Under this impression, I wish to bring the House to the consideration of the situa tion in which we stand with respect to France, and with respect to the general state of the different powers of Europe. This subject was very much discussed on the first day of the present session, and I had the good fortune to concur with a very large majority of the House in the address that was presented to his majesty, for his most gracious speech to both Houses of Parliament. Gentlemen then drew their inferences from those notorious facts which every man's observation presented to him: and those circumstances were supposed to excite every sentiment of jealousy and precaution. They in under that form of government. We consider it as our first duty to maintain and reverence the British constitution, which, for wise and just reasons of lasting and internal policy, attaches inviolability to the sacred person of the sovereign, though, at the same time, by the responsibility it has annexed to government, by the check of a wise system of laws, and by a mixture of aristocratic and democratical power in the frame of legislation, it has equally exempted itself from the danger arising from the exercise of absolute power on the one hand, and the still more dangerous contagion of popular licentiousness on the other. The equity of our laws and the freedom of our political system, have been the envy of every sur-duced the House to arm his majesty, and rounding nation. In this country no man, the executive government, with those in consequence of his riches or rank, is so powers which were indispensably neceshigh as to be above the reach of the laws, sary for effectually providing for the and no individual is so poor or inconsi- safety of the country. Many weeks have derable as not to be within their protec- now elapsed since the beginning of the tion. It is the boast of the law of Eng- session, when the country appeared to be land, that it affords equal security and in a critical situation. Let us consider protection to the high and the low, to the what are the circumstances now to attract rich and the poor. Such is the envied our attention at the moment when the situation of England, which may be com- message of his majesty calls on us for farpared, if I may be allowed the expression, ther decision. to the situation of the temperate zone on the surface of the globe, formed by the bounty of Providence for habitation and enjoyment, being equally removed from the polar frosts on the one hand, and the scorching heat of the torrid zone on the other; where the vicissitude of the seasons, and the variety of the climate, contribute to the vigour and health of its inhabitants, and to the fertility of its soil; where pestilence and famine are unknown, as also earthquakes, hurricanes, &c. with all their dreadful consequences. Such is the situation, the fortunate situation of Britain: and what a splendid contrast does it form to the situation of that country which is exposed to all the tremendous consequences of that ungovernable, that intolerable and destroying spirit, which carries ruin and desolation wherever it goes! Sir, this infection can have no existence in this happy land, unless it is imported, unless it is studiously and industriously brought into this country. These principles are not the natural produce of Great Britain, and it ought to be our first duty, and principal concern, to take the most effectual measures in order to stop their growth and progress in this country, as well as in the other nations of Europe. [VOL. XXX. ] The papers which contain the communication between this country and France, consists of two different parts. The one comprehends the communication between this country and France, prior to the period which attracted those sentiments of jealousy I have stated:-This part also contains those comments which have taken place since, and those explanations which have been entered into by his majesty's permission, with a view, if possible, that our jealousy might be removed in consequence of some step that might be taken. The other part consists, either of what were notorious facts at the meeting of parliament, or of those notorious facts which, though not officially communicated by his majesty, were very generally known to the public. The first part of these papers has never before been made public. The date of the first communication is May 12th, 1792. And the communication from that period till the 8th of July contains the system on which his majesty acted between France and the other European powers. From that period, down to the meeting of parliament, his majesty had most scrupulously observed the strictest neutrality with respect to France. He had taken no part whatever in the regu [T] lation of her internal government. He | any manner whatever in the interior pohad given her no cause of complaint; licy of such states, under pretence of a and therefore the least return he might proselytism, which, exercised in the doexpect, was, that France would be cauti- minions of friendly powers, would be a ous to avoid every measure that could real violation of the law of nations." furnish any just ground of complaint to This paper therefore contains a declarahis majesty. He might also well expect tion, that whatever might be the fate of that France would have felt a proper de- arms, France rejected all ideas of aggrangree of respect for the rights of himself dizement; she would preserve her rights, and his allies. His majesty might most she would preserve her limits and her liof all expect, that, in the troubled state of berty. This declaration was made in the that country, they would not have chosen name of the king. to attempt an interference with the internal government of this country, for the sole purpose of creating dissension among us, and of disturbing a scene of unexampled felicity. But fortunately for this country, they