considerable moment ; but his mind was diverted from the subjects on which he had intended to address the House by the strange language which he had lately heard. He could now only point out the mischief of this speech, and he must say its wickedness. The topics touched upon by the hon. gentleman were the very poisoned arrows of debate, which, by general consent, were proscribed. They might be used on any occasion, and were quite unconnected with the point at issue. That war produces much public inconvenience and private misery, might be urged against all wars, however just or unavoidable. The question was not, whether the income tax was a bad thing; but whether it was not a better thing than an income tax imposed by a French prefect? The hon. gentleman had shown himself the pander to all the base and illiberal passions of the people, by thus supporting selfishness against patriotism, and opposing private considerations to the grand view of national policy. If he stooped so low, he was not to be envied in the triumph of his eloquence, or the number of his admirers. It was lamentable, however, to see the contrast between the hon. gentleman and the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Pitt) whose return to the House was so warmly welcomed. That right hon. gentleman had not displayed his great talents in damping the zeal and depressing the spirit of the people, by an appeal to the sordid passions of our nature; but in kindling the flame of patriotism, and calling forth the energies of the country, to meet with firmness the difficulties which surrounded it. The conduct of Mr. Fox resembled that of a surgeon who should dissuade his patient from submitting to a necessary operation by talking of the pain that he would suffer from it, while this was the only thing that could stop the progress of a mortal distemper.

Sebastiani; and contended, that it was the determination of the French government to interfere with respect to Egypt, and to conduct itself contrary to the express provisions of the treaty of Amiens, which provided for the integrity of the Turkish empire. He referred to various parts of the correspondence, as well as to the conference between lord Whitworth and the chief consul himself, and also to what related to Malta; and maintained, that ministers had omitted no part of their duty. The French government availed itself of every opportunity, to show its hostile temper, and to manifest a determination of rendering war inevitable. . They had made preparations for that purpose, by an augmentation of their forces. The war could not be avoided, because it was already begun; but if the emperor of Russia, or any other considerable power, should make any proposition of a practical nature, by which peace might be restored he should feel great satisfaction in being the instrument of laying it before his majesty; but he saw nothing in the disposition of the French government which warranted such an expectation. We ought therefore to prepare for an arduous contest. We must provide effectually for our domestic security. Many persons, he was aware, must suffer great deprivations, for the purpose of having the country secured against the danger with which it was menaced. He wished to impress upon the House, that the present war was founded on unavoidable necessity, and that there was in his majesty's ministers a sincere disposition to terminate it, whenever it could be terminated with honour. He would therefore indulge a hope, that the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment, would sacrifice private opinion, in this case, to the advantages of unanimity. The difference between the sentiments contained in the address and those in the amendment was literally nothing.

The Attorney General said, that the arguments of Mr. Fox were calculated to do much mischief, as they were ingenious. The hon. gentleman had laid down principles, which would furnish Buonaparté with arguments for the justification of his conduct. He had observed that the war was unnecessary; but if ever a war was commenced on an honourable principle, it was the present.

Mr. Windham said, that the arguments offered by Mr. Fox appeared to him fallacious. The question before the House was of [VOL. XXXVI.]

Mr. W. Smith condemned the severe epithets which had been applied, by Mr. Windham, to the speech of Mr. Fox. He thought when the heat of the moment had subsided, he must feel remorse, for the expressions he had used.

Mr. Windham, in explanation, allowed that he did not wish the words that had fallen from him, in the heat of debate, to be understood in the strict literal meaning.

Mr. Fox said, he excused the warmth of the right hon. gentleman; and, as for for himself, he had a foible, of not easily [5 C]

May 25. The Address was reported; and, on the question that it be read a second time,

Sir R. Peel said, he had a decided objection to war in any shape; but with re spect to this war, it did appear from the papers, that it was unavoidable. It did not appear to be so much the desire of the French government to obtain the rock of Malta; the rock of the English constitution was what they really aimed at. It was our liberty, protected by our constitution, that gave them the most uneasiness; a constitution which reflected so strong a light

to the people of France, that it gave them a perfect insight into the rotten state of their own society. He could not conceive that the French people, who had so long been struggling for liberty, and who now ought to set some value on freedom, would long continue under tyranny.

war.

Mr. H. Lascelles said, that this war was brought upon us by no act of our own, and therefore he would support such measures as might lay burthens on his constituents. The conduct of France, ever since the peace was concluded, had been atrocious. Every means had been employed by us to avert the calamities of France had put it to us, whether we would sacrifice every thing to support ourselves in an insecure peace. He could not see, from the papers any disposition, on the part of France, to improve the friendship between the two countries. He did not pretend to define with accuracy when a nation should go to war, but he knew there was a point beyond which we should not allow another nation to go.

