kept M. Chauvelin here. For his part, he was very glad that he was gone, and he wished that he had been ordered away sooner, for there were occasions in which resident ambassadors might do great mischief. In 1712, when it was known that England was going to make a separate peace, the then imperial ambassador at our court delivered, in a strong memorial to our minister, and caused it to be printed the next day in the public newspapers; for which he was ordered to quit the court and kingdom. The removal of ambassadors did not necessarily prevent negociation; for the diplomatic art had devised means for enabling two nations, though actually at war, to treat through the medium of a neutral power: when a war was declared, the belligerent nations recalled their ministers; but did it follow that the war was therefore to be eternal? War was certainly a calamity, but not so great a one as a hollow peace. Whether it broke out a little sooner or a little later, was of little consequence, if it broke out at all. In the present instance, we might expect a speedy and a happy termination of it; for all Europe would be on our side. He was aware that confederacies did not always act well together; but the reason was obvious; the parties composing it rarely had a common interest, or would hold out till the general interest required a general peace. In the present contest the case was different; the Emperor would, no doubt, strain every nerve to recover his beautiful provinces in the Netherlands; the king of Prussia would feel it necessary to recover the reputation which was the main prop of the Prussian monarchy; Holland would have to contend for her very existence; Italy was interested in taking from France Savoy, and restoring it to the king of Sardinia; and Spain and Portugal must see the danger to their governments, if the French arms and French principles were not timely checked. In such a state of affairs England had every reason to look for a general, a powerful, and a cordial cooperation of the greatest part of Europe against France. For these reasons, he gave his most hearty support to the address. The Earl of Wycombe conceived it to be his most indispensable duty to use every argument in his power to avert from his country so grievous a calamity as that of entering into a war, and conjured the House not to agree to the pro posed address till they had well considered the consequences. This country, he insisted, was in no danger whatever, being equally secured by its insular situation, its internal resources, and the strong attachment of the people to the constitution. He conceived, therefore, that we had no ground for alarm on the first point mentioned in the message from his majesty. As to the second point, the security of our allies, it was impossible we could be told that Prussia had been attacked by France, and of course this part of the message must relate to Holland. If the navigation of the Scheldt was the subject of dispute, it appeared to him to be a matter of indifference to this country; except that in one view it would be of great advantage to our commerce and manufactures, by opening a new channel in the best and most convenient situation for sending our manufactures into all the continent of Europe. With regard to the propagation of French principles, he thought it by no means safe to go to war against principles. If the principles alluded to were levelling principles, they should be met with contempt, but he by no means reprobated all the French principles. Great stress had been laid on the cruelties perpetrated in France; but he could not think that they were a proper cause of war: in his opinion, these cruelties had all originated in the infamous expedition of the duke of Brunswick, which might be called a fraternity of kings for the purpose of imposing despotism on all Europe. Another ground taken by ministers, was the necessity of preserving the balance of power in Europe; but he could not see why this country should be ready, upon all occasions, to go to war for the benefit of other nations. This system he looked upon to be no more than a political fiction, a cover for any interference that caprice might dictate.-The next thing to which he wished to call the attention of the House, was, the means of carrying on the war. When the present supposed accumulation, of which ministers boasted, was exhausted, they must have recourse to new taxes; and if there was no absolute necessity for war, why burthen the people to maintain a war, of the issue of which no judgment could be formed; and the relative situation of France to this country was such, that the connexion of this country with her should not, he thought, be put to unnecessary hazard. The war might be carried on for some time without any additional duties; but when our resources were exhausted, taxes must follow, accompanied by the murmurs, if not execrations, of the people. The death of the king of France had been pathetically lamented by ministers, but they never attempted to interfere, and while they professed peace, used every haughty, irritating provocation to war. Upon the whole, he could view the war in no other light than as a revival of the system of extirpation that was the basis of the late American war. Mr. Whitbread said, he should preface the few observations he thought it proper to submit to the consideration of the House, by declaring his abhorrence of the atrocious deed lately committed in France; it would stand one of the foremost in the black catalogue of crimes which history had to record; it would remain a foul stain upon the national character of the people amongst whom it had been perpetrated. But in tracing the source of this and other barbarities which had been committed in France, he denied that such had been the necessary consequences of the French revolution, or that such horrors were the necessary associates of