oppofition to the views and proceedings of France, he was convinced that he was not accompanied by the feelings of the nation; nor was it till full-blown mifchief had alarmed the people and roused the king, that the government could have had a proper fupport. From thofe men who could neither vindicate the principles nor deny the power of France, yet impeded the measures taken to fecure us against that power, he differed fundamentally and effentially, in every principle of morals, in every principle of manners, fentiment, difpofition, and in tafte. France, he faid, had been for fome time in a continual feries of hoftile acts againft this country, both internal and external. Firfi, it directed its pursuits to universal empire, under the name of fraternization, to overturn the fabric of our laws and government; after this it invented a new law of nations, subsidiary to that intention; then acted upon that law; next it directed the principal operations of that law to Great Britain; and, laftly, established a horrible tyranny within itself, chafed every honeft perfon out of it, held up temptations moft feductive to the unenlightened lower order of all countries, and furnished inftruments for the overthrow of their government. The putting the king of France to death was done not as an example to France, not to extinguish the race-not to put an end to monarchy, but as a terror to monarchs, and particularly to the monarch of Great Britain. This new-created empire of theirs was only fecondary to the accomplishment of their plans of fhaking all governments. War with the chateau, and peace with the cottage, was the basis of their new system.' Atheism, he said, was the centre from which ray out all their mischief and villany; and they proceeded to establish it with the fword. He readily allowed that this was the moft dangerous war we were ever engaged in; that we were to contend with a fet of men now inured to warfare, and led on by enthusiasm and the order of conqueft to fuch a degree, that they were willing to barter arts, commerce,

industry,

induftry, manufactures, and civilization itself, for the fword. The alliances we may form give, however, a good profpect of fubduing them; whereas, were they allowed to proceed, we may fingly, and in the end, become their eafy prey. The right honorable gentleman (Mr. Fox) had fpoken with fome afperity of an intention in ministers to re ftore the ancient government. He would not compare that government with the government of Great Britain; but certain he was that it would be felicity and comfort compared with the present state of tyranny exercised in France. Their enormities have already produced univerfal mifery; their mifery will drive them to despair; and out of that despair they will look for a remedy in the destruction of alt other countries, and particularly that of Great Britain.

Pofterity will judge of the diftempered state of the public mind at this period, when the fucceffive fpeeches uttered by this eloquent madman (and on the comparison there is fcarcely any difcernible difference between them) were received with the highest demonftrations of admiration and applause, the house unfortunately thinking themselves enlightened by his arguments, when they were only inflamed by his invectives.

To the present harangue Mr. Sheridan made a most spirited reply. "A dread of France," faid this speaker, "ought unquestionably, as we are truly and emphatically told, to be a fundamental principle in the mind of a British ftatefman. No alteration in her government can change this principle, or ought to fufpend this apprehenfion. But who was the gentleman fo peculiarly tenacious of this creed ? -the only man in all England who had held the directly contrary doctrine. Had he forgotten, or could that houfe at leaft have forgotten, that, in his first contemptuous revilings of the French revolution, he had exprefsly fcorned and infulted them as a nation extinguished for ever, and blotted. out of the map of Europe? The historian had merely to record-Gallos olim bello floruiffe.' If the consistency

of

of the honorable gentleman could be matter of regular question in that house, he fcrupled not to affert that there was scarcely an iota of his new principles to which there was not a recorded contradiction in his former profeffions.

"The honorable gentleman fcorned to put the question upon fo mean an issue as, whether the hostile overt-acts committed by France had been fufficiently explained and difavowed to this country: it was a war againft the principles of the French government we were to engage in; and therefore it followed, that it was to be a war to exterminate either them or their principles. This doctrine he thought both wild and detestable; but, admitting that it was right, the honorable gentleman must extend his fcorn and obloquy to the minister and his adherents as well as to the oppofers of the war; for, though they differed in their conclufion, they had difcuffed the grounds of the war precifely on the fame principle and footing. The honorable gentleman differed equally from both and in this view he thought it uncandid and unwarrantable in the minister to liften in filence to thefe inflammatory rants, and even to encourage the war-whoop of a man breathing vengeance and deftruction

-Que non præftantior alter

Ere ciere viros, martemque accendere cantu.

