It

that it would be better policy to meet it than wait for it. That the difturbers of the world, when they had over-run other nations, envying and dreading our profperity, would not fail with double force to vifit us.

His lordship concluded with approving the promptnefs and vigour of the measures that minifters had adopted, at the fame time he disapproved of what appeared to him to be an unjuftifiable interpretation of the word infurrection. In his opinion they would have done much better, if they had acknowledged that in confequence of fome uncommon danger which impended, they had for the public good laid themselves under the neceffity of applying to the legislature for indemnity; but that he had not objected to the addrefs, or supported the amendment, because he would not feem to countenance the many mifchievous principles and fuggeftions which had been heard in that houfe the two laft days from the mover of the amendment.

sbhorred the crimes committed in Morocco; yet to Morocco we had fent a conful. By thefe acts we were neither fuppofed to approve of the form of government at Algiers, nor of the crimes committed in Morocco. From this motion no opinion was to be implied, but the opinion he had ftated. would have been better, if what he proposed had been done fooner, and there were circumstances that made it lefs proper now than at an earlier period. But this was not imputable to him. The earlieft period was now the beft: and this was the earlieft opportunity that the meeting of parliament afforded him. It would have been ftill better, if the British minifter had not been recalled from Paris; but had continued there as the minifters of fome other courts had done. He concluded with moving, " that an humble addrets may be prefented to his majefty, that his majefty will be gracioufly pleafed to give directions, that a minifter may be fent to Paris, to treat with thofe perfons who exercife provifionally the functions of executive government of France, touching fuch points as may be in difcuflion between his majesty and his allies, and the French nation." The motion was feconded by Mr. Grey.

Lord Sheffield rofe in great agitation, and not only reprobated in the most pointed terms the object of the motion; but declared himfelf to be almoft afhamed of his former enthufiafm for the right honourable mover of it. In refpect to war, he believed every man wifhed to avert it: that the fureft means of avoiding it would be by vigorous preparations for it; and, if it could not be avoided,

Mr. T. Stanley expretied his aftonifhment at what had fallen from Mr. Fox during the last three days, aud hoped that he might be prevailed on to withdraw his motion.

Mr. M. A. Taylor defended the character of Mr. Fox. Mr. Grey rose for the fame purpose. Their arguments went to the fame objects; to the purity of their own motives, and their confidence in thofe of their right honourable friend. Mr. Grey delivered himself with great energy. It was afked, faid he, if Great Britain was to fneak and crouch to France. No; neither fneak nor crouch, but negotiate like a great and high-fpirited nation, and if redrefs was re

C

fufed of any injury offered, then denounce war. We are asked again, would we treat now under all the circumftances we know to be exifting. I fay, yes certainly; for though I admit that the time is not the most favourable, the fault is not with us, but with minifters, who let the favourable opportunity pafs away, and by their fupine neglect loft an occafion of preventing many of the crimes committed in France, and perhaps of averting that act of injuftice and impolicy (the execution of the king) which we now at this moment fear is committing. We are told by a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Burke) that to treat with men ftained with so many crimes as the prefent rulers of France, would be difgraceful. Let, fays he, the prefent guilty men pafs away, and in the mean time let us fight a little. What difgrace is to be avoided, or honour to be acquired by fighting first, and then treating afterwards, which we know we muft at last, I do not comprehend, nor how the object can be worth fuch a price. If a war the most dangerous ever undertaken, is to be avoided, we must treat now, and I fupport the motion as the only means left of averting fo great a calamity. We are not here to be hurried away by our feelings, and our indignation against the perpetrators of the crimes committed in France. We are to decide on national policy, not perfonal feeling. I am for maintaining the national faith and the national honour; by whom have they been tarnished? Let minifiers anfwer the queftion.

tion as an encroachment on the royal prerogative.