Sir W. Pulteney was fully convinced that ministers had not adopted the alternative of war so long as there remained any chance of securing the blessings of peace. The great object of the French, in the possession of Malta, was to cripple our commerce, and reduce our navy. Would any man contend for the propriety of our surrendering so important a situation, seeing the unequivocal designs of France upon Egypt, as a road to the subjugation of our Indian possessions? He hoped that ministers would be supported in the conduct of a war which they had used every honourable exertion to avoid.

Mr. Bankes said, his principal objection to the address was, that he could not approve those words which gave to ministers full credit for earnestly having endeavoured, by every means in their power, to avoid the war; for it appeared to him from the papers on the table, that they were not anxious to preserve the peace, but that they, on the contrary, wished to renew the war.

Mr. Hobhouse said, he was prepared to support every tittle of the address, and still further the cause of ministers. They had laid down to themselves a line of moderation and firmness which they had uniformly maintained: they had vindicated the honour of this country in resisting a systematic attempt to destroy the liberties and the morals of Europe: they had steered the middle line; neither abjectly +

to the complaint about the freedom of discussion in different publications, it was hardly necessary for him to say that he was a decided friend to a free press. He did not deny that this freedom was sometimes carried to an unjustifiable length. Ministers had shown their disposition to give no countenance to publications of this kind, by referring the French government to the tribunals of the country. This answer was not held satisfactory by the French government, and a spirit of distrust and animosity continued to be cherished. At the period when the first consul began to be so extremely clamorous about the evacuation of Malta, an official document of an extraordinary nature made its appearance in France. He meant the report of Sebastiani. The publication of this report unfolded projects which could not fail to attract the peculiar notice of ministers. In every page one most important lesson was to be collected, that the views of the first consul relative to Egypt had not been abandoned. It was clearly seen, that the possession of that colony was the constant object of his ambition. In a formal conference, the first consul had not hesitated to declare that Egypt must sooner or later be in the possession of France. He would put it to the candour of their lordships, whether ministers were not entitled to demand from the French government some security for its future views relative to Egyyt, beyond what the treaty of Amiens provided. In the continued possession of Malta, ministers conceived that this security would be found; and hence originated the importance which the possession of the island afterwards assumed. Malta, iu the hands of this country, could only be viewed as a security. It could afford to France, or any other power, no reasonable ground of jealousy. But, independent of these considerations, there were others which justified ministers in retaining the island. When the treaty of Amiens was formed, and the island was to be restored to the order of Saint John of Jerusalem, certain revenues were ununderstood to be appropriated to their support, in a way consistent with the objects which the treaty proposed to establish. Without this support it was absurd to talk of that independence which the treaty guaranteed. But in Spain the revenues of the order had been confiscated: The same thing had taken place in Italy and in Bavaria. The French

government, so far from opposing this sequestration, appeared to have encouraged it, in a way which showed a disinclination to the execution of the treaty. After pursuing this line of conduct, it was with a bad grace that the first consul came forward to insist on the peremptory execution of the treaty. As long as the hope of peace could be entertained, ministers had shown the utmost reluctance to resort to a renewal of hostilities. When, however, the conduct of the French government had become such as could no longer be tolerated, it became parliament and the country to speak in terms of suitable indignation of these repeated acts of aggression. If the conduct of ministers was in any respect to be blamed, it was, that they had not much earlier shown a determination no longer to suffer the insults or the injuries of the French government to pass with impunity. Under all these circumstances, he thought there could be no difficulty in agreeing to the address with which he should conclude. The noble lord then moved an Address couched in the same words as the one moved in the Commons [see p. 1386.]

The Duke of Cumberland said:-My Lords; the question which arises out of the papers appears to me to be nothing less than a question, whether this country, which has so long held a distinguished rank among the nations, shall or shall not cease to be an independent country? for if we were patiently to submit to that accumulation of aggression, injustice, and insult which has been the continued system of the French government with respect to this country, we must descend from that rank, and take our place among the vanquished and feeble nations which have become the prey of French ambition and plunder. My lords, notwithstanding the clear statement of the noble secretary, I must go over in detail the wrongs and insults which this country has endured, and which now call for the address, which has been moved: I must trace those wrongs to the first consul of France; and speaking only of him as consul, I must ask, which of the nations of Europe is it that he has not subdued or endeavoured to subdue, and place in the rank of obsequious vassal nations? Where is Holland, which for a century maintained, by its industry, a most respectable rank among the European nations? That nation is now trampled down by his legions, who, to add insult to their injuries, call themselves