NormalizeHEAD main

author: nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> 2025-02-07 15:22:59 -0800
committer: nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> 2025-02-07 15:22:59 -0800
commit: 71f22c4a9b2a91311333a178955615031e444067 (patch)
tree: d835d90dd2ce20ca67552581245860bc22d59cb0 /old/55490-h
parent: 4e0460feb49023757a13e7176c703b336be54f81 (diff)
2 files changed, 0 insertions, 9445 deletions
diff --git a/old/55490-h/55490-h.htm b/old/55490-h/55490-h.htm
deleted file mode 100644
index d03d535..0000000
--- a/old/55490-h/55490-h.htm
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,9445 +0,0 @@
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
-    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
-  <head>
-    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
-    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
-    <title>
-      The Project Gutenberg eBook of Representative British Orations, Volume II (of 4), by Charles Kendall Adams.
-    </title>
-    <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
-    <style type="text/css">
-
-body {
-    margin-left: 2.5em;
-    margin-right: 2.5em;
-}
-
-h1,h2 {
-    text-align: center;
-    clear: both;
-    margin-top: 2.5em;
-    margin-bottom: 1em;
-}
-
-h1 {line-height: 2; margin-top: 0;}
-
-h2+p {margin-top: 1.5em;}
-h2 .subhead {display: block; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;}
-
-.transnote h2 {
-    margin-top: .5em;
-    margin-bottom: 1em;
-}
-
-.subhead {
-    text-indent: 0;
-    text-align: center;
-    font-size: 75%;
-    max-width: 80%; margin-left: 10%;
-}
-
-p {
-    text-indent: 1.75em;
-    margin-top: .51em;
-    margin-bottom: .24em;
-    text-align: justify;
-}
-.caption p {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;}
-p.center {text-indent: 0;}
-
-.p1 {margin-top: 1em;}
-.p2 {margin-top: 2em;}
-.p4 {margin-top: 4em;}
-.vspace {line-height: 1.5;}
-
-.in0 {text-indent: 0;}
-.in4 {padding-left: 4em;}
-
-.small   {font-size: 70%;}
-.smaller {font-size: 85%;}
-.larger  {font-size: 125%;}
-.large   {font-size: 150%;}
-.xlarge  {font-size: 175%;}
-
-.center  {text-align: center;}
-
-.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
-.smcap.smaller {font-size: 75%;}
-
-.bold {font-weight: bold;}
-
-hr {
-    width: 33%;
-    margin-top: 4em;
-    margin-bottom: 4em;
-    margin-left: 33%;
-    margin-right: auto;
-    clear: both;
-}
-
-table {
-    margin: 1em auto 1em auto;
-    max-width: 80%;
-    border-collapse: collapse;
-}
-
-.tdl {
-    text-align: left;
-    vertical-align: top;
-    padding-right: 1em;
-    padding-left: 1.5em;
-    text-indent: -1.5em;
-}
-
-.tdr {
-    text-align: right;
-    vertical-align: bottom;
-    padding-left: .3em;
-    white-space: nowrap;
-}
-#toc .tdl, #toc .tdr {padding-top: 1em;}
-#toc tr.sub .tdl {padding-top: .25em;}
-#toc .tdl.notpad, #toc .tdr.notpad {padding-top: 0;}
-tr.sub .tdl {
-    font-size: 90%;
-    text-align: justify;
-    padding-left: 3em;
-    text-indent: -1.5em;
-}
-
-.pagenum {
-  position: absolute;
-  right: 4px;
-  text-indent: 0em;
-  text-align: right;
-  font-size: 70%;
-  font-weight: normal;
-  font-variant: normal;
-  font-style: normal;
-  letter-spacing: normal;
-  line-height: normal;
-  color: #acacac;
-  border: 1px solid #acacac;
-  background: #ffffff;
-  padding: 1px 2px;
-}
-
-.footnotes {font-size: 95%;}
-
-.footnotep {
-    border: thin dashed black;
-    margin: 1.5em 10%;
-    padding: .5em 1em .5em 1.5em;
-    font-size: 90%;
-}
-
-.footnote {margin-top: 1em;}
-.footnote p, .footnotep p {text-indent: 1em;}
-.footnote p.in0 {text-indent: 0;}
-
-.fnanchor {
-    vertical-align: 60%;
-    line-height: .7;
-    font-size: smaller;
-    text-decoration: none;
-}
-.footnote .fnanchor {font-size: .8em;}
-.fnanchor.smaller {font-size: .5em; vertical-align: text-top;}
-.footnotes .fnanchor {
-    vertical-align: inherit;
-    line-height: inherit;
-    text-decoration: underline;
-    font-size: 110%;
-}
-
-blockquote {
-    margin-left: 5%;
-    margin-right: 5%;
-    font-size: 95%;
-}