did not succeed. The express assurances contained in the papers which have been printed and are now on the table, the very compact on the part of France does distinctly and precisely apply to every one of these points. Gentlemen must remember, after the first revolution, and after the establishment of what they called the model of a government of liberty, the king wished it to be known, that he would publicly disavow all those of his agents at foreign courts, in peace with France, who should dare to depart an instant from that respect, either by fomenting or raising insurrections, or by interfering in any manner whatever in the internal government I have no doubt but gentlemen have of such states, under pretence of proseapplied the interval in perusing these lytism, which would be a real violation of papers with sufficient attention, to make the law of nations. They have therefore it unnecessary for me to trouble them passed, by anticipation, that sentence on with more than the leading points. You their own conduct; and whether we shall will perceive, that the very first commu-pass a different sentence, is one of the nication is from M. Chauvelin, May 12th, 1792, and contains this passage: "Thus the king (of France) saw himself forced into a war, which was already declared against: but, religiously faithful to the principles of the constitution, whatever may finally be the fate of arms in this war, France rejects all ideas of aggrandizement. She will preserve her limits, her liberty, her constitution, her unalienable right of reforming herself whenever she may think proper; she will never consent that, under any relation, foreign powers should attempt to dictate, or even dare to nourish a hope of dictating laws to her. But this very pride, so natural and so great, is a sure pledge to all the powers from whom she shall have received no provocation, not only of her constantly pacific dispositions, but also of the respect which the French well know how to show at all times for the laws, the customs, and all the forms of government of different nations. The king indeed wishes it to be known, that he would publicly and severely disavow all those of his agents at foreign courts in peace with France, who should dare to depart an instant from that respect, either by fomenting or favouring insurrections against the established order, or by interfering in objects of this day's consideration. In the passage I have read, two distinct principles are laid down: the one, that whatever might be the fate of arms, France renounced all ideas of aggrandizement, and declared she would confine herself within her own territories; the other, that to foment and raise insurrections in neutral states, under pretence of proselytism, was a violation of the law of nations. It is evident to all Europe, her conduct has been directly the reverse of those principles, both of which she has trampled under foot, in every instance where it was in her power. In the answer to that note of M. Chauvelin, his majesty expresses his concern for the war that had arisen, for the situation of his most Christian majesty, and for the happiness of his dominions. He also gives him a positive assurance of his readiness to fulfil, in the most exact manner, the stipulations of the treaty of navigation and commerce; and concludes with these words: "Faithful to all his engagements, his majesty will pay the strictest attention to the preservation of the good understanding which so happily subsists between him, and his most Christian majesty, expecting with confidence, that, animated with the same sentiments, his most Christian majesty will not fail to contribute to the same end, by causing, on his part, the rights of his majesty and his allies to be respected, and by rigorously forbidding any step which might affect the friendship which his majesty has ever desired to consolidate and perpetuate, for the happiness of the two empires." We may also see what general assurances France thought fit to make to Great Britain, from a note from M. Chauvelin to lord Grenville dated June 8, 1792; where it is said, "The king of the French is happy to renew to the king of Great Britain the formal assurance, that every thing which can interest the rights of his Britannic majesty will continue to be the object of his most particular and most scrupulous attention. He hastens, at the same time, to declare to him, that the rights of all the allies of Great Britain, who shall not have provoked France by hostile measures, shall by him be no less religiously respected. In making, or rather renewing this declaration, the king of the French enjoys the double satisfaction of expressing the wish of a people, in whose eyes every war, which is not rendered necessary by a due attention to its defence, is essentially unjust, and of joining particularly in the wishes of his majesty, for the tranquillity of Europe, which would never be disturbed, if France and England would unite in order to preserve it." Such then, Sir, is the situation in which his majesty stands with respect to France. During the transactions of the last summer, when France was engaged in a war against the powers of Austria and Prussia, his majesty departed in no shape from that neutrality. His majesty did no one act from which it could be justly inferred, that he was friendly to that system. But what, let me ask the House, has been the conduct of France as to those express reiterated assurances, applied to the public concerns which I have now detailed? These assurances went to three points: to a determination to abstain from views of aggrandizement; not to interfere with the government of neutral nations, which they admitted to be a violation of the law of nations; and to observe the rights of his majesty and his allies. What has been the conduct of France on these three points, under the new system? She has both by her words and