VIRG.

"But the ambition of France, and her aggreffions against this country, were not, according to the honorable gentleman, the chicf of her offences: Religion demanded that we fhould her caufe; atheism was avowed and proavenge feffed in France. Was it not, however, notorious, that almost all the men and women of rank and fashion in France, including the far greater part of the prefent emigrant nobility, whofe piety the honorable gentleman was eager to contraft with republican infidelity, were the genuine and zealous followers of Voltaire and Rouffeau? And if the lower orders were ultimately perverted, it was

by

by their precept and example. and example. The atheism, therefore, of the new system, as opposed to the piety of the old, was one of the weakest arguments he had yet heard in favor of this mad, political, and religious crufade.-Mr. Sheridan obferved that the honorable gentleman had never made any allowance for the novelty of that fituation in which France ftood after the deftruction of its old arbitrary government. It was an unalterable truth that defpotifm degrades and depraves human nature, and renders its subjects, on the first recovery of their rights, unfit for the exercise of them. In the first wildness of liberty they would probably dash their broken chains, to the present injury of themselves, and of all who were near them. Still he feared the enemy lefs than our allies-For who were those allies? What had been their conduct? Could the honorable gentleman forget his character of the Polish revolution? Who had marred that lovely profpect, and annihilated the fairest offspring of virtue and valor ?—those allies who were the chofen, affociated, and bofom counsellors in the future efforts of this deluded nation."

The amendment of Mr. Fox was, after a long and interesting difcuffion, negatived, and the address, as moved by the minifter, carried without a divifion.

The debates in the houfe of peers during this feffion were too fimilar to those of the commons to render a minute narration of them neceffary. From the great defection experienced by the Whig party, the numbers of the opposition were reduced very low indeed; but the abilities of the marquis of Lanfdown, the lords Lauderdale, Moira, Guildford, &c. gave them both animation and interest. On occafion of the addrefs moved by lord Grenville in reply to the meffage from the throne, the earl of Lauderdale propofed an amendment coincident with that of Mr. Fox. Lord Stanhope, who spoke on the fame fide, very properly called the attention of the houfe to the fecond article of the treaty of 1786, by which it is exprefsly declared, that in

VOL. III.

с

cafe

cafe of any fubject of misunderstanding arifing between the two nations, the fending away the ambaffador refident at either court fhould be deemed a rupture. The marquis of Lanfdown supported the preceding speakers in their general arguments against the war. "Who," said the noble lord," are the aggreffors-they who kept a minifter, or they who difmiffed him?-they who offered to explain, or they who refused to hear?-they who offered to go on and trade in amity, or they who prohibited the exportation of grain to them while it was open to the rest of the world?" The addrefs at length paffed in the affirmative, without a divifion.

On the 18th of February Mr. Fox brought forward a set of refolutions, ftating in clear and specific language the fentiments of the friends of peace, and the grounds of difference between minifters and the members of oppofition.. They were precisely as follow::

Firft, That it is not for the honor or intereft of Great Britain to make war upon France, on account of the internal circumstances of that country, for the purpose either of fuppreffing or punishing any opinions or principles, how. ever pernicious in their tendency, which may prevail there; or of establishing among the French people any particular form of government.

Secondly, That the particular complaints which have been made against the conduct of the French government are not of a nature to justify war in the firfl inftance, without having attempted to obtain redress by negociation.

Thirdly, That it appears to this houfe, that in the late negociation between his majefty's minifters and the agents of the French government the said minifters did not take fuch measures as were likely to procure redrefs, without. a rupture, for the grievances of which they complained; and, particularly, that they never ftated diftinctly to the French government any terms and conditions, the accef