-blockquote.end {margin-left: 2%; margin-right: 2%; margin-top: 2em; font-size: 92.5%;}
-
-blockquote.inhead p, blockquote.hang p {padding-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1.5em;}
-blockquote.inhead.center p {padding-left: 0; text-indent: 0; text-align: center;}
-.ad blockquote {margin-left: 0; padding-left: .5em;}
-
-.hang {
-    text-align: justify;
-    padding-left: 1.5em;
-    text-indent: -1.5em;
-}
-
-.poem-container {
-    text-align: center;
-    font-size: 98%;
-}
-
-.poem {
-    display: inline-block;
-    text-align: left;
-    margin-left: 0;
-}
-
-.poem .stanza{padding: 0.5em 0;}
-.poem .stanza-attrib {padding-bottom: 0;}
-
-.poem .attrib {margin-right: -2em; text-align: right;}
-
-.poem span.iq     {display: block; margin-left: -.5em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;}
-.poem span.i0     {display: block; margin-left: 0em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;}
-.poem span.i6     {display: block; margin-left: 3em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;}
-.poem span.i12     {display: block; margin-left: 5em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;}
-
-.transnote {
-    background-color: #EEE;
-    border: thin dotted;
-    font-family: sans-serif, serif;
-    color: #000;
-    margin-left: 5%;
-    margin-right: 5%;
-    margin-top: 4em;
-    margin-bottom: 2em;
-    padding: 1em;
-}
-
-.sigright {
-     margin-right: 2em;
-     text-align: right;}
-
-.gesperrt {
-    letter-spacing: 0.2em;
-    margin-right: -0.2em;
-}
-
-.ad {
-    margin-top: 4em;
-    display: inline-block; max-width: 20em; text-align: center;
-    border: thin solid black; padding: 1em;}
-.narrow {display: inline-block; max-width: 35em; text-align: center;
-    padding: .2em;}
-.bordout {border: .25em solid red; padding: .3em;}
-.bordin {border: .1em solid black; padding: 1.5em;}
-.sans {font-family: sans-serif, serif;}
-p.sal {text-indent: 0; padding-top: .5em; margin-bottom: 0; font-size: 125%;}
-p.sal+p {margin-top: 0;}
-
-@media print, handheld
-{
-    h1, .chapter, .newpage {page-break-before: always;}
-    h1.nobreak, h2.nobreak, .nobreak {page-break-before: avoid; padding-top: 0;}
-
-    p {
-        margin-top: .5em;
-        text-align: justify;
-        margin-bottom: .25em;
-    }
-
-    table {width: 100%; max-width: 100%;}
-
-    .tdl {
-        padding-left: 1em;
-        text-indent: -1em;
-        padding-right: 0;
-    }
-
-    .ad {
-        margin-top: 4em; margin-left: 10%;
-        display: block; max-width: 20em; text-align: left;
-        border: thin solid black; padding: 1em;}
-    .narrow {display: block; max-width: 35em; text-align: center;
-        padding: .2em; margin-left: 10%;}
-    .bordout {border: .25em solid red; padding: .3em;}
-    .bordin {border: .1em solid black; padding: 1.5em;}
-
-}
-
-@media handheld
-{
-    body {margin: 0;}
-
-    hr {
-        margin-top: .1em;
-        margin-bottom: .1em;
-        visibility: hidden;
-        color: white;
-        width: .01em;
-        display: none;
-    }
-
-    blockquote {margin: 1.5em 3% 1.5em 3%;}
-
-    .poem-container {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%;}
-    .poem {display: block;}
-    .poem .attrib {max-width: 25em; margin-right: 0;}
-    .poem .stanza {page-break-inside: avoid;}
-
-    .hang {margin: .5em 3% 2em 3%;}
-
-    .transnote {
-        page-break-inside: avoid;
-        margin-left: 2%;
-        margin-right: 2%;
-        margin-top: 1em;
-        margin-bottom: 1em;
-        padding: .5em;
-    }
-
-}
-  </style>
-  </head>
-
-<body>
-
-
-<pre>
-
-The Project Gutenberg EBook of Representative British Orations with
-Introductions and Explanatory Notes,, by Charles Kendall Adams
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
-other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
-whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
-the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
-www.gutenberg.org.  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
-to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.
