in this spirit of conciliation? Sir, the first step was to renew (as his Majesty's Declaration has well stated), in a shape still more offensive, the former inadmissible and rejected demand-the rejection of which had been acquiesced in by themselves two months before; and during all which time we had been impatiently waiting for the performance of their promises. That de(10.) They fin mand was the same that I have alLord Malmes ready stated in substance, that Lord bury that, if he Malmesbury should explain to them not only his powers, but also his instructions; and they asked not for the formal extent of his power, which would give solidity to what he might conclude in the King's name, but they asked an irrevocable pledge that he would consent to give up all that we had taken from them and from their allies without knowing how much more they had afterward to ask 10 It is true, they endeavor-your embassador! You are to show to the ened to convince Lord Malmesbury that, although an avowal of his instructions was demanded, it would never be required that he should act upon it since there was a great difference between knowing the extent of the powers of a minister and insisting upon their exercise. And here I would ask the honorable baronet whether he thinks if, in the first instance, we had given up all to the French plenipotentiaries, they would have given it all back again to us? Suppose I was embassador from the French Directory, and the honorable baronet was embassador from Great Britain, and I were to say to him, "Will you give up all you have gained; it would only be a handsome thing in you as an Englishman, and no ungenerous use shall be made of it?" would the honorable baronet expect me, as a French embassador, to say I am instructed, from the good nature of the Directory, to say you have acted handsomely, and I now return what you have so generously given? Should we not be called children and drivelers, if we could act in this manner? And, indeed, the French government could be nothing but children and drivelers if they could suppose that we should have acceded to such a proposal. But they are bound, it seems, by sacred treaties! They are bound by immutable laws! They are sworn, when they make peace to return every thing to their allies!ers which you were told he had not, and in the reAnd who shall require of France, for the safety of Europe, to depart from its own pretensions to honor and independence? If any person can really suppose that this country could have agreed to such a proposition, 10 The words used were these: "There is a decree of the Directory, that in case Lord Malmesbury shall declare himself not to have the necessary pow ers for agreeing to all the restitutions which the laws and treaties which bind the French Republic make indispensable, he shall return in twenty-four hours to his court to ask for sufficient powers." As the Directory knew the English could not grant this, certainly as a preliminary, such a communication was a direct dismissal of Lord Malmesbury. It was thus it was attempted, on the part of the French, to commence the negotiation. RecapitulaIn July, this demand was made to Lord tion. Malmesbury. He stated that his powers were ample. In answer to this, they went no farther than to say that if he had no such power as what they required, he should send to England to obtain it. To which he replied, that he had not, nor should he have it if he sent. In this they acquiesce, and attempt to amuse us for two months. At the end of that time, the plenipotentiaries say to Lord Malmesbury, not what they said before, send to England for power to accede to proposals which you have already rejected; but go to England yourself for such powers, in order to obtain peace. Such was the winding up of the negotiation. Such was the way in which the prospect of peace has been disappointed by the conduct of France; and I must look upon the dismissal of Lord Malmesbury as the last stage of the negotiation, because the undisguised insult by which it was pretended to be kept up for ten days after Lord Malmesbury was sent away, was really below comment. You send him to ask for those pow fusal of which you acquiesced. You have asked as a preliminary that which is monstrous and exorbitant. That preliminary you were told would not be complied with, and yet the performance of that preliminary you made the sine qua non conditions of his return! Such was the last step by which the French government has shown that it had feeling enough left to think it necessary to search for some pretext to color its proceedings. But they are such proceedings that no pretext or artifice can cover them, as will appear more particularly from the papers officially communicated to the House. But here the subject does not rest. If we look to the whole complexion of this transaction, the not the French duplicity, the arrogance, and violence which has | stake is so small that would not be ready to A revolutionary appeared in the course of the nego- sacrifice his life in the same cause. If we look government, and tiation, if we take from thence our at it with a view to safety, this would be our people, responsi opinion of its general result, we shall conduct. But if we look at it upon the princible for their acts. be justified in our conclusion-not ple of true honor, of the character which we that the people of France-not that the whole have to support, of the example which we have government of