Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

had signed a declaration of attachment to the constitution, because he thought it of importance at the present moment to let foreigners, and especially the French, see that men of all descriptions were firmly attached to it; that they had been grossly deceived by the addresses from this country, which told them that their doctrines were very generally adopted here; that they had been deceived by the minister's proclamations, stating that there was great danger from their doctrines; that they had been deceived by the alarms expressed by some of his own friends. This he had done, and every thing consistent with honour he would still do to prevent a war with France; more especially a war on false hopes, on one part, and false grounds on the other.

On the subject of party-connections it was seldom properat all times difficult-to speak, and he was not called upon to do it. He would only just shew his honourable friend a few of the consequences arising from the doctrine he had laid down. His honourable friend would oppose a ministry where he had hopes of turning them out, and seeing his friends get into their places; but when those hopes were at an end he would join them. Many of those who had formerly opposed ministers had done so; more would follow their example; but they had never dreamt that they should have so good a defence for their conduct as the system of his honourable friend a doctrine much more convenient for others than he was sure it would be for himself. Did his honourable friend see the of this doctrine? consequences Could he, upon reflection, reconcile it with his high notions of honour? Was it a fit lesson to teach ministers, that, if by their misconduct the public safety was brought into danger, then they should have the support of those who had before opposed them? Was it proper thus to hold out a reward to misconduct? Would it curb the inordinate and selfish ambition of men in power to say, that if he thought them so good as to resign their places rather than their country should suffer, he would oppose them; but if he thought them so bad as to sacrifice their country to their own love of peace, he should feel himself bound not only to withdraw his opposition, but to join them? Thus his honourable friend held out a premium to a wicked and pernicious ambition, and, in fact, said to ministers, In order to retain your places, and ensure our support to your power, you have only to bring the country to the brink of ruin. If his honourable friend did join ministers, they would not have much reason to be proud; for, on his own principle, in proportion to the support he gave them, would be his bad opinion of those to whom he went, and his good opinion of those whom he had left. Mr. Fox concluded with moving,

"That the farther consideration of the bill be postponed to that day three weeks," in order, he said, to give time for enquiry into the gounds of the necessity alleged for adopting it.

Mr. Fox's motion was negatived without a division. After which the bill was read a third time and passed.

ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE FOR AN AUGMENTATION OF THE FORCES.

ON

February 1.

N the 24th of January, 1793, intelligence arrived in London of the melancholy catastrophe of Louis the XVIth; and on the 28th, Mr. Secretary Dundas presented the following message from his majesty:

"GEORGE R.

- In

"His majesty has given directions for laying before the House of Commons copies of several papers which have been received from Mr. Chauvelin, late minister plenipotentiary from the most christian king, by his majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs, and of the answers returned thereto; and likewise copy of an order made by his majesty in council, and transmitted by his majesty's commands to the said Mr. Chauvelin, in consequence of the accounts of the atrocious act recently perpetrated at Paris. the present situation of affairs his majesty thinks it indispensably necessary to make a further augmentation of his forces by sea and land; and relies on the known affection and zeal of the House of Commons to enable his majesty to take the most effectual measures, in the present important conjuncture, for maintaining the security and rights of his own dominions; for supporting his allies; and for opposing views of aggrandizement and ambition on the part of France, which would be at all times dangerous to the general interests of Europe, but are peculiarly so, when connected with the propagation of principles which lead to the violation of the most sacred duties, and are utterly subversive of the peace and order of all civil society."

The message was taken into consideration on the 1st of February, when Mr. Pitt concluded a long and eloquent speech with moving, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, to return his majesty the thanks of this House for his most gracious mes sage, and for the communication of the papers, which, by his majesty's command, have been laid before us: To offer to his majesty our heartfelt condolence on the atrocious act lately perpetrated at Paris, which must be viewed by every nation in Europe as an outrage on religion, justice, and humanity, and as a striking

[ocr errors]

and dreadful example of the effect of principles which lead to the violation of the most sacred duties, and are utterly subversive of the peace and order of all civil society: To assure his majesty, that it is impossible for us not to be sensible of the views of aggrandizement and ambition, which, in violation of repeated and solemn professions, have been openly manifested on the part of France, and which are connected with the propagation of principles incompatiable with the existence of all just and regular government: that, under the present circumstances, we consider a vigorous and effectual opposition to these views as essential to the security of every thing which is most dear and valuable to us as a nation, and to the future tranquillity and safety of all other countries: That, impressed with these sentiments, we shall, with the utmost zeal and alacrity, afford his majesty the most effectual assistance to enable his majesty to make a further augmentation of his forces by sea and land, and to act as circumstances may require in the present important conjuncture, for maintaining the security and honour of his crown, for supporting the just rights of his allies, and for preserving to his people the undisturbed enjoyment of the blessings which, under the Divine Providence, they derive from the British constitution.". The address was seconded by Lord Beauchamp. The Earl of Wycombe conceived it to be his indispensable duty to use every argument in his power to prevent a war. The country, he insisted, was in no danger whatever, being equally secured by its insular situation, its internal resources, and the strong attachment of the people to the constitution. As for French principles, he had no idea of going to war against them; and with respect to the cruelties perpetrated in France, he attributed them to the infamous expedition of the Duke of Brunswick, which might be called a fraternity of kings for the purpose of imposing despotism on all Europe. Mr. Whitbread opposed the address. He prefaced his observations by declaring his abhorrence of the atrocious deed recently committed in France: it would stand, he said, one of the foremost in the black catalogue of crimes which history had to record; it would remain a foul stain upon the national character of the people amongst whom it had been perpetrated. But he denied that the barbarities imputed to France were the necessary consequences of the French revolution, or of republican principles. To the conduct of the powers combined against the liberties of France, to the sanguinary manifestoes of the Duke of Brunswick, might they be, without hesitation, ascribed. These manifestoes bore rather the stamp and character of those Gothic and Scythian invaders, with whom to conquer and destroy were the same, than of the gallant and generous leader of the armies of two enlightened princes of Europe, at the close of the eighteenth century. The spirit of Attila was discernible in them, who describing the manner in which himself made war, in the emphatical words recorded by Mr. Gibbon, had said, "Where Attila's horse sets his foot, the grass never grows." He deprecated a war with France. He denied it was justifiable upon any of the grounds stated in the papers on the table; nor would he allow that ministers had done their utmost to avoid so dreadful a calamity.

