time that the greatest unanimity should be found in the councils of the nation. He did not consider Malta as the only ground, or the principal ground of the war; the many insults and aggressions of France were such, that, for his part, he did not consider Malta a sufficient satisfaction. The state of Holland, Switzerland, and Italy, were grounds still stronger than that of Malta. The possessions of France were now enormous, and were employed in wounding and injuring us. He considered that the country was never engaged in a war more necessary than the present; nor was it ever more necessary to prosecute a war with vigour and decision. If we carried it on well, he had no doubt of success; but if we carried it on badly, he thought the country would never be troubled with managing another war.

Earl Spencer considered the war unavoidable, under the present circumstances. He did not wish the house to run away with the idea, that this was to be but a short war, as it might well turn out to be otherwise. He wished the country to understand its danger, and the house to keep that jealous superintendance of the management of the resources of this country, without which we could not hope for any important success.

The Earl of Rosslyn, although he agreed with a noble lord (Lord Melville), that Malta alone would be a sufficient ground of war, yet thought it evident, that the whole system of France, since the peace, and her many breaches of good faith, amounted to an abundant cause of war, on our part. He con sidered the menacing language, held forth by Bonaparte to Lord Whitworth, as a sufficient cause of war. He considered his whole conduct, since he signed the treaty, as an uniform system of arrogance, insult, and injury. His views against the Turkish empire, which he did not take the trouble to conceal, were contrary to the letter of the treaty of Amiens, and therefore a ground of war. He wished that this should not be considered as a war likely to be short, but as one so absolutely necessary, that our only wish should be, to carry it on with vigour and success. The Marquis of Sligo thought the provocations given to England, were such as made war inevitable. He hoped we should always retain Malta.

After a few observations from some other noble lords,

Lord Grenville expressed his approbation of the address, which he thought was drawn up in terms congenial with those sentiments of national honor and personal pride, which formed the best securities for the country. He did not wish to be considered an advocate for war. No man felt more strongly than he did the calamities of war, or the care that ought to be taken to avert so great an evil. But it was often the best way to avoid it, not to appear too much afraid of it. It was from

1803.

this conviction that he had always recommended BOOK VI, to ministers a system contrary to what they had chosen to pursue, but which he firmly believed CHAP. II. would have been more effectual even for avoiding the war. As to the non-execution of the article of the treaty respecting Malta, he saw and stated, that, from the commencement, it was an article not capable of being carried into execution. Without dwelling much, however, upon the ground of Malta, he thought it clear that the present war was just, necessary, and expedient; inasmuch as it was a resistance to a series of violence, aggression, and insult, that could not be endured, without sinking the country to the lowest state of degradation. It was better to begin the contest now, than wait till we should be forced to engage in it, with diminished means, and against increased forces. The designs of Bonaparte on the Turkish empire were in direct violation of the letter and the spirit of the treaty of Amiens. The first consul was not a man to be conciliated to the practice of justice by the appearance of submission: all the energies of this country must therefore be called forward: we must expose ourselves to dangers, and reconcile ourselves to burdens; and prevent, by temporary sacrifices, the total sacrifice of our country and ourselves.

Lord Darnley supported the original address, as did also Lord Gwidir.

The house then divided on Lord King's amendment. For it 10; against it 142; majority 132 for the original address.

On the same day there was a very animated debate in the house of commons. After some pertinent observations from Mr. Erskine, Mr. Pitt expressed a strong hope, that upon the great and important question now at issue between this country and France, all parties would be unanimous. There had been such evident proofs of hostility on the part of France, as justified this country in retaining Malta for its security. The report of Sebastiani, the circumstances of his mission, and the express and deliberate avowal of Bonaparte himself, proved the intention of the first consul to renew his hostile attempts against Egypt, which would be undeniably an act of hostility against this country, and its most important interests, and a direct violation of the treaty of Amiens. He then commented at length upon the report of Sebastiani, and his mission, which he thought was most evidently of a hostile nature: as to the pretence of his being sent to answer and refute assertions in Sir Robert Wilson's book, that was ridiculous, inasmuch as his mission was antecedent to the appearance of that book; and, in fact, Sir Robert Wilson's statements had not been at all contradicted by the report of Sebastiani. Bonaparte, in his conversation with Lord Whitworth, only disowned the intention of seizing

1803.

