lord ought to have known that nothing was so easy as to make use of invective; that there was no argument in abuse; and that a man ought not to make use of hard words when he cannot make use of hard blows. The term "malheureux" applied to men who were so formidable as to put the world in arms, might be natural enough in the mouths of the poissardes of Paris, or of the fishwomen of Billingsgate, but was infinitely too gross for the mouth or the pen of a representative of his British majesty. The Memorial says, "This event (the death of the king), which was with horror foreseen, has taken place, and the Divine vengeance seems not to have been tardy." I am not pleased to see this presumption, in thus taking upon ourselves to judge of Divine Providence. The ways of Divine Providence are inscrutible. The noble lord ought to have recollected a memorable reproof, given by the immortal Milton on a similar presumptuous construction of Divine vengeance. Charles 2nd, and his brother the duke of York, paid a visit to Milton; the visit was made under the pretence of seeing the poet, but really with the design of insulting the old man in his infirmity and blindness. The king himself was sufficiently disrespectful to the venerable patriot, but the duke's rage broke through all bounds of common decency. "You old dog-you ruffian-you are now suffering the just reward of your crimes Divine vengeance has overtaken you, and has thrust out both your eyes." The answer of the glorious Milton ought ever to be present with those weak mortals who dare to scrutinise the ways of Providence: "If Divine Providence has punished me with the loss of my eyes on account of my crimes, what must have been the crimes of your father, who was punished with the loss of his head?" The noble earl concluded by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, to express to his majesty the displeasure of this House at a certain Memorial, dated the 5th of April 1793, presented to the States General of the United Provinces, signed by lord Auckland his majesty's minister at the Hague, humbly beseeching his majesty that that Memorial may be publicly disavowed by his majesty, as containing matter inconsistent with the wisdom and humanity, which at all times have distinguished the British nation, and derogatory to the dignity of the crown of this realm, repug

nant to reason, and to the principles of revealed religion: that these threats must tend to give to the hostilities with which Europe is now afflicted, a peculiar barbarism and ferocity, by provoking and reviving a system of retaliation and bloodshed, which from experience of its destructive tendency, honour, humanity, and religion, have combined to banish from the practice of civilized war."

Lord Grenville said, that the declaration was made in the spirit of the instructions given to lord Auckland; and proceeded to show that the terms of the declaration of lord Auckland would not bear the interpretation put upon them by the noble earl. The sword of the law meant no other than the just punishment which law would inflict on the crimes of murder and regicide. It was the clear meaning of lord Auckland that the criminals who had embrued their hands in the blood of the unfortunate Louis, after they had insulted him with the title of king by way of mockery, (for he contended that in regal governments it was a falsehood to say that the people could confer the sovereignty, or could cashier the monarch, on any alleged pretext of offences against them) should be delivered up at the proper time to be tried and condemned to the just punishment of their crimes. This was the evident tenor and even the text of the declaration. The noble earl had confounded the recital of what lord Auckland had before done with the paragraphs that made the jet of the declaration; and if he had attended clearly to the words, he would have seen that it meant only that the ruffians should be delivered up as soon as a tribunal should be established in France competent to try and to punish them. It was a doubtful question, whether by the laws of this country, we could deliver up to a foreign power offenders who had committed crimes in such countries: but, whether it was contrary to our laws or not, it was certainly contrary to our practice to do so; it was not the same, however, in Holland. Offenders were given up by them according to their law and practice and the great argument alleged for the French declaration of war against the States was, that they had not yielded up a person charged with fabricating false assignats, though this charge was only made to get him into their hands, on account of the part he had taken in the revolution. The noble baron concluded with moving an amendment, to this effect, "That the

The Duke of Clarence said, it had not been his intention to have troubled their lordships at all that day, but he would just say a few words, and they should be but few. He had come down with a predetermination to vote against the motion, because he conceived it to be of a nature so personal, as to be inconsistent with the dignity of their lordships proceedings; but he could not assent to the amendment proposed by the noble secretary of state an amendment calculated to bestow applause on a measure which, however free from any criminal motive or bad intention was not, in his mind, entitled to praise. His own opinion was, that nothing cruel in its tendency or oppressive in its nature, could originate with a British subject, and therefore he thought that the Memorial in question was not the production of a British minister.

