We were

abie; every country had a right to frame its own. not making war for any interests of our own, it was pompously asserted, but on motives of beneficence and justice, for the interests of Europe. There might be chivalry in succouring those who called for succour, but the chivalry of succouring those who said they did not want it, was madness. Who called upon us to continue the war? Did Prussia, or any other of our allies? No. But we had got a new ally, the Empress of Russia. She, however, was one of our earliest allies in this business, and instead of her not doing any thing in consequence of a new alliance the novelty would be, her doing any thing in consequence of the old. If he were her advocate, as he had once been called, he should say that she had contributed more than her share to the purposes of the grand confederacy. She had completely extinguished jacobinism in Poland, which, but for the arms of Great Britain, she could not have done; and this was all she would do.

The

Instead of appearing in an honourable, we exhibited ourselves in an odious point of view, by continuing the war. France was inclined to peace; the allies were inclined to peace; neutral powers wished for the restoration of peace; and Great Britain alone was shaking the torch of discord. It was said to be a boldness on the part of the honourable gentleman who made this motion, to take the reins of government from the hands of ministers. It was, in his opinion, a more daring boldness in those ministers, who, for the purpose of suppressing a few speculative opinions, would deluge all Europe with blood, involve the whole world in war, and extinguish the social happiness of the human race. right honourable gentleman had said, that none but jacobins cried out for peace. The fact was widely different. The industrious manufacturer, overloaded with taxes, cried aloud for peace. The jacobins, as those men were termed who wished for a radical reform, looked on ministers as their best friends, and relied only on a continuance of the war, for a full attainment of their favourite object. Such jacobins were not numerous, but even in the city which the right honourable gentleman represented (Norwich), as many as there were refused to sign a petition for peace, because they said that the continuance of the war and of the present ministers in office, tended most effectually to promote their views. But supposing the contrary to be the fact, and that every disaffected person wished for peace, was that a reason why this country should continue to make war? Was it to be continued, he would ask, in another point of view, in full reliance on the judgment of ministers, on a confidence to be given to men,

whose conduct, in his opinion, was the weakest and the most contemptible that had ever disgraced a falling country.

The right honourable gentleman had alluded to America. Did not gentlemen see similar features in these two unfortunate contests? There was a loyal party in America, as well as La Vendée. The loyalists and the royalists, Mr. Fox observed, tallied even to the minuest point, and hence hopes had been fostered by ministers. In the last year of that war, it was debated, whether or not the American republic should be recognized; and it was urged, that if this were done, the sun of Britain was set for ever. Was not all this conduct the same on both questions, the American war and the present war? But suppose our present objects, if fixed objects we had, to be fully attained. Suppose Louis XVII. seated on the throne, and the emigrants restored-was it to be expected that France would be quiet? No. The smallest knowledge of history forbad such a supposition. Could we, under the restored race of the Bourbons, expect a better faith? No. The present government of France, however unstable it might seem, offered more security from the publicity of its councils, than could be expected from the dark secrecy of any despotism. In this it bore a near relation to the British constitution; and hence a reason arose in his mind for liking it. At all events, he contended, that there was as much cause to expect fidelity from the French as from any of the princes of Europe. The terms of the Austrian convention, he observed, were to be debated the next day, and therefore he forbore saying any thing on that head at present; but when the emperor declared his readiness to negotiate with France, ought we not to hesitate? What evil could result from our recognition of the republic, now that it had been recognized by the emperor? Were we to refuse merely because Holland was at this time in the hands of the French republic? Those who had used this argument with respect to the Netherlands, should say, when that peace was to be expected, which must be preceded by the re-conquest of those countries. He would quote the sentiment of Mr. Burke in the case of America- Try peace and conciliation, and if that fail, then pursue war." The evils of war we had felt; the evils of peace were only matter of some men's speculation. Was it fit, then, to advance speculation against experience?

Mr. Fox concluded an able speech by saying, that he felt indebted to the honourable gentleman who had introduced this motion, because the oftener the subject was discussed, the more he was convinced the war would be disapproved. He thought that peace and conciliation could never be suggested

too frequently. If these failed, war was still within our reach, but the latter might possibly be continued until the proffer of conciliation was made in vain.

The question being put on Mr. Windham's motion, "That the other orders of the day be now read," the House divided:

Tellers.
Bankes

Mr. Wilberforce's motion was consequently rejected.

IN

LOAN TO THE EMPEROR.

May 28.

Na committee of the whole House, to consider of the conven tion between his majesty and the emperor, signed at Vienna, May 4th, 1795, Mr. Pitt moved, "That it is the opinion of this committee, that provision be made for guaranteeing the payment of the dividends on a loan of four millions six hundred thousand pounds, on account of the Emperor of Germany, conformably to the said convention."