-
-Title: Representative British Orations with Introductions and Explanatory Notes, Volume II (of 4)
-
-Author: Charles Kendall Adams
-
-Release Date: September 6, 2017 [EBook #55490]
-
-Language: English
-
-Character set encoding: UTF-8
-
-*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK REPRESENTATIVE BRITISH ORATIONS, VOL 2 ***
-
-
-
-
-Produced by Larry B. Harrison, Charlie Howard, and the
-Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
-(This file was produced from images generously made
-available by The Internet Archive)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-</pre>
-
-
-<div class="center"><div class="ad">
-<p class="center sans">Uniform with British Orations</p>
-
-<blockquote class="hang">
-
-<p>AMERICAN ORATIONS, to illustrate
-American Political History, edited, with
-introductions, by <span class="smcap">Alexander Johnston</span>,
-Professor of Jurisprudence and Political
-Economy in the College of New Jersey.
-3 vols., 16 mo, $3.75.</p>
-
-<p>PROSE MASTERPIECES FROM MODERN
-ESSAYISTS, comprising single specimen essays
-from <span class="smcap">Irving</span>, <span class="smcap">Leigh Hunt</span>, <span class="smcap">Lamb</span>, <span class="smcap">De
-Quincey</span>, <span class="smcap">Landor</span>, <span class="smcap">Sydney Smith</span>, <span class="smcap">Thackeray</span>,
-<span class="smcap">Emerson</span>, <span class="smcap">Arnold</span>, <span class="smcap">Morley</span>, <span class="smcap">Helps</span>,
-<span class="smcap">Kingsley</span>, <span class="smcap">Ruskin</span>, <span class="smcap">Lowell</span>, <span class="smcap">Carlyle</span>, <span class="smcap">Macaulay</span>,
-<span class="smcap">Froude</span>, <span class="smcap">Freeman</span>, <span class="smcap">Gladstone</span>, <span class="smcap">Newman</span>,
-<span class="smcap">Leslie Stephen</span>. 3 vols., 16 mo, bevelled
-boards, $3.75 and $4.50.</p></blockquote>
-
-<p class="p2 center"><span class="smcap">G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York and London</span></p>
-</div></div>
-
-<div class="newpage p4 center"><div class="narrow bordout">
-<div class="bordin">
-<h1><span class="small">REPRESENTATIVE</span><br />
-BRITISH ORATIONS</h1>
-
-<p class="p2 center vspace">WITH<br />
-INTRODUCTIONS AND EXPLANATORY NOTES</p>
-
-<p class="p2 center vspace">BY<br />
-<span class="large">CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS</span></p>
-
-<div class="p2 poem-container">
-<div class="poem"><div class="stanza-attrib">
-<span class="i0"><i xml:lang="la" lang="la">Videtisne quantum munus sit oratoris historia?</i></span></div>
-<div class="attrib">
-—<span class="smcap">Cicero</span>, <cite>DeOratore</cite>, ii, 15</div>
-</div></div>
-
-<p class="p1 center xlarge">✩✩</p>
-
-<p class="p1 center vspace">NEW YORK &amp; LONDON<br />
-<span class="larger gesperrt">G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS</span><br />
-<span class="bold">The Knickerbocker Press</span><br />
-1884
-</p>
-</div></div></div>
-
-<p class="newpage p4 center vspace smaller">
-COPYRIGHT<br />
-G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS<br />
-1884.</p>
-
-<p class="p2 center vspace smaller">Press of<br />
-<span class="smcap">G. P. Putnam’s Sons</span><br />
-New York
-</p>
-
-<hr />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_iii">iii</span></p>
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS.</h2>
-</div>
-
-<table id="toc" summary="Contents">
-  <tr class="small">
-    <td> </td>
-    <td class="tdr">PAGE</td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdl notpad"><span class="smcap">William Pitt</span></td>
