it, and was calculated to make a bad impreffion respecting their fincerity on the people of France; that, on a review of many inftances of grofs mifconduct, proceeding from the fame pernicious principles, the houfe thought itself bound in duty to his majefty, and their conftituents, to declare that they faw no rational hope of redeeming the affairs of the kingdom, but by the adoption of a fyftem radically different from that which had produced the prefent calamities. The addrefs concluded with a very fpirited philippic against the conduct of ministers.

The motion was warmly object ed to, not only on account of the nature of the bufinefs, but of the great variety of matter it contained, by the lords Sydney, Carlile, Carnarvon, and Mulgrave. Lord Hawkesbury recapitulated the arguments in favour of the war being unavoidable on our part, and provoked by the wanton aggreffion of the enemy. He denied that any difpofition to make peace had been Thewn on the part of France after the furrender of Valenciennes; he dwelt upon the folicitude fhewn by the French directory to avoid the title of king in their answer to the ambaffador of the Spanish monarch. With respect to the negotiation which had been fo much reprobated, he faid, the only poffible way of negotiating under fuch circumftances was, to authorize Mr. Wickham merely to put the only queftions which could be put to a powerful enemy "Are you willing to treat for peace on fair and honour able terms? and what are the terms? Will you confent to a congrefs for the negotiation of the pacificatory terms" and "Is there any other mode you like better?" Mr. Barthelemi was, his lordship stated, a

man of fuch refined address, fo well fitted for the diplomatic art, that he would have wormed out of Mr. Wickham all his purposes without in the leaft committing himself, and it would have been made a handle against negotiating. The answer of the directory clearly evinced they had no real defire for peace: the only way left, therefore, was a vigorous profecution of the war.

The duke of Grafton fupported the motion; reprobated the principle and conduct of the war, and thought peace would not be obtained under the prefent adminiftration, as they had manifeftly wifhed the utter destruction of the French republic; and therefore, were they even to obtain peace, the people would not be brought to believe otherwife than that it might have been concluded on more advantageous terms by lefs obnoxious men. His grace adverted to the clofe of the American war, when the attorney and folicitor general had fet a precedent for unfaying what had been faid, and undoing what had been done, when the retraction was of ufe to the country. He lamented the ftrides, which he thought endangered the conftitution and the monarchy itself; the introduction of a military government, which threatened annihilation to the liberties of the people; and the arbitrary controul that minifters had obtained by the prevention of remonftrances to the throne.

The motion was further refifted by the lord prefident, and earl Fitzwilliam, and replied to, in an animated fpeech, by lord Grenville. He regarded it, he faid, in the light of a pamphlet, intended not to confine its operation to that house, but meant for the public. His lordship juftified the war in every stage, and vindicated

Wickham to M. Barthelemi, he did not agree to; and, in contradiction to this being the general mode of negotiation, he quoted the negotiations which ended in the peace of 1763 and of 1782, both of which were conducted in a mode diametrically oppofite. It was difficult to judge of the fincerity of men, and painful to doubt it; but, placing himself in the fituation of the French, he fhould not have thought minifters fincere: and this might account for their answer.

Lord Lauderdale obferved that the war had completely failed in the two objects for which it was declared to be undertaken, the fafety of our allies, and the prevention of French principles. He infifted much upon the equivocal appearance of the late negotiation, and obferved, that if the republic of France had evinced an enmity to monarchical government by avoiding the mention of the word king, the government of England had with equal care, in the late pretended negotiation, avoided any recognition of the republic, or even the mention of its name. In inveighing againft minifters, his lordship feverely animadverted upon their treatment of admiral Cornwallis. The court martial against him he confidered as capriciously and unneceffarily held, and the acquittal of the admiral as a difgrace to the board of admiralty. His lordship pointedly idiculed the idea of minifters hav. ing quietly abandoned their old ground of objection to negotiate on the fcore of the rapid fucceffion of rulers in France, and the inftability of that government, and having expreffed a defire to treat with one of the duration of five months. With refpect to the length of the motion,

to which minifters objected, for that they might thank themfelves. It was a long and black catalogue of their abfurdities; and the matters to which it pointed were too important to be abridged.

The lord chancellor ftrongly objected to the motion, and thought it would have been more confiftent with common fense, and answered party purposes perhaps more effectually, to have petitioned his majefty to change minifters fo incapable and incorrigibly obftinate. His lordship ftrongly infifted upon the advantages we had gained in the war, and the flourishing state of our resources! The motion went, he obferved, to condemn that very conduct, and thofe very measures, to the propriety of which the houfe had fo often affented. This was for their lordships to pafs a vote of cenfure on themselves. On a divifion of the house, there appeared, for the question 10, against it 110.