France-but that part of the gov-to set to the other nations of Europe; if we view ernment which had too much influence, and has now the whole ascendency, never was sincere was determined to accept of no terms but such as would make it neither durable nor safe; such as could only be accepted by this country by a surrender of all its interests, and by a sacrifice of every pretension to the character of a great, a powerful, or an independent nation. They are di rected against the very exist ence of the British em. pire. rightly the lot in which Providence has placed us, and the contrast between ourselves and all the other countries in Europe, gratitude to that Providence should inspire us to make every effort in such a cause. There may be danger; but on the one side there is danger accompanied with honor; on the other side, there is danger with indelible shame and disgrace: upon such an alternative, Englishmen will not hesitate. I wish to disguise no part of my sentiments upon the grounds on which I put the issue of the contest. I ask, whether up to the principles I have stated, we are prepared to act? Having done so, my opinion is not altered: my hopes, however, are animated by the reflection that the means of our safety are in our own hands; for there never was a period when we had more to encourage us. In spite of heavy burdens, the rad This, sir, is inference no longer. You have their own open avowal. You have stated in the subsequent declaration of France itself that it is not against your commerce, that it is not against your wealth, it is not against your possessions in the East, or your colonies in the West, it is not against even the source of your maritime greatness, it is not against any of the appendages of your empire, but against the very essence of liberty, against the foundation of your independ-ical strength of the nation never showed itself ence, against the citadel of your happiness, against your Constitution itself, that their hostilities are directed. They have themselves announced and proclaimed the proposition, that what they mean to bring with their invading army is the genius of their liberty. I desire no other word to express the subversion of the British Constitution, and the substitution of the most malignant and fatal contrast―the annihilation of British liberty, and the obliteration of every thing that has rendered you a great, a flourishing, and a happy people. Issue now more conspicuous; its revenue never exhibited greater proofs of the wealth of the country; the same objects which constitute the blessings we have to fight for, furnish us with the means of continuing them. But it is not upon that point I rest. There is one great resource, which 1 trust will never abandon us, and which has shone forth in the English character, by which we have preserved our existence and fame as a nation, which I trust we shall be determined never to abandon under any extremity; but shall join hand and heart in the solemn pledge that is proposed to us, and declare to his Majesty that we know great exertions are wanted; that we are prepared to make them; and are, at all events, determined to stand or fall by the LAWS, Liberties, and RELIGION of our country. This is what is at issue. For this are we to declare ourselves in a manner that depbefore the recates the rage which our enemy will country. not dissemble, and which will be little moved by our entreaty! Under such circumstances, are we ashamed or afraid to declare, in a firm and manly tone, our resolution to defend ourselves, or to speak the language of truth with the energy that belongs to Englishmen united in such a cause? Sir, I do not scruple, for one, to say, If I knew nothing by which I could state to myself a probability of the contest terminating in our favor, I would maintain that the contest, with its worst chances, is preferable to an acqui-teristic energy in times of danger, rallied around escence in such demands. Appeal to terests of all. The House was completely electrified by this speech. Sir John Sinclair, at the suggestion of Mr. Wilberforce, withdrew his motion for an amendment, and the Address was passed (as in the House of Lords) without one dissenting voice. The great body of the nation, with their charac King and Parliament. A subscription was raised If I could look at this as a dry question of of fifteen hundred thousand pounds sterling, as Peroration: prudence; if I could calculate it upon a voluntary donation to meet the increased exthe honor the mere grounds of interest, I would penses of the war; and Mr. Pitt was permitted and the in- if we love that degree of national say, so to modify his system of taxation as to propower which is necessary for the inde- duce a vast accession to the regular income of pendence of the country and its safety; if we the government. This relieved him from his regard domestic tranquillity, if we look at indi-main difficulty, and enabled him to renew the vidual enjoyment from the highest to the mean- contest with increased vigor. est among us, there is not a man whose stake is so great in the country that he ought to hesitate a moment in sacrificing any portion of it to oppose the violence of the enemy-nor is there, I trust, a man in this happy and free nation whose The Directory sent Bonaparte to invade Egypt early in 1798, and Turkey immediately declared war against France. Russia now entered eagerly into the contest; and Austria, which had been negotiating