republicanism. To the conduct of the powers combined against the liberties of France, to the sanguinary manifestoes of the duke of Brunswick, he conceived all these murders were to be attributed. Such manifestoes bore the stamp and character of those barbarians, both ancient and modern, to whom to conquer and to destroy were the same, rather than of the gallant and enlightened leader of the armies of two enlightened princes of Europe, at the close of the eighteenth century. The spirit of Attila was discernible in them, who describing the manner in which himself made war, in the emphatical words recorded by Mr. Gibbon, had said, "where Attila's horse sets his foot, the grass never grows." It was a melancholy consideration to humanity, that in endeavouring to turn our eyes from the scenes of blood in France, we could find no relief in contemplating the mild and christian virtues of the powers leagued against her. It had been said, in palliation of their manifestoes, that there had been no intention of carrying the letter of them into execution. Upon the folly of threatening that which we cannot, or do not intend to execute, he should make no comment: but what pledge had we that this assertion was true? The only victims which had fallen into the hands of the combined powers had been treated with exemplary cruelty and injustice. If, on the one hand, he saw Louis 16th confined in the prison of the Temple, on the other he saw M. la Fayette and his unfortunate companions, lingering in the cells of a German fortress. To a man of any firmness and resolution, the election would not be difficult to make between the catastrophe, and final momentary sufferings of Louis, and the slow consuming horrors in which La Fayette dragged on his existence. Mr. Whitbread professed himself an advocate for peace; for peace as connected with the prosperity of the country; for the prosperity of the country as connected with its honour; for the honour and prosperity of any country he considered inseparable. The House was then to consider whether war was justifiable upon any grounds stated in the papers upon the table, and whether ministers had done their utmost to avert that calamity. To both these he gave a decided negative; and before he adverted to the grounds stated in the papers, he should say some thing as to the real cause of war, as he conceived it would at length appear to be, if war were undertaken. This was no less than the total overthrow of the new system of government existing in France; for no other reason could ministers have refused to acknowledge the republic. They had admitted of non-official communications; this was an ac knowledgment of the power residing in those persons with whom they thus communicated; but they refused to acknowledge the right of those persons to the exercise of the power with which they were invested. This was securing the possibility of joining with the combined powers, whenever a convenient opportunity might offer for the overthrow of the new system. He deprecated such an attempt, as contrary to the rights of nations. No country had a right to interfere with the internal arrangements adopted by another. The national will was supreme in every country; and that alone could constitute, alter, or modify forms of government. Could any man doubt that the nation willed a republic in France? If we attempted to interfere with the disposition of the national will, let us recollect upon what grounds the title of the king of England stood-upon the will of the nation; and one of the repelled that attack, and gained possesmost despotic sovereigns in Europe, the sion of the territory of her adversary, and empress of Russia, owed her elevation to had a right to maintain that possession, the supposed expression of the national at least till the conclusion of the war, to will at the revolution in 1762. She pos- enable her to make advantageous terms sessed the throne upon no other footing; for herself. We had forced her to an and what form of government soever any anticipation of her designs on the subnation willed for itself, such it had the ject of Brabant. She had declared her right to adopt.-He now came to the first intention not to add the Low Countries stated ground of complaint of this country to her own territories, but to suffer the against France, the decree of November | Belgians to erect themselves into an in19; which decree he did not in itself de- dependent sovereignty. He was not now fend; but he contended that the expla- inquiring whether it was justifiable to de nation which the French had been dis- tach provinces from the power to which posed to give of that decree, was such as they belonged, and to give them indepento take away all well-founded apprehen- dence; but the idea was not new; he resions of any injury designed to this coun- collected to have heard a right hon. gen▾ try, and certainly would not justify us in tleman (Mr. Burke) recommend it to the going to war. The next object stated, present minister as an object worthy to was the aggrandizement of France, which establish his reputation as a great states. was likely to endanger the balance of man, to rescue the provinces of Bessara Europe. Upon the subject of the balance bia, Moldavia, and Wallachia, from the of Europe, which now appeared to be a tyranny of the Grand Signior, and to matter of such signal importance, he erect them into an independent federated begged to call the attention of the House; state, under the denomination of the Cirand to the general conduct of his macle of the Danube. He did not conceive jesty's ministers in their endeavours to maintain that balance. At the time that the despotic powers had formed a combination against France, which it was not conceivable that she could resist; when it appeared that that country was to be overrun, and to become an easy prey to the duke of Brunswick, no apprehensions were