Mr. Fox said, that although some words had fallen from the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer which might lead him to think that war was not absolutely determined upon, yet the general tenor and impression of his speech was such as to convince him that there never was a time when the duty, which he owed, not merely to his immediate constituents, but to the whole people of Great Britain, of whom the members of that House were individually and collectively the virtual representatives, more imperiously called upon him, and upon every man, to speak out and declare his sentiments frankly and fairly. The misrepresentations and misconstructions of what he and those who thought as he did, had already said in the course of the present session, left him no room to doubt, that what he must now say, would be equally, and perhaps as successfully, misrepresented and misconstrued. This only served to shew, that they were on a service of honour as well as danger; but if he were deterred by misrepresentation and calummy from delivering opinions because they might be unpopular, and from deprecating a war with France as an evil to be avoided by every means consistent with the honour and safety of us and our allies, he should basely betray his trust to his constituents and his country.

The right honourable gentleman had introduced the several grounds of dispute with France, ably and eloquently; but the reasons for going to war, he did not mean to say for arming, had not been very accurately treated. The crimes, the murders, and the massacres that had been committed in France, he did not view with less horror, he did not consider as less atrocious than those who made them the perpetual theme of their declamation, although he put them entirely out of the question in the present debate. The condemnation and execution of the king he pronounced to be an act as disgraceful as any that the page of history recorded; and whatever opinions he might at any time have given in private conversation, he had expressed none certainly in that House, on the justice of bringing kings to trial: revenge being unjustifiable, and punishment useless, where it could not operate either by way of prevention or example, he did not view with less detestation the injustice and inhumanity that had been committed towards that unhappy monarch. Not only were the rules of criminal justice, rules that more than any other ought to be strictly observed, violated with respect to him; not only was he tried and condemned, without any existing law to which he was personally amenable, and even contrary to laws that did actually exist; but the degrading circumstances of his imprisonment, the unnecessary and in

sulting asperity with which he had been treated, the total want of republican magnanimity in the whole transaction, (for even in that House it could be no offence to say, that there might be such a thing as magnanimity in a republic,) added every aggravation to the inhumanity and injustice of those acts.

Now, having said all this as the genuine expression of his feelings and his conviction, he saw neither propriety nor wisdom in that House passing judgment on any act committed in another nation, which had no direct reference to us. The general maxim of policy always was, that the crimes perpetrated in one independent state were not cognizable by another. Need he remind the House of our former conduct in this respect? Had we not treated, had we not formed alliances with Portugal and with Spain, at the very time when those kingdoms were disgraced and polluted by the most shocking and barbarous acts of superstition and cruelty, of racks, torture, and burnings, under the abominable tyranny of the inquisition? Did we ever make these outrages against reason and humanity a pretext for war? Did we ever inquire how the princes with whom we had relative interests either obtained or exercised their power? Why, then, were the enormities of the French in their own country held up as a cause of war? Much of these enormities had been attributed to the attack of the combined powers; but this he neither considered as an excuse, nor would argue on as a palliation. If they dreaded, or had felt an attack, to retaliate on their fellow citizens, however much suspected, was a proceeding which justice disclaimed; and he had flattered himself, that when men were disclaiming old, and professing to adopt new principles, those of persecution and revenge would be the first that they would discard. No man felt greater horror at the proceedings of the combined powers than he did. A combination more dangerous to the tranquillity of Europe and the liberties of mankind had never been formed. It had been said that Austria was not the aggressor in the war with France. Had those, who said so, seen the treaty of Pilnitz? Let them look at that treaty, take the golden rule of supposing themselves in the situation of the French, and, judging of others as they would wish to be judged, say whether or not the French had been the aggressors. But, whatever might be thought of Austria, was the King of Prussia attacked by France? Were his territories menaced, or his allies insulted? Had he not been completely the aggressor, he would have called upon us as his allies for succour: no such call had ever been heard of: a sufficient proof, if any proof were wanting, that he never considered himself but as engaging in an offensive war. What

[blocks in formation]
« VorigeDoorgaan »