The Earl of Carlisle rose to vindicate himself from an aspersion cast upon him, on account of his conduct as one of the commissioners for giving peace to America. The proclamation which those com missioners had issued was defensible on principles of policy, expedience, and justice. It had been attacked in that House, but a majority had declared that attack to have been ill-founded. On his return from America he had stated his reasons for that proclamation, which appeared to be so satisfactory to the House, that for fourteen years the attack had not been renewed. As the noble carl had thought fit to revive it, he had conceived it necessary to say these few words for the purpose of separating himself from those gentlemen, Nero, Caligula, and Herod, whom the noble lord had introduced into his puppet show. He should vote for the amendment, as he was so far from imputing blame, that he thought lord Auckland had deserved the highest approbation for his public services and

conduct.

The Earl of Guilford could not adopt the motion of the noble earl, because he did not agree with him that it was the intention of the Memorial to take away the lives of the French commissioners. These

the imperial army, and they had no occasion, therefore, for executing such a purpose by this means; but though devoid of the guilt of murder, it was not an innocent paper. It was calculated to inflame the peo

dignity of Great Britain, inasmuch as it was a miserable triumph over those unfortunate men. He would therefore move the previous question.

The Earl of Lauderdale condemned the Memorial as a measure which might justly alarm thinking men, and in that view of it considered it as ill-timed, improper, and rash; but as he did not think it criminal in its object, he could. not consent to support the noble earl's motion.

Lord Auckland declared, that after the speech of lord Grenville, little remained for him to say. Some observations, how ever, he meant to offer to the House because he conceived them to be a necessary tribute of respect to their lordships, and perhaps also to his own character. The objections urged against the Memorial were with respect to its substance and its style. It consisted of three paragraphs ; the first was a recital of what he had done in his former applications, and of their proceedings; the second was an observation on what had happened in France, and some remarks on the Regicides, who had committed the most horrid of all crimes; and the third was the application that, such of these ruffians as had, or might fall into their hands, might be at the proper time delivered up to a court of justice, to be tried for their crimes. Would any one say, that they had not been guilty of the crime of murder? Would any one say, that as an aggravation of their offence, they had not been guilty of Regicide? Would any one state, therefore, that they ought not to be delivered up to the sword of the law? Certainly not. He never meant that they should have been put to death immediately; but that they should wait till they could be surrendered to the proper tribunal, for the purpose of receiving their merited reward. The Memorial had next been objected to, on account of its style. He said it natu rally became applicable to the substance, and was the sort of style in which he had ever spoken of those detestable regicides, for so he should continue to call them, which the Memorial referred to. He stated the horror with which the murder of

the most Christian king had filled the mind of every humane and thinking person; and asked what name, or what epithet, was too severe to apply to those wretches, who had shewn themselves capable, of such an atrocious crime? He therefore should persist in holding the language which he had ever done respecting such wretches as Brissot, Chabot, Danton, and above all, that monster of iniquity the duke of Orleans, and he had no doubt but those regicides would sooner or later be overtaken with the punishment due to their enormities. In the motion made by the noble earl, only a single passage of the Memorial was referred to, and a construction given to it that was not at all applicable. The noble earl should have looked to the prayer of the Memorial; for what was the prayer of it, but to submit to the enlightened judgment and wisdom of their high mightinesses to employ all the means in their power to prevent the detestable regicides from entering Holland, and what other means could be resorted to for the effecting this purpose, than by telling them that if they came there, they should be delivered up to justice? This was the whole object of the Memorial, it was not meant that they should be put to death on the spot, but that they should be reserved in custody till such time as the course of justice should be restored, and then put upon their trials in courts competent to that purpose. Would not every man agree that murder was a crime that merited pu. nishment, and was it not proper that murderers should be delivered to justice? In all countries murder was deemed a crime that merited severe punishment, and laws were prepared which assigned death as the proper punishment. Having thus defended and justified the Memorial, lord Auckland said, he would not condescend to take notice of such words as had been applied to the language of the Memorial by the noble earl, who had talked of officious interference, impertinence, and ribaldry; but would be content with leaving it to their lordships judgment to decide between the noble earl and himself, to which of them such language was most applicable. With regard to the allusions thrown out by the noble earl relative to his conduct on former occasions, he did not at all quarrel with that practice? on the contrary, he thought it was competent for any peer in that House, or any member of the other, in his place, to animadvert at any time on the public conduct of [VOL. XXX. ]

every man engaged in the public service. He thought the noble earl was fairly entitled so to do, and there was not an act of his life, either public or private, which he should be unwilling to have canvassed and considered, but he had much rather it should be done when he was present, because it would be for himself to decide, whether it was necessary or becoming to reply to any remarks that might be made on such a subject or whether they deserved to be passed by in silence.After the very able manner in which the Memorial had been defended by his noble friend, and the poor miserable reply that had been made to that defence, it was not necessary to trouble their lordships farther on the subject.