BOOK VI. Egypt at present; as he declared, that sooner or later it must belong to France; and yet, although CHAP. II. it was thus confest to be a favorite object of the consular ambition, still the only security that France would give was this, "that the French ambassador at Constantinople should be charged to give assurances to the Porte, of the disposition of France to strengthen, instead of weaken, the Turkish government." He would not disbelieve this assertion, when he recollected, that it had been the new policy of France, ever since the revolution, to disclose the most daring designs, long before their execution, in order that the first feelings of indignation, which would lead to vigorous resistance, might have passed away, and given place to neglect and indifference. He therefore did believe the first consul and his minister, when they declared their views upon Egypt; and thought our ministers would have been most blameable, if, when such designs were avowed, they should surrender Malta without sufficient security. He thought the annexation of Piedmont, the arrogant conduct of France with respect to the German indemnities, and, above all, the violence offered to Switzerland; were sufficient causes of war at any time, if we had had such continental co-operation as to afford any prospect of success. The various aggressions stated in his majesty's declaration, were all grounds sufficient to prove the necessity and justice of the war. He concluded by calling upon ministers, in a very impressive manner, to prepare without delay such vigorous measures of finance and national defence, as would convince our enemies that they were neither able to diminish our spirit by threatened invasions, nor to exhaust our resources by a longprotracted war. Great and unexampled as were our efforts during the last war, those of the present war should still exceed them. He lamented the necessity of those painful exertions as much as any man; but we had no option between the blessings of peace and the dangers of war; from the fatality of the times, and the general state of mankind, we must consider our lot as cast in a time of trouble and peril, and must now rouse our national spirit, to meet the dangers, and discharge the duties, of the situation we find ourselves placed in.

Mr. Grey moved an amendment to the address, and a discussion took place, which, as the reporters could not gain admission, was never accurately made public. The debate, however, was adjourned till the next day, when it was resumed by Mr. T. Grenville, who was decidedly of opinion that the conduct of France, upon all the principal points stated in his majesty's declaration, amply justified this country in retaining Malta. He should not have considered a mere abstract wish of the first consul to possess himself of Egypt, as a sufficient ground of war: but the conduct of

Sebastiani, and the avowal of the French minister, made it clear that a hostile attack was meditated, not only on Egypt, but on the Ionian isles, in direct violation of the treaty of Amiens: he knew no period in which so many and invincible grounds of war, on the part of this country, were so clearly and distinctly made out. He preferred the original address to the amendment, because he thought it necessary to show the greatest unanimity.

Mr. Whitbread said, he also wished for unanimity: he put it, however, to the last speaker, to Mr. Pitt, and other gentlemen, whether they could, with a safe conscience, vote an address which would be a direct approbation of the conduct of his majesty's ministers. The right hon. gentleman had distinctly admitted, that ministers had committed the honor of the country. It appeared to him, that the best mode of obtaining unanimity, was, by supporting the amendment of Mr. Grey, which, while it pledged the house to the support of the war, did not approve of the conduct of ministers. Whatever aggravated circumstance might have occurred since the peace of Amiens, he considered that the only thing we were at war for now, was the terms of our ultima tum delivered to the French court. If we had been suffered to retain Malta, all would have been well, and we would now enjoy peace. After taking a review of the whole conduct of ministers, both before and after the treaty of Amiens, he felt convinced, that they had no right to declare those to be reasons for going to war, which were no reasons for preventing the peace being signed at Amiens: he concluded by expressing a hope, that his majesty's ministers might now avail themselves of the interference of Russia, and that the peace might be preserved.