with the French at Radstadt, since the treaty of Campo Formio, respecting the concerns of the German Empire, encouraged by the advance of the Russians, again resorted to arms. Thus was formed the third great confederacy against France, which was sustained by immense subsidies furnished by Mr. Pitt out of the increased means now placed at his disposal. The scene of warfare at the close of 1798, and throughout the year 1799, was extended over the whole surface of Italy, along the banks of the Rhine, amid the marshes and canals of Holland, and among the lakes and mountains of Switzerland. France, after gigantic efforts, lost all Italy, with the exception of Genoa, but retained her borders upon the Rhine and the barriers of the Alps. Russia withdrew from the contest in the autumn of 1799. unpopular throughout France, but no party was The Directory had now become extremely brings us to the subject of the next speech. SPEECH OF MR. PITT ON AN ADDRESS TO THE THRONE APPROVING OF HIS REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE WITH BONAPARTE FOR A PEACE WITH FRANCE, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 3, 1800. INTRODUCTION. On the 25th of December, 1799, the day after he was inaugurated as First Consul of France, Bonaparte addressed a letter to the King of England, written with his own hand, and couched in the following terms: "Called by the wishes of the French nation to occupy the first magistracy of the Republic, I think it proper, on entering into office, to make a direct communication to your Majesty. The war which for eight years has ravaged the four quarters of the world, must it be eternal? Are there no means of coming to an understanding? How can the two most enlightened nations of Europe, powerful and strong beyond what their safety and independence require, sacrifice to ideas of vain greatness the benefits of commerce, internal prosperity, and the happiness of families? How is it that they do not feel that peace is of the first necessity as well as of the first glory? These sentiments can not be foreign to the heart of your Majesty, who reigns over a free nation, and with the sole view of rendering it happy. Your Majesty will only see in this overture my sincere desire to contribute efficaciously, for the second time, to a general pacification, by a step speedy, entirely of confidence, and disengaged from those forms which, necessary perhaps to disguise the dependence of weak states, prove only in those which are strong the mutual desire of deceiving each other. France and England, by the abuse of their strength, may still for a long time, to the misfortune of all nations, retard the period of their being exhausted. But I will venture to say it, the fate of all civilized nations is attached to the termination of a war which involves the whole world. Of your Majesty, &c. BONAPARTE." From the feelings expressed by Mr. Pitt in the preceding speech, we should naturally have expected him to embrace this overture with promptitude, if not with eagerness. But the resentment which he justly felt at the evasive and insulting conduct of the Directory during the last negotiation, seems wholly to have changed his views, and he rejected the proposal in terms which were too much suited to awaken a similar resentment in the new French rulers. The reply of Lord Grenville went back to the commencement of the war, declaring it to have been "an unprovoked attack" on the part of the French. It assumed, that "this system continues to prevail," and that on the part of England "no defense but that of open and steady hostility can be availing." In reference to peace, it pointed to the restoration of the Bourbons, as "the best and most natural pledge of its reality and permanence;" and while the English minister did not "claim to prescribe to France what shall be her form of government," he did say, as to any ground of confidence in the one recently organized, "Unhappily no such security hitherto exists; no sufficient evidence of the principles by which the new government will be directed; no reasonable ground by which to judge of its stability." The French minister, Talleyrand, replied to these remarks in a pointed note, and Lord Grenville closed the correspondence in a letter reaffirming his former positions. These communications were laid before the House of Commons, February 3d, 1800, when an Address was proposed by Mr. Dundas, approving of the course taken by ministers. He was followed by Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Canning, and Mr. [afterward Lord] Erskine, who complained in strong terms of the uncourteous language used by Lord Grenville. Mr. Pitt then rose, and without making any defense on this point, or touching directly upon the question, "Why should we not now treat?" took up the subject on the broadest scale, going back to the origin of the war, the atrocities of the French in overrunning a large part of Europe during the last ten years, the genius and spirit of the Revolution, the instability of its successive governments, his motives for treating with such men on a former occasion, and the character an eds of Bonaparte from the commencement of his career as a military chieftain. This was the most elaborate oration ever delivered by Mr. Pitt. Of the vast variety of facts brought forward or referred to, very few have ever been disputed; they are arranged in luminous order, and grow out of each other in regular succession; they present a vivid