Mr. Jenkinfon was of the fame opinion, and oppofed the motion in a fpeech of confiderable length. He dwelt on the flourishing ftate of our finances, decried thofe of France, and reprefented the prefent period as far more favourable for engageing in a war with France than the year 1787, when there was a profpect of hoftilities between the two countries.Hebelieved that therewere difaffected perfons in the country, whofe activity made them dangerous; but he was of opinion, that war, inftead of encreafing their power of mifchief, would leffen it. The French knew that we were engaged to protect Holland in the navigation of the Scheldt, and their infolent threats of opening it, in defiance of guarantees and subsisting treaties, must be confidered as an intentional infult to this country, which could not be overlooked without the imputation of a cowardly and bafe fubmiffion. The ambition of the French he ftated in ftrong terms, with their conduct refpecting the king of Sardinia and Geneva, and justified minifters in not having endeavoured at an earlier period to conciliate the good-will of France: for where perions and things were every day changing, where all rule belonged to robbers and affaflins, in what quarter were they to apply? whatgovernment fhould they acknowledge where there was no government? How could England recognize a conftitution, which the French themfelves were every day violating? But, thank God, England, fo long diftinguished for her faithful and facred adherence to her treaties, would not forego her refpect

able

able and useful alliances for any new allies whatever; and leaft of all for fuch allies as the French. Mr. Jenkinson, in confidering the particular moment when this embaffy was propofed, exclaimed: On this very day, while we are here debating about fending an ambaffador to the French republic; on this very day is the king to receive fentence, and, in all probability, it is the day of his murder. What is it then that gentlemen would propose to their sovereign? to bow his neck to a band of fanguinary ruffians, and address an ambaffador to a fet of murderous regicides, whofe hands were ftill reeking with the blood of a flaughtered monarch, and who he had previoufly declared fhould find no refuge in his dominions? No, fir, the British character is too noble 'to run a race for infamy; nor shall we be the first to compliment a fet of monfters, who, while we are agitating this fubject, are probably bearing through the streets of Paris, horrid fpectacle! the bloody victim of their fury.

Mr. Francis complained of the manner in which the oppofers of the motion conducted the debate; not by appeals to the understanding, but by exciting the paffions, and agitating the feelings. He marked the unjuftifiable conduct of the house, in addreffing his majefty for the ftri&t neutrality he had preferved, and for his affurance of maintaining peace by a firm and temperate conduct, and that nothing fhould be neglected on his part that can contribute to that important object; while no steps whatever are taken to prevent war. As for the treaties which have been urged as motives to become

parties in the conteft with France, he asked if they preclude all preliminary negotiation; and if they did, is any nation bound to its own deftruction?, He concluded with requiring, that fuch ferious matters fhould be ferioufly confidered. We are as much bound, he faid, to debate and deliberate now, as we may hereafter be to act with vigour and decifion,

Mr. Erikine could not affent to any one of the arguments which had been employed againft fending an ambaffador to France, while he agreed to every reason that had been affigned in favour of fuch a meafure. If war was inevitable we muft boldly meet it; but where is that war to end? Were we, he afked, refolved not to terminate it until the French had, in our opinion, formed a government of moderation and of justice, or perhaps what they would never have, a government equal to our own? Were we to plunge into the mifery and horror that await a war, merely because we cannot, from a nice punctilio, fend a perfon to France to reprefent the dignity of this country? fo that the reafon which prevents us now from fending an ambaffador to France, might prevent our bringing the war, when we should think it neceffary, to a determination. On the fubject of war he quoted fome very beautiful paffages from Dr. Johnson, and then entered upon a very animated eulogium of Mr. Fox, whom he reprefented as formed by Providence to guard, invigorate, and preferve our conftitution, and to remedy the vices of the times. He concluded with a recapitulation of his fentiments concerning the war, and declaring his belief that the motion

of

of his friend was peculiarly calculated to avert it.

The Mafter of the Rolls, after propofing to Mr. Fox, or fome of his friends, to go on this embaffy, made a very humorous comparifon between Barlow and Froft, who had already been received by the Convention as deputies from fome of the focieties in this country, and an ambaffador from the king of it. He fuppofed that on fuch an occafion 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 bufinefs for you here, as we have vowed enmity to all kings. You may therefore be gone.