Mr. Dallas wished the attention of the house to be confined to the question immediately before their consideration, namely, whether the war was just or unjust? As to the abilities of ministers, and their general conduct, that was a separate question, which might be discussed at another time. He thought there was no doubt, but that, in this quarrel, the country was in the right; ministers had made every cession required by the treaty of Amiens, excepting Malta alone, and, in that instance, they had done every thing in their power to obtain the guarantees that were stipulated in the treaty. On the other hand, the conduct of France, with respect to Switzerland, Holland, and Italy, justified the jealousy of our government. The first consul himself had avowed his designs upon Egypt; he therefore should answer the last speaker, who asked, " What we are at war for ?" by saying," We were at war for Malta; but not for Malta only, but for Egypt; not for Egypt only, but for India; not for India alone, but for the integrity of the British empire,

and the cause of justice, good faith, and freedom, all over the world.”

Mr. Elliot agreed in the justice and necessity of the war, and on that ground, and that alone, supported the address. He considered the mission of Sebastiani as an act incapable of explanation or reparation. He had always reprobated the late unfortunate truce, and wished now that the contest should be continued, until real peace and tranquillity could be restored.

Mr. Serjeant Best thought, that not only Malta, but the smallest island upon earth, would be sufficient ground for war, if demanded in the peremptory manner in which France demanded Malta. Although he admitted that France had given many other just causes for war, yet he did not blame ministers for not being too ready to

seize them.

Mr. Canning supported the address, but by no means conceived himself to be precluded, by so doing, from expressing his opinion fully, upon a future occasion, of the whole of the conduct of ministers. As to the justice and necessity of the present war, he thought it was altogether obvious; and whether ministers ought, or ought not, sooner to have made their stand against France, yet he had no doubt, but that, under the circumstances which then existed, they were right in refusing to give up Malta. The importance of Malta had been proved by this, that both the English and French expeditions, bound for Egypt, found it most convenient to touch at Malta in their passage. It was evident that, in the present state of Europe, Russia is the only neutral power which could sufficiently protect Malta, but Russia had shewn no disposition either to garrison or guarantee it.

Mr. Fox felt it to be his duty to the people of England to endeavour to rescue them from a situation of great danger, and certain misery, whatever might be the success of the war. He differed from those who had divided the ques tion, as he thought the justice or injustice of the war must, in a great measure, depend upon the circumstances of the conduct of ministers. He thought it was much better to vote for the amendment, respecting which there could be no difference of opinion, than for the original address, which certainly required much explanation. The honorable member took a review of the whole of the correspondence, in which, he thought, there was a great deal of shuffling on both sides. He very much disapproved of the application of the first consul to remove those emigrants who had obtained the protection of this country; as also that for abridging the freedom of our press; he thought, however, too much stress had been laid on the expressions used by him in the conversation with Lord Whitworth, which being given from memory, could not be supposed to be

CHAP. II.

1803.

exact. He, however, saw no great pride or BOOK VI. haughtiness in the consul speaking of the invasion, and confessing that the chances were an hundred to one against him; and that he almost despaired of being able to accomplish his purpose. The desire of Bonaparte to be possessed of Egypt, was not, in itself, a sufficient ground of war, or we should never have been at peace with the house of Bourbon. As to their general system of aggrandizement, we had no more right to complain of it in France, than France would have to complain of our aggrandizement in India. To excuse ourselves from possessing this spirit, we must say as the lady did, who was accused of frequent disregards of virtae: "Never before, upon my honor, on this side the Cape of Good Hope." As to Egypt, at the time that Vergennes, the minister to Louis the XVIth, had an expedition ready for Egypt, instead of war, we made a commercial treaty with France. As to Malta, it was known that Russia would have guaranteed it upon certain conditions; but we rather chose to keep it to ourselves for ten years. He did not consider the missions of Sebastiani as a sufficient cause for war. There had hardly been a year of peace, since the treaty of Utrecht, in which the old French government had not some such missionary at work. Europe would never know a single year of peace, if war was necessary on such a ground. He blamed ministers for allowing an accumulation of insults, without demanding satisfaction; and for finally going to war on a sordid principle, for which it was impossible that we could find any allies. He was alarmed when he heard of the unusual exertions that should be made for this war, and that from an old member (Mr. Pitt), who had already so much increased the burdens of the nation. That gentleman seemed to threaten us with an increase of two or three hundred millions to our debt, and that purely for Malta, unconnected with any great, general, generous interest of Europe. He had, in his life time, heard plenty of philippics, such as Demosthenes might have envied; but whenever he heard members indulging the house with luxurious treats of eloquence, full dressed speeches, and high-toned declamations, he pitied the people, whose lot it was to pay dearly for all this. It put him in mind of the French proverb, "Le cout ote le gout;" and, certainly, it must be admitted, that the fine speeches in the American war, and in the last, cost the country dear enough.. After strongly recommending an alliance with Russia, if possible, Mr. Fox concluded by saying, that, in his opinion, the best way to obtain unanimity, was to support the amended address, which every body must approve of, rather than the original address, which no one could assent to without some qualification.