and horrible picture of the miseries inflicted upon Europe by revolutionary France, while the provocations of her enemies are thrown entirely into the background. It will interest the reader to compare this speech with the reply of Mr. Fox, in respect to the standpoint of the speaker. That of Mr. Fox was this, that peace is the natural state of human society, and ought, therefore, to be made, unless there is clear evidence that the securities for its continuance aro inadequate. Mr. Pitt's stand-point was this, that as the war existed, and sprung out of a system of perfidy and violence unparalleled in the history of the world, it ought not to be ended except on strong and direct evidence that there were adequate securities for the continuance of peace if made. The question was whether the new government under Bonaparte offered those securities. But Mr. Pitt showed great dexterity in treating this government as merely a new phase of the Revolution, and thus bringing all the atrocities of the past to bear on the question before the House. His speech was admirably adapted to a people like the English, jealous of France as their hereditary rival, conscious of their resources, and prepared to consider a continuation of the contest, as the safest means of defending "their liberties, their laws, and their most holy religion." Some of the facts referred to in this speech have been already explained in connection with Mr. Fox's reply on this subject, as given on a preceding page. For the convenience of the reader, however, these explanations will, in a few instances, be given again. SPEECH, &c. would, in any case, be impossible to separate the present discussion from the former crimes and atrocities of the French Revolution; because ments from his own pamphlet, which had before passed through thirty-seven or thirty-eight editions in print, and now gives them to the House embellished by the graces of his personal delivery. The First Consul has also thought fit to revive and retail the chief arguments used by all the opposition speakers and all the opposition publishers in this country during the last seven years. And (what is still more material) the question itself, which is now immediately at issue SIR, I am induced, at this period of the debate, to offer my sentiments to the House, both from an apprehension that at a later hour the attention of the House must necessarily be exhaust-both the papers now on the table, and the whole ed, and because the sentiment with which the hon- of the learned gentleman's argument, force upon orable and learned gentleman [Mr. Erskine] be- our consideration the origin of the war, and all gan his speech, and with which he has thought the material facts which have occurred during its proper to conclude it, places the question pre- continuance. The learned gentleman [Mr. Ercisely on that ground on which I am most desir-skine] has revived and retailed all those arguous of discussing it. The learned gentleman seems to assume as the foundation of his reasoning, and as the great argument for immediate treaty, that every effort to overturn the system of the French Revolution must be unavailing; and that it would be not only imprudent, but almost impious to struggle longer against that order of things which, on I know not what principle of predestination, he appears to consider as immortal. Little as I am inclined to accede to this opinion, I am not sorry that the honorable-the question whether, under the present cirgentleman has contemplated the subject in this serious view. I do, indeed, consider the French Revolution as the severest trial which the visitation of Providence has ever yet inflicted upon the nations of the earth; but I can not help reflecting, with satisfaction, that this country, even under such a trial, has not only been exempted from those calamities which have covered almost every other part of Europe, but appears to have been I say, then, that before any man can concur in reserved as a refuge and asylum to those who opinion with that learned gentleman; Three opinions, fled from its persecution, as a barrier to oppose before any man can think that the subits progress, and perhaps ultimately as an instru- stance of his Majesty's answer is any in favor of ne ment to deliver the world from the crimes and other than the safety of the country gotiation. miseries which have attended it. required; before any man can be of opinion that, to the overtures made by the enemy, at such a time and under such circumstances, it would have been safe to return an answer concurring in the negotiation-he must come within one of the three following descriptions: He must either believe that the French Revolution neither does now exhibit. ing on the origin Under this impression, I trust the House will Reasons for dwell forgive me, if I endeavor, as far as of the war, and the I am able, to take a large and comprehensive view of this important question. In doing so, I agree with my honorable friend [Mr. Canning] that it atrocities of the French Revolu tion. cumstances, there is such a prospect of security from any treaty with France as ought to induce us to negotiate, can not be properly decided upon without retracing, both from our own experience and from that of other nations, the nature, the causes, and the magnitude of the danger against which we have to guard, in order to judge of the security which we ought to accept. one of which must be held by those who are |