The fame motion, which had been introduced into the houfe of lords by the earl of Guildford, was brought forward on the fame day by Mr. Fox in the houfe of commons. He began by ftating, that, after the difappointments he had incurred in his different endeavours to ftop the deftructive career of minifters, he fhould not again have addreffed the houfe, except in expreffing his folemn proteft against the meafures purfued, had not feveral events occurred during the laft year, to alter the fentiments of thofe by whom he was oppofed. The event of the greatest importance was the negotiation at Bafle, by the event of which it was afcertained that there was no immediate profpect of peace, and that it was not in the power of thofe entrusted, with the adminiftration of public

affairs,

affairs, to obtain terms from the enemy which they could offer to the nation. It could not, therefore, be difputed, that our fituation was worse than when, whether by conqueft or conceffion, we had a profpect of peace. Of the circumftances, Mr. Fox faid, which reduced us to this fituation, he propofed to enter into a detail. Whatever might be urged concerning its not being our business to inquire into the caufes of the evil, but to difcover and apply the remedy, he would contend that the true way of getting out of difficulty, was to review the caufes by which it was produced, and thence to form plans for our deliverance. The corollary of this propofition was, that the houfe fhould retrace the fteps taken in the prefent war, and fee, whether much of its fatality was not to be afcribed to our own fyftem. He propofed to look retrofpectively instead of profpectively. Mr. Fox, in defence of his defire to inquire whether the principles acted upon had not been fundamentally wrong, quoted the argument of Demofthenes; when, fpeaking of the Athenians, he compared their calamities with the mifmanagement of their rulers, and, contended that their misfortunes fo far from being a caufe of defpair, were a ground of hope. "If," faid he, "they had fallen into thefe misfortunes by natural and remediable caufes, there might be reafon for despair; but if they are the fruits of mifconduct, it may be poffible by wifdom and prudence to repair the evil." This argument, he thought, applied exactly to us, and there was ground for prefumption that the change in our fituation in four years had been owing to the con

duct of those who had the charge of public affairs.

Mr. Fox then reverted to our fituation at the opening of the budget in 1792, three years after the French revolution, when the minifter ftated to the house every circumftance which could prove the utmoft national profperity. He then (faid Mr. Fox) admitted, that fifteen years of peace was, perhaps, rather too much to expect, but we had as rational hopes of continued tranquillity as had ever exifted in the hiftory of modern times. This was full two years after the, firt revolution; after the national affembly had compelled the king to come to Paris, which was faid to be his goal; after the national affembly had annihilated the titles, and deftroyed the feudal tenures the nobility; after it had confifcated the church lands, banished part of the clergy, and compelled, the reft to take an oath contrary in many inftances to the dictates of their confciences. Even after the flight of the king, all these circumftances were infufficient to cloud the profpect of perhaps a fifteen years' peace. That minifters further faw no probability of a rupture, was to be inferred from our not at first taking any part in the difputes between France and Auftria, by whom hoftilities had then commenced, and from the measure of funding the four per cents. Thus ended the feffion of 1792; in the fummer vacation of that year, a republic was fubftituted for a monarchy in France; an a& which, however unjust and impos. litic in thofe by whom it was perpetrated, Great Britain as a nation had certainly no concern with. All the events that could be fuppofed to have influence by exK 2

ample

ample upon the conftitution of Ergland, had already happened. To the changes that had taken place, thofe already stated jacobin principles were in full force prior to this event. If then the principles established before the 10th of Auguft were calculated to give minifters confidence in the continuance of tranquillity, the change of that day could not deftroy it. Mr. Fox ridiculed the concern expreffed for the monarchy of France, whofe reftlefs ambition had occafioned the public debt and the national burdens of this country. He thought there was a time, before the war broke out with Auftria, when this country might have exercifed with effect the dignified office of a mediator, to which it was called by the events of the preceding year. The event to which he principally referred, Mr Fox faid, was the treaty of Pilnitz, by which Ruffia and Prufia avowed their intention of interfering in the internal affairs of France, if they were fupported by the other European powers: this certainly was an aggreffion against France. This treaty was, he believed, only a menace which the parties did not mean to carry into effect: but that did not alter its effect upon France. This Mr. Fox inferred from the fituation of the different courts of Europe, which were focircumftanced that no two of them could act but by general confent.

The dreadful maflacres of Paris, which Mr. Fox very feelingly deplored, did not, however, he contended, make any difference in our relative fituation: they exactly refembled maffacres in former periods, in which Great Britain was more nearly affected, but in which he did not interpofe. The invafion of the Auftrian Netherlands, which took place in October, was foreseen

in April; would it not then have been wife in this country to have mediated between the two powers, and prevented the invafion? The more the aggrandifement of France was to be dreaded, the greater was the reafon for exercifing the office of a mediator before the war commenced. Soon after this, Mr. Fox faid, the recall of lord Gower from Paris took away every means of explanation and conciliation; monfieur Chauvelin was indeed permitted to continue here, but in a dubious character, and not treated in a way to favour conciliation, which brought him to the immediate caufes of the war: these, Mr. Fox faid, had generally been reduced to three; firft, the way in which certain individuals belonging to the correfponding fociety were received bythe French government: fecondly, the decree of the 19th of November : and thirdly, the claims fet up against the monopoly held by the Dutch of the navigation of the Scheldt. Refpecting the firft, no complaint was made, no diffatisfaction ftated. Refpecting the decree, was it ever complained of? was its revocation, or any explanation of it, ever demanded? This was a circumstance fo nearly connected with the existence of government, that he knew not how to feparate them. A refufal was made to recognise the government of France; and then all conciliation was at an end. The moment that all means of explana tion were withdrawn by the recall of lord Gower, a virtual declaration of war was made; yet, through M. Chauvelin, the French had manifeftedaftrong defire for explanation. All writers on the laws of war, Mr. Fox faid, agreed that an infult, an outrage, or even an aggreffion, was not a legitimate caufe of war, unless an explanation is refufed. Was

there,