-    <td class="tdr notpd"><a href="#WILLIAM_PITT">1</a></td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">William Pitt</span></td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#WILLIAM_PITT2">19</a></td></tr>
-  <tr class="sub">
-    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">On his Refusal to Negotiate with Napoleon Bonaparte; House of Commons, February 3, 1800.</span></td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Charles James Fox</span></td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHARLES_JAMES_FOX">99</a></td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Charles James Fox</span></td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHARLES_JAMES_FOX2">108</a></td></tr>
-  <tr class="sub">
-    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">On the Rejection of Napoleon Bonaparte’s Overtures of Peace; House of Commons, February 3, 1800.</span></td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Sir James Mackintosh</span></td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#SIR_JAMES_MACKINTOSH">176</a></td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Sir James Mackintosh</span></td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#SIR_JAMES_MACKINTOSH2">185</a></td></tr>
-  <tr class="sub">
-    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">In Behalf of Free Speech. On the Trial of Jean Peltier, Accused of Libelling Napoleon Bonaparte; Court of King’s Bench, February 21, 1803.</span></td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Lord Erskine</span></td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#LORD_ERSKINE">262</a></td></tr>
-  <tr>
-    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Lord Erskine</span></td>
-    <td class="tdr"><a href="#LORD_ERSKINE2">273</a></td></tr>
-  <tr class="sub">
-    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">On the Limitations of Free Speech; Delivered in 1797 on the Trial of Williams for Publication of Paine’s “Age of Reason.”</span></td></tr>
-</table>
-
-<hr />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">1</span></p>
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="WILLIAM_PITT">WILLIAM PITT.</h2>
-</div>
-
-<p>The younger Pitt was the second son of Lord
-Chatham, and was seven years of age when his
-father in 1766 was admitted to the peerage.
-The boy’s earliest peculiarity was an absorbing
-ambition to become his father’s successor as the
-first orator of the day. His health, however,
-was so delicate as to cause the gravest apprehensions.
-Stanhope tells us that before he
-was fourteen “half of his time was lost through
-ill health,” and that his early life at Cambridge
-was “one long disease.” There is still extant
-a remarkable letter that reveals better than
-any thing else the fond hopes of the father and
-the physical discouragement as well as the
-mental aspirations of the son. Chatham wrote:
-“Though I indulge with inexpressible delight
-the thought of your returning health, I cannot
-help being a little in pain lest you should make<span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">2</span>
-more haste than good speed to be well. How
-happy the task, my noble, amiable boy, to
-caution you only against pursuing too much all
-those liberal and praiseworthy things, to which
-less happy natures are perpetually to be spurred
-and driven. I will not tease you with too long
-a lecture in favor of inaction and a competent
-stupidity, your two best tutors and companions
-at present. You have time to spare; consider,
-there is but the Encyclopædia, and when you
-have mastered that, what will remain?” The
-intimations of precocity here given were fully
-justified by the extraordinary progress made
-by the boy notwithstanding his bodily ailments.