entertained on account of the balance of power; the same supineness had been visible when the empress of Russia, in the course of the last summer, had taken possession of Poland; but now that the French were victorious, and having defeated their enemies, combined to crush them, the balance of power was in danger! But the aggrandizement of France was dangerous, as connected with the principles she propagated! He begged to know whether this apprehension was not equally well founded, when applied to the case of Russia? He conceived the principles of despotism propagated by the sword of the one, as dangerous to the general security of Europe, as the licentiousness propagated by the sword of the other. With regard to the request urged on the part of the British government, that the French should withdraw their troops within their own territory, in order to pave the way to any negociation with us, he thought such a demand the height of insolence. France had been attacked; she had successfully that ministers entertained any real ap prehensions on the subject of the aggrandizement of France, as endangering the security of Europe, to which their inattention had been so notorious, nor did he find any justifiable cause for war on this ground. The only remaining considera, tion was upon the subject of the exclusive navigation of the Scheldt. He had before stated an opinion on the subject of the natural right of the inhabitants of the banks of rivers to the free use and enjoyment of the waters of such rivers. He begged to restate his opinion; it was comprised in the words of that part of the decree of the National Convention, which says, "That the course of rivers is the common property of all the countries watered by them; that a nation cannot, without injustice, pretend to the right of occupying the channel of a river, to prevent the neighbouring nations who occupy the upper banks from enjoying the same advantage." He did not go the length of that decree in saying that "such right was revocable at every moment, and in spite of all convention;" for he held that the faith of treaties was paramount, and must be abided by. The right he contended for was antecedent to all treaty, that natural right, the nearer to which all treaties came, the nearer they were to the principles of justice. But if he were to say whence the French drew what were now deemed their extravagant lieved it would be found that they did notions on this point, he should look to not think it worth their while to go to the subsequent productions of a right war for the maintenance of this right. hon. member of that House (Mr. Burke), He alluded to the proclamation for a gewho had said, in a celebrated speech, neral fast put forth by the States General that "the benefits of Heaven to any on the 10th of January, in which they decommunity ought never to be connected clare, that they are then at peace, and that with political arrangements, or made to the strict neutrality they observed, had hidepend on the personal conduct of therto protected them from aggression. princes; in which the mistake, or error, A manifest token that they did not conor neglect, or distress, or passion of a sider the free navigation of the Scheldt, moment on either side, may bring famine as asserted by the French, a reason for on millions, and ruin an innocent nation, going to war. If, then, we did go to war perhaps, for ages. The means of the sub- on that ground, we should force our alsistence of mankind should be as immu- lies into it and not ourselves be involved table as the laws of nature, let power and in it by the terms of our alliance.-Mr. dominion take what course they may. Whitbread said, that having gone through The use of this river has indeed been the matter contained in the papers, as far given to the rajah, &c. This use of the as they related to the probability of peace water, which ought to have no more con or war, he could find no justification nexion than clouds and rains and sunshine of the conduct of administration. He with the politics of the rajah, the nabob, thought the maintenance of peace, conor the company, is expressly contrived sistently with the dignity, honour, and inas a means of enforcing demands and ar- terests of this country, was perfectly in rears of tribute. This horrid and unnatu- in the power of ministers; but their conral instrument of extortion had been a duct and words denoted war. He had distinguishing feature in the enormities of still, however, a hope of peace remainthe Carnatic politics*." Thus had Mr. ing; that hope was founded on the knowBurke thought, and thus did think the ledge he had of the character of his maNational Convention; but he owned that jesty's present servants. He knew that he did not go the whole length of their they had the faculty of enlarging or redoctrines. A hard necessity, indeed, he ducing objects precisely to the form in should conceive it for Great Britain, to which they wished to consider them: be forced to go to war, to maintain to the that at one time, the little fortress of Dutch the exclusive navigation of the Oczakow had deranged their balance of Scheldt; but he had never said that he power in Europe; that another the whole was against supporting the faith of trea- kingdom of Poland had been thrown into ties, where the casus fœderis was clearly the scale without making a vibration in defined. But was it, in this instance, a their political beam. He knew that they new and unexercised right of nature for had never advanced too far to recede; which it was contended? Certainly not. that they had never threatened too much Antwerp was a monument of the exercise to retract. Their sentiments might again of that right by her inhabitants: and he change. This, he confessed, was a deswas free to say, that it would give him perate hope, because it was connected joy to see the commerce of that once with the