Mr. Windham contended, that thofe who argued against the recognition of the republic of France, were not only fortified by experience, but by higher principles, by the interefts of nations, and by the dictates of humanity. Thus very powerful arguments ought to be ufed, more powerful, he faid, than anythat had been brought, to induce the house to affent to the motion of his right honourable friend; for by recognizing the republic of France, what confequences would Great Britain produce? The complete alienation of thofe powers with whom he was at prefent allied; not only the alienation of allies, but by giving the whole weight of her character to France, fhe would place all the reft of Europe in a fituation deplorable indeed; fhe would arm every fubject, of every kingdom, against the powers that governed thofe kingdoms; fhe would produce confequences as fatal to the future interefts 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 moft fatal event that had ever happened.

If he were to be asked, whether he would fubmit to an evil, or wait for a neceflity, he was not quite fure that he would not wait for compulfion, and take that for his juftification. That Great Britain fhould be the firft country to be lefs fhocked with maffacre and murder! That the fhould be the first country to evince a want of feeling, filled him with anguish, and with horror! That the fhould be the first to preclude herself from forming a part of any confederation, was difgraceful! If fubmiffion to France must be the confequence, neceffity fhould firft justify that fubmiflion. Well did the House know, that no inquiry could be made into the origin of governments; the greater the space of time, therefore, that elapfed from that origin, the fmaller was the crime incurred. Evils, by mere time, become lefs; by time the government of France might become lefs fhocking, and lefs wicked.

Mr. Whitbread made fome general obfervations on the propriety of the motion, and then proceeded to obferve, on the doubt expreffed by Mr. Windham, whether he fhould prefer the hazard of an evil from future compulfion, or receive it by immediate fubmiflion. “The hon. gentleman has faid, that it would be a degradation for us to negotiate with the French at prefent; but that the time might come when neceffity would compel us. What then did we fay to the French by this? You are a parcel of affaflins; but if you affaflins compel us, we must negotiate with

you,

you. Thus our confeffion that we negotiated from neceffity on our fide, would, according to the difpofition we were pleafed to give to the French, juftify any act on theirs. We fhall have given to a malicious difpofition the highest poffible provocation, and must bear the effect. In reply to the Mafter of the Rolls, he stated that there were ambaffadors at Paris from feveral of the European powers. He then proceeded to argue on the fubject of the Scheldt, and deprecated it as a caufe of war; and after fpeaking of alarms, riots and infurrections in a strain of ludicrous obfervation, he declared his high opinion of Mr. Fox, and that while that gentleman was the leader of their party, he should never defpair of his country.

Mr.Grant oppofed the motion before the Houfe. All the celebrated writers on the law of nations, he faid, had laid it down as a clear and indubitable principle of propriety, that rivers belonged to thofe who inhabited their banks, juft as far, and no farther, than thofe banks extended. If the banks belonged to different people, then the dominion over the river was divided, each people poffeffing the part that was contiguous to their domain; and fuch was the policy of this diftribution, that if it had not been fo laid down by the ableft writers on the law of nations, it would have been a pofitive ftipulation indifpenfably neceffary under the law of nations, for without it no ftate could be fecure. If the courfe of rivers was, as is contended by the French, as open and common to mankind as the fea itfelf, a fleet of French and Spapiards might fail up the Thames,

and we fhould have no right to moleft them until they actually began hoftilities. Agreeable to this law of nations, we find every other civilifed ftate 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 exclufive poffeffion of that river as far as their banks extended; but, independent of general doctrine, that right has been repeatedly acknowledged and ratified by exprefs treaty with the fovereign power of that country, which alone could have any pretence to interfere. As well might France interpofe, therefore, between the Spaniards and English, relative to the regulations of the navigation of the river Miffiffippi in America. Their interference relative to the Scheldt thews no lefs arrogance and injuftice, than a rooted contempt of exifting order and moral obligation. Befide, why fhould we fend an ambaffador to France, when the fubject 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 fovereignty of the people. Shall France be fuffered, therefore, to arrogate to itself the umpirage of all difputes in Europe? The reflefs, meddling difpofition of that country, which an honourable gentleman had declared was fo long the fcourge of mankind under the defpotifm of its crown, seemed now no lefs difpofed to blast the happiness of man under the ftill more wild and unlimited defpotifm of the people. If France by furprife had feized on Portsmouth, or

any