The chancellor of the exchequer lamented that

BOOK VI. the effusions of the honorable gentleman's great and exalted mind should have been employed CHAP. II. for the purpose for which they were then applied. He considered the war as one of obvious necessity, 1803. and justified the conduct of bis majesty's ministers from the imputation of want of sincerity in their endeavours to procure peace. The honorable gentleman had not done justice to ministers, when he charged them with not having made the proper remonstrances, as it had appeared, from the papers on the table, that they had remonstrated upon almost every topic mentioned in the declaration. He avowed, that it was the intention of this country to assist Switzerland, if, by any means, it could have been done. He then proceeded to take a general view of the conduct of France since the treaty, which evinced a constant design of injuring and insulting this country. He dwelt particularly on the report of Sebastiani, and the conversation of Bonaparte with Lord Whitworth. As to the interference of Russia, respecting Malta, he should say, that if Russia, or any other great power, should interfere, with friendly intentions, and make any proposition of a practical nature, by which peace might be restored, no man would be more glad to attend to it than himself. At present, however, he thought it necessary to prepare the country for an arduous contest, and to be ready to make great sacrifices in support of it. The cause in which we were now engaged, was that of justice, against insult and aggression; a cause which had left to his majesty or parliament no alternative.

The attorney-general supported the address, and highly disapproved of the tendency of Mr. Fox's speech, whose arguments went, as he as he thought, to justify the conduct of Bonaparte. He conceived that this country had never been engaged, in a contest before, on more honorable principles, or more absolutely necessary, than the present war.

Mr. Windham, in very strong terms, condemned the arguments of Mr. Fox, which, he thought, not only fallacious, but wicked. His speech was like a quiver of poisoned arrows, aimed at the hearts of his hearers. The honor able gentleman had made himself a pander to all the base and illiberal passions of the people, by supporting selfishness against patriotism, and opposing private considerations to the grand views of national policy. If he stooped so low, he was not to be envied for the triumph of eloquence. He then drew a comparison between his conduct and that of Mr. Pitt, who had employed his great talents in kindling the flame of patriotism, and in calling forth the energies of the country.

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 honorable gentleman; and, as 'for himself, he had a foible of not easily and slightly quar relling with an old acquaintance.

The house then divided on the amendment, when there appeared 67 for it; 398 against it. The original question-was then put and carried.

Great Britain having been, by his majesty's declaration, and by the rejection of Russian interference, fully committed in warfare with France and her dependencies, resolutions of the strongest and most decided tendency towards the inculpation of ministers were brought forward. in both houses of parliament, but negatived in both by a great majority. In the course of these important debates, the masterly speeches of Earl Temple, Mr. Pitt, and Lord Hawkesbury, were indicative of the expression of the feelings of the dif ferent interests, and the parts which each took upon the subject; and the manly and spirited manner in which Lord Hawkesbury rejected the species of compromise between a direct answer and a total acquittal recommended by Mr. Pitt, who moved that the other orders of the day be read, and his calling on the senate for either direct acquittal or condemnation, gained, as it deserved, considerable respect and applause. The friends of Mr. Fox, in both houses, declined giving any opinion, or dividing on this occasion, with the exception of Mr. Tierney, who had ac cepted the high and lucrative office of treasurer of the navy, with the rank of privy-counsellor. But, although the old opposition stood aloof in the present instance from the new, as the latter had from co-operation with the former on the motions severally made by Lord King and Mr. Fox, tending to the disapprobation of the conduct of ministers (which had been negatived) there was a similarity of feeling, a spontaneous concurrence of sentiment which approximated towards a perfect coincidence of public conduct. Mr. Pitt and his friends had also taken their ground, if not in declared hostility, at least in the most threatening position. Here then were three parties, confessedly including a vast proportion of the property, the abilities, and patriotism of the na tion, who required but one principle of action, and a mutual understanding, to bear down every thing which could oppose them. In this discussion, Mr. Addington triumphed, and he proceeded in confidence and security to provide for the exigencies of the war, on systems of defence and finance.