reflection, that the reins of goflourishing city restored; for the exclu-vernment were in the hands of men so sive navigation of the Scheldt had been established by force, and consented to by weakness. But a necessary preliminary to these investigations, would have been some precise requisition of the Dutch for the stipitulated assistance of her ally. The chancellor of the exchequer had avowed that no such demand had been made; and if the House were to judge of the dispositions of the States General by their own declarations, he be * Mr. Burke's Speech on the Debts of the nabob of Arcot. See Vol. 25, p. 182. insufficient, so versatile, and so weak. He concluded with saying, that he could not give his assent to the address, as it then stood. Mr. Anstruther viewed the late atrocious act with the utmost horror, and heartily joined in that part of the address which offered their condolence to his majesty on the mournful occasion. In adverting to the conduct of France, he could not help remarking the difference betwixt that conduct when under a monarchy crippled as it was after the king's acceptance of the new constitution, and to his immediate constituents, but to the whole people of Great Britain, of whom the members of that House were indivi dually and collectively the virtual representatives, more imperiously called upon him, and upon every man, to speak out and declare his sentiments frankly and fairly. The misrepresentations and misconstructions of what he and those who thought as he did, had already said in the course of the present session, left him no room to doubt, that what he must now say, would be equally, and perhaps as succesfully, misrepresented and misconstrued This only served to show, that they were on a service of honour as well as danger; but if he were deterred by misrepresentation and calumny from delivering opinions because they might be unpopular, and from deprecating a war with France as an evil to be avoided by every means consistent with the honour and safety of us and our allies, he should basely betray his trust to his constituents and his country. what it now was: they had attacked the imperial cities, and had taken Brabant into their hands. He then mentioned their communication with societies in this country, and their dangerous principles; and said, that M. Chauvelin, alluding to those very societies, had stated in an official paper, that the French had received the English as brothers. As to the decree of the 19th of November, it was said to have been explained; but what was the explanation? Totally unsatisfactory and inconsistent with the decree itself. It was in fact a declaration against every existing government on the earth. With respect to the business of the Scheldt, he protested against the application of general principles against the faith of treaties. He was glad, however, that the grounds of war had been stated on so broad a basis. In fact the French now said, that having overturned their own old government, they were not bound by any of its treaties; a principle totally inconsistent with every notion of justice, and with the laws and faith of nations.-He then adverted to the infinite danger to be apprehended from the propagation of French principles. But we are asked, said he, whether we can combat principles by the sword? Most certainly, if they are propagated by the sword, they must be stop-mitted in France, he did not view with less ped by the sword. Honourable gentlemen had charged on the duke of Brunswick the origin of the murders and massacres in France: but was it their enemies whom the French had murdered? No; it was their brethren. Supposing wars to be carried on with cruelty, there could be no comparison betwixt the two; besides, the manifesto was never intended to be put in execution. He said, he looked on the conduct of France as expressly hostile to this country. They had interfered in our internal policy with respect to the alien bill; and in his opinion they ought to league with us in opposition to them. If liberty was of the nature held out by them, he would fly, he said, from the altar of liberty. He concluded with heartily concurring in the motion for the address. Mr. Fox said, that although some words had fallen from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer which might lead him to think that war was not absolutely determined upon, yet the general tenor and impression of his speech was such as to convince him that there never was a time when the duty, which he owed, not merely The right hon. gentleman had introduced the several grounds of dispute with France, ably and eloquently; but the reasons for going to war, he did not mean to say for arming, had not been very accurately treated. The crimes, the murders, and the massacres that had been com horror, he did not consider as less atrocious than those who made them the perpetual theme of their declamation, although he put them, entirely out of the question in the present debate. The condemnation and execution of the king he pronounced to be an act as disgraceful as any that the page of history recorded; and whatever opinions he might at any time have given in private conversation, he had expressed none certainly in that House, on the justice of bringing kings to trial: revenge being unjustifiable, and punishment useless, where it could not operate either by way of prevention or example, he did not view with less detestation the injustice and inhumanity that had been committed towards that unhappy monarch. Not only were the rules of criminal justice, rules that more than any other ought to be strictly observed, violated with respect to him; not only was he tried and condemned, without any existing law to which he was personally amenable, and even contrary to laws that did actually exist; but the degrading circumstances of his imprisonment, the unnecessary and insulting asperity with which |