His

The Lord Chancellor stated the situation in which, in consequence of the three motions, the House actually stood. First, the noble earl who had opened the debate had moved a construction of the Memorial to be put upon it, which had been objected to by the noble secretary of state, who had therefore moved an amendment expressing the approbation of the House, with respect to the Memorial and the principle upon which it proceeded. After that a noble earl had proposed the previous question. lordship reasoned upon the nature, extent, and application of these three motions, observing that the very able argument of the secretary of state, left him little to add in defence of a Memorial, which he was satisfied could be no other than the work of a British minister, since it breathed the spirit of the language that had been held from the throne on the subject of the war, and re-echoed by the addresses of both Houses of Parliament. His lordship dwelt on the absolute necessity of coming to some decisive vote upon the subject, and showed the palpable injustice of ending a debate of so personal a nature by voting the previous question. The noble lord who had signed the Memorial might be fairly considered as having that day been put upon his trial. Was he to be dismissed without a judgment? He was entitled, on every consideration, to know the sense of their lordships, who would not do substantial justice unless they came to a resolution decisively expressive of their real opinion. Would voting the previous question be attended with a definitive effect? Just the contrary. It would give the world to imagine that the House doubted at least of the propriety of an important step taken by [3x]

quisitions have been made both in the East and West Indies.

any nation has ever, by the blessing of providence, been permitted to enjoy."

The parliament was then prorogued to the 18th of August; and was afterwards farther prorogued to the 21st of January 1794.

FOURTH SESSION

OF THE

SEVENTEENTH PARLIAMENT

OF

GREAT BRITAIN.

The King's Speech on Opening the Session.] January 21. 1794. His Majesty opened the Session with the following Speech to both Houses:

"My Lords and Gentlemen; "The circumstances under which you are now assembled require your most serious attention.

"We are engaged in a contest on the issue of which depend the maintenance of our constitution, laws, and religion, and the security of all civil society.

"You must have observed, with satisfaction, the advantages which have been obtained by the arms of the allied powers, and the change which has taken place in the general situation of Europe since the commencement of the war.

"The United Provinces have been protected from invasion. The Austrian Netherlands have been recovered and main tained; and places of considerable importance have been acquired on the frontier of France.

"The recapture of Mentz, and the subsequent successes of the allied armies on the Rhine, have, notwithstanding the advantages recently obtained by the enemy in that quarter, proved highly beneficial to the common cause.

"Powerful efforts have been made by my allies in the south of Europe;-the temporary possession of the town and port of Toulon has greatly distressed the operations of my enemies; and, in the circumstances attending the evacuation of that place, an important and decisive blow has been given to their naval power by the distinguished conduct, abilities, and spirit of my commanders, officers, and forces, both by sea and land.

"The French have been driven from their possessions and fishery at Newfoundland; and important aud valuable ac

"At sea our superiority has been undisputed, and our commerce so effectually protected, that the losses sustained have been inconsiderable in proportion to its extent, and to the captures made on the contracted trade of the enemy.

"The circumstances by which the further progress of the allies has hitherto been impeded, not only prove the necessity of vigour and perseverance on our part, but at the same time confirm the expectation of ultimate success.

"Our enemies have derived the means of temporary exertion from a system which has enabled them to dispose arbitrarily of the lives and property of a numerous people, and which openly violates every restraint of justice, humanity, and religion. But these efforts, productive as they necessarily have been of internal discontent and confusion in France, have also tended rapidly to exhaust the natural and real strength of this country.

"Although I cannot but regret the necessary continuance of the war, I should ill consult the essential interests of my people, if I were desirous of peace on any grounds but such as may provide for their permanent safety, and for the independence and security of Europe.

"The attainment of these ends is still obstructed by the prevalence of a system in France equally incompatible with the happiness of that country, and with the tranquillity of all other nations.

"Under this impression, I thought proper to make a declaration of the views and principles by which I am guided:-I have ordered a copy of this declaration to be laid before you, together with copies of several conventions and treaties with different powers; by which you will perceive how large a part of Europe is united in a cause of such general concern.

"I reflect, with unspeakable satisfaction, on the steady loyalty and firm attachment to the established constitution and government, which, notwithstanding the continued efforts employed to mislead and to seduce, have been so generally prevalent among all ranks of my people. These sentiments have been eminently manifested in the zeal and alacrity of the militia to provide for our internal defence, and in the distinguished bravery and spirit displayed on every occasion by my forces both by sea and land: they have maintained the lustre of the British name,