Ar the close of the year 1802, the affairs of Ireland presented a far more gloomy aspect than at that of the preceding year, when the union took place. Indications of a turbulent spirit existed in many parts of the south. Early in the year 1803, judges were sent by special commission to try the disturbers of the public peace, in the counties of Limerick, Tipperary, and Waterford, in the two former of which commotion had been very general; the latter was only affected by its proximity to Tipperary. In the process of these trials nothing of a treasonable disposition was discoverable in their unfortunate, but deluded subjects. The sacrifices which were made to public justice on this occasion restored at least the appearance of tranquillity. The magistrates of Tipperary and Limerick earnestly petitioned to be indulged with the power of inflicting discretionary punishment and transportation, under what is called in Ireland the insurrection-act, to which his majesty's government in Ireland refused to concede, and chose the milder and more authorized mode of regular legal proceeding.

Some time before his majesty's message to parliament had announced the probability of a rupture with France, it became obvious to the wary observer, that there existed a considerable degree of feverish agitation among those who had favored the late conspiracy, and an alarming resort to Ireland of persons notoriously in the interests of the French government. Undoubtedly the great majority of the people, who had been deceived and led away by the intrigues and artifices of the jacobins, those especially who had any property to lose, or stake in the country, had seen through, and heartily repented their delusion: but there were still to be found some pardoned delinquents, who had yet to learn prudence from their escape of punishment, and whose wickedness had not been put to flight by the glaring conviction of its folly. This intractable and restless description of people hailed with transport the opportunity of recommencing their machinations, and while some spread themselves over the country in every direction, others fixed themselves in the metropolis-an active correspondence was set on foot

1803.

with France-and the organization of a new con- BOOK VI. spiracy was commenced and prosecuted with unceasing diligence. Nor was Bonaparte inatten- CHAP. III. tive or remiss to forward, by every means in his power, his darling project of revolution. The chiefs of the preceding Irish rebellion were summoned to Paris, from the insignificance and contempt in which, since the peace of Amiens, they had lived in different states of the continent; consultations were held with them; their hopes and passions stimulated by promises and flattery; and they were directed to communicate similar impulses to their agents and adherents in their native country.

The person who took upon himself (or to whom that task was delegated by his confederates) the office of director and principal mover of this new plot upon the British dominion in Ireland, was Mr. Robert Emmett, a young man of specious and promising talents. and promising talents. He was the younger brother of that Emmett who had, previously to the rebellion of 1798, abandoned a respectable situation at the Irish bar, in order to project and carry into execution the wild schemes of that day -an Irish republic, and separation from Great Britain. His father had filled, during a considerable period, the situation of state physician in Dublin.

This young man had been sufficiently unguarded in his conduct, while the previous disturbances existed, to become an object of the vigilance of government, and had found it prudent to reside abroad so long as the habeas corpus act was suspended, but had returned to Ireland on the removal of that obstacle. His mind was ardent, his imagination brilliant, and he possessed a flow of elocution, often rising to sublimity, and always consistent with the correctness of legitimate oratory. His conversation and deportment at all times manifested the high degree of phrenzy to which his heated and distempered spirit, naturally too prone to such impressions, had been wrought up, by the political enthusiasm in which he had been early formed; by the revolutionary objects which had been in such rapid succession presented to his mind; and by the society of fanciful projec