actions, manifested a determination, if not checked by force, to act on princi+ ples of aggrandizement. She has completely disclaimed that maxim, "that whatever was the fate of their arms in war, France rejected all ideas of aggrandizement." She has made use of the first moment of success to publish a contradiction to that declaration. She has made use of the first instance of success in Savoy, without even attempting the ceremony of disguise (after having professed a determination to confine herself within her ancient limits), to annex it for ever as an eighty-fourth department to the present sovereignty of France. They have by their decree announced a determination to carry on a similar operation in every country into which their arms can be carried, with a view, in substance, if not in name, to do the same thing in every country where they can with success. Their decree of the 15th of December contains a fair illustration and confirmation of their principles and designs. They have by that decree expressly stated the plan on which they mean to act. Whenever they obtain a temporary success, whatever be the situation of the country into which they come, whatever may have been its antecedent conduct, whatever may be its political connexions, they have determined not to abandon the possession of it, till they have effected the utter and absolute subversion of its form of government, of every ancient, every established usage, however long they may have existed, and however much they may have been revered. They will not accept, under the name of liberty, any model of government, but that which is conformable to their own opinions and ideas; and all men must learn from the mouth of their cannon the propagation of their system in every part of the world. They have regularly and boldly avowed these instructions, which they sent to the commissioners who were to carry these orders into execution. They have stated to them what this house could not believe, they have stated to them a revolutionary principle and order, for the purpose of being applied in every country in which the French arms are crowned with success. They have stated, that they would organize every country by a disorganizing principle; and afterwards, they tell you all this is done by the will of the people. Wherever our arms come, revolutions must take place, dictated by the will of the people. And then comes this plain question, what is this will of the people? It is the power of the French. They have explained what that liberty is which they wish to give to every nation; and if they will not accept of it voluntarily, they compel them. They take every opportunity to destroy every institution that is most sacred and most valuable in every nation where their armies have made their appearance; and under the name of liberty, they have resolved to make every country in substance, if not in form, a province dependent on themselves, through the despotism of Jacobin societies. This has given a more fatal blow to the liberties of mankind, than any they have suffered, even from the boldest at tempts of the most aspiring monarch. We see, therefore, that France has trampled under foot all laws, human and divine. She has at last avowed the most insatiable ambition, and greatest contempt for the law of nations, which all independent states have hitherto professed most religiously to observe; and unless she is stopped in her career, all Europe must soon learn their ideas of justice law of nations-models of government and principles of liberty from the mouth of the French cannon. I gave the first instance of their success in Savoy, as a proof of their ambition and aggrandizement. I wish the House to attend to the practical effect of their system, in the situation of the Netherlands. You will find, in some of the correspondence between France and this country, this declaration on the part of France; "She has renounced, and again renounces every conquest, and her occupation of the Low Countries shall only continue during the war and the time which may be necessary to the Belgians to ensure and consolidate their liberty; after which, they will be independent and happy. France will find her recompence in her felicity." I ask whether this can mean any thing else, than that they hope to add the Netherlands, as an 84th or 85th department, to the French republic; whether it does not mean a subjugation of the Netherlands, to the absolute power of France, to a total and unequalled dependence on her? If any man entertains doubts upon the subject, let him look at the allegations of Dumourier, enforced by martial law. What was the conduct of this general, when he arrived at Brussels? Did he not assemble the inhabitants in the most public part of their city to elect the primary assem blies? How agreeable must have been his arrival in the Netherlands, by his employing threats to procure a general illumination on his entrance into Brussels! A hollow square of the French troops was drawn round the tree of liberty, to prevent the natives from pulling down the emblem of French freedom. This shows how well disposed the people were to receive the French system of liberty! This is the manner in which their principles are carried into effect in the different countries of Europe. I may here mention the conduct of the Convention, on the occasion of an address from the people of Mons, in which they desire that the province of Hainault might be added as an 85th department of France. The Convention referred the address to a committee, to report the form in which countries, wishing to unite with France, were to be admitted into the union. The convention could not decide upon it, and therefore they sent it to a committee to point out the manner in which they were to make their application for that purpose, so that the receiving of them was to be a fixed and standing principle, which in its