Mr. Fox said, that when this business was before the House on a former day, they were told that four millions were to be granted to the emperor, on condition of his providing 200,000 men for the common cause, as it was termed, but that if he should provide a larger army, there should be no objection on our part to granting him the sum of six millions; and it was added, that the emperor had received some of this money in part of the whole loan; and at that time it was not known how the proposals would be accepted at Vienna. The fact now was, that he was to receive four millions six hundred thousand pounds over and above the sums which had been already advanced to him. What was the consequence of this? Did the emperor undertake to furnish more than the 200,000 men? No such thing; and it now appeared that the emperor had never agreed to what had been stated to the House by the minister. Perhaps it was not criminal on the part of our government to advance the money which the emperor had actually received: but he was sure that the House of Commons ought to have more and better information than the minister had been pleased to give them, before they agreed to a proposition which was both dangerous and

alarming. There was a rumour that this faithful ally of ours had acted in a manner not very consistent with the character which had been given him; if that rumour was true, we were about to proceed upon very important business indeed, without the least security that we should not be deceived. It had been said, that when the British and allied armies were in a situation of the greatest peril, and when a delay of only twenty-four hours of the Austrians would have been essential, that delay had been refused by his imperial majesty; and the silence of the minister upon that subject made Mr. Fox think that this rumour was well founded. We had continued to pay the emperor 100,000l. a month after he had deserted us. When an inquiry was proposed to be made into this business, we were told there were some difficulties in the way of an explanation. He would ask, was that an answer to a House of Commons called upon to vote away by millions the public money? It was objected to by many, and by him particularly, on the discussion of the Prussian treaty, that we should pay our money in such large sums without having an opportunity of knowing correctly how former engagements had been fulfilled. The House were told they could not have any precise information, because the regular returns of the operations of the armies had not been made. This was, in his opinion, a scandalous omission. He disapproved of the Prussian treaty; but that treaty contained an article, by which we were entitled to call for an account, but which we never had, because no inquiry had been instituted. But in this treaty there was no such power in point of fact, and yet we had been careful to preserve the appearance of it. If, in one month, the emperor should fail in the performance of his engagement, we might have correct information, but we had no means to prevent that failure. It had been stated, that we were not answerable for the whole amount of the loan, if the emperor should fail; that we were answerable only for the dividends from time to time as the failure should occur. He really thought this curious. He could not help smiling at it, although he had heard that ignorance was apt to smile. He was really too stupid to see the distinction between being answerable for the whole sum, and paying for ever the dividends that shall become due upon it. The distinction between that and paying a sum of money he did not comprehend. He wished to know upon what our security rested with regard to this loan. He should be answered, no doubt, on the punctuality of the payments of the emperor: now, upon this he wished for some explanation before the House proceeded farther. There were some persons, and he confessed he was one of the number, who had doubts concerning this punc

tuality, as well as respecting the fulfilment of the military engagements of his imperial majesty; and these were points which required a good deal of explanation. Here Mr. Fox read an extract of a letter from a person at Vienna to his correspondent here, stating that the court of Vienna had come to a resolution not to pay dividends of old loans to any persons resident in France; and to another resolution, not to pay any persons who had not emigrated from France; that was to say, the emperor would not pay except where emigration was proved. Sums of money were due to a religious order in France, and the emperor said he would not pay them unless they proved they had emigrated from France: and by the second resolution, he said he would not pay them, because they happened to be in the Austrian Netherlands, at the time the French over-ran that quarter. In answer to the minister's assertion, that we had made good use of our credit, by the terms of the loan, he observed there were two arguments against such a mode of proceeding: first, it was not honourable for the British House of Commons to sell the interest of the public credit; and, secondly, if it was to be sold, it should be sold for what it was really worth. As to the idea that the emperor intended to keep his engagements, he hoped he did; but then the House ought to inquire whether he was able as well as willing.

It was not the time now to go at large into the general question of the policy of this loan. But there was another point extremely important indeed, and which ought to be attended to. He saw in this convention no stipulation that the emperor should not make a separate peace, On the contrary, it was carefully avoided; and it was to be observed, that this convention was signed at Vienna at the very time that the emperor published the rescript to the diet of Ratisbon, the substance of which was pretty well known. The minister insisted that this matter was discussed yesterday, and the decision of the House made it unnecessary to discuss that business again. Now, he saw it in the direct contrary view. What was the question last night? It was this- Whether it was wise and judicious for one of the confederates against France, viz. Great Britain, to negociate with France at this time? What was the determination of the House that subject? It was this - That it would be unwise in us to do any thing that could tend to weaken that confederacy: a decision which he by no means applauded, but such was the decision. And yet it had been that moment proposed, by the resolution before the Committee, that we should embark our credit with one of the members of that confederacy, who had done the very thing which the decision of the House

upon