consequences, if not timely prevented, must destroy the liberties and independence of England, as well as of all Europe. I would next proceed to their confirmed pledge, not to interfere in the government of other neutral countries. What they have done here is in countries which, under some pretence or other, they have made their enemies. I need not remind the house of the decree of the 19th of November, which is a direct attack on every government in Europe, by encouraging the seditious of all nations to rise up against their lawful rulers, and by promising them their support and assistance. By this decree, they hold out an encouragement to insurrection and rebellion in every country in the world. They show you they mean no exception, by ordering this decree to be printed in all languagss. And therefore I might ask any man of common sense, whether any nation upon earth could be out of their contemplation at the time they passed it? And whether it was not meant to extend to England, whatever might be their pretences to the contrary? It is most manifest they mean to carry their principles into every nation, without exception, subvert and destroy every government and to plant on their ruins their sacred | any government whatever on this princitree of liberty. Some observations, to which they have affected to give the name of explanations have been applied to this decree, and are these: "Now to come to the three points which can alone make an object of difficulty at the court of London, the Executive Council observe respecting the first, which is the decree of the 19th of November, that we have not been properly understood by the ministry of his Britannic majesty, when they accuse us of having giving an explanation which announces to the seditious of all nations, what are the cases in which they may previously count on the support and assistance of France. Nothing could be more foreign than this reproach to the sentiments of the National Convention, and to the explanation we have given of them; and we did not think it was possible we should be charged with the open design of favouring the seditious, at the very moment, when we declare that it would be wronging the National Convention, if they were charged with the project of protecting insurrections, and with the commotions that may break out in any corner of a state, of joining the ringleaders, and of thus making the cause of a few private individuals that of the French nation. We have said, and we desire to repeat it, that the decree of the 19th of November could not have any application, unless to the single case in which the general will of a nation clearly and unequivocally expressed, should call the French nation to its assistance and fraternity. Sedition can certainly never be construed into the general will. These two ideas mutually repel each other, since a sedition is not and cannot be any other than the movement of a small number against the nation at large. And this movement would cease to be seditious, provided all the members of a society should at once rise, either to reform its government, or to change its form in toto, or for any other object. The Dutch were assuredly not seditious, when they formed the generous resolution of shaking off the yoke of Spain; and when the general will of that nation called for the assistance of France, it was not reputed a crime in Henry 4th, or in Elizabeth of England, to have listened to them. The knowledge of the general will is the only basis of the transactions of nations with each other; and we can only treat with ple, that such a government is deemed the organ of the general will of the nation governed. Thus when by this natural interpretation, the decree of the 19th of November is reduced to what it truly implies, it will be found, that it announces nothing more than an act of the general will, and that beyond any doubt so effectually founded in right, that it was scarcely worth the trouble to express it. On this account, the Executive Council thinks that the evidence of this right might, perhaps, have been dispensed with by the National Convention, and did not deserve to be made the object of a particular decree; but with the interpretation that precedes it, it cannot give uneasiness to any nation whatever." To all this I shall only observe, that in the whole context of their language, on every occasion, they show the clearest intention to propagate their principles all over the world. Their explanations contain only an avowal and repetition of the offence. They have proscribed royalty as a crime, and will not be satisfied but with its total destruction. The dreadful sentence which they have executed on their own unfortunate monarch, applies to every sovereign now existing. And lest you should not be satisfied that they mean to extend their system to this country, the conduct of the National Convention has applied itself, by repeated acts, to yourselves by name, which makes any explanation on their part unsatisfactory and unavailing. There is no society in England, however contemptible in their numbers, however desperate in their principles, and questionable in their existence, who possessed treason and disloyalty, who were not cherished, justified, and applauded, and treated even with a degree of theatrical extravagance at the bar of the National Convention. You have also a list of the answers given to them at that bar. And, after all this, am I to ask you, whether England is one of the countries into which they wish to introduce a spirit of proselytism? which, exercised in the dominions of friendly powers, they themselves admit would be a violation of the law of nations. On the third point it is unnecessary for me to expatiate,-I mean on the violation of the rights of his majesty, or of his allies. To insist upon the opening of the river Scheldt, is an act of itself, in which the French nation had no right to inter |