-He entered the University of Cambridge at
-fourteen, and such was his scholarship at that
-time that his tutor wrote: “It is no uncommon
-thing for him to read into English six or eight
-pages of Thucydides which he had not previously
-seen, without more than two or three mistakes,
-and sometimes without even one.”</p>
-
-<p>At the university, where he remained nearly
-seven years, his course of study was carried on<span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">3</span>
-strictly in accordance with his father’s directions
-and was somewhat peculiar. His most ardent
-devotion was given to the classics; and his
-method was that to which his father always
-attributed the extraordinary copiousness and
-richness of his own language. After looking
-over a passage so as to become familiar with
-the author’s thought, he strove to render it
-rapidly into elegant and idiomatic English, with
-a view to reproducing it with perfect exactness
-and in the most felicitous form. This
-method he followed for years till, according to
-the testimony of his tutor, Dr. Prettyman, when
-he had reached the age of twenty, “there was
-scarcely a Greek or Latin writer of any eminence
-<em>the whole of whose works</em> Mr. Pitt had not read
-to him in this thorough and discriminating manner.”
-This was the laborious way in which he
-acquired that extraordinary and perhaps unrivalled
-gift of pouring out for hour after hour
-an unbroken stream of thought without ever
-hesitating for a word or recalling a phrase or
-sinking into looseness or inaccuracy of expression.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">4</span>
-The finest passages even of the obscurer
-poets he copied with care and stored away in
-his memory; and thus he was also qualified for
-that aptness of quotation for which his oratory
-was always remarkable.</p>
-
-<p>With his classical studies Pitt united an unusual
-aptitude and fondness for the mathematics
-and for logic. To both of these he gave
-daily attention, and before he left the university,
-according to the authority above quoted,
-he was master in mathematics of every thing
-usually known by young men who obtain the
-highest academical honors. In logic, Aristotle
-was his master, and he early acquired the
-habit of applying the principles and methods of
-that great logician to a critical examination of
-all the works he studied and the debates he
-witnessed. It was probably this course of
-study which gave him his unrivalled power in
-reply. While still at Cambridge it was a favorite
-employment to compare the great speeches of
-antiquity in point of logical accuracy, and to
-point out the manner in which the reasoning<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">5</span>
-of the orator could be met and answered. The
-same habit followed him to London and into
-Parliament. His biographers dwell upon the
-fact, that whenever he listened to a debate he
-was constantly employed in detecting illogical
-reasoning and in pointing out to those near
-him how this argument and that could easily
-be answered. Before he became a member of
-Parliament, he was in the habit of spending
-much time in London and in listening to the
-debates on the great subjects then agitating the
-nation. But the speeches of his father and of
-Burke, of Fox, and of Sheridan seemed to interest
-him chiefly as an exercise for his own improvement.
-His great effort was directed to
-the difficult process of retaining the long train
-of argument in his mind, of strengthening it,
-and of pointing out and refuting the positions
-that seemed to him weak.</p>
-
-<p>It would be incorrect to leave the impression
-that these severe courses of study were not intermingled
-with studies in English literature,
-rhetoric, and history. We are told that “he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">6</span>
-had the finest passages of Shakespeare by
-heart,” that “he read the best historians with
-care,” that “his favorite models of prose style
-were Middleton’s Life of Cicero, and the historical
-writings of Bolingbroke,” and that “on
-the advice of his father, for the sake of a copious
-diction, he made a careful study of the sermons
-of Dr. Barrow.” Making all due allowance for
-the exaggerative enthusiasm of biographers, we
-are still forced to the belief that no other person
-ever entered Parliament with acquirements
-and qualifications for a great career equal on
-the whole to those of the younger Pitt.</p>
-
-<p>The expectations formed of him were not
-disappointed. It has frequently happened that
-members of Parliament have attained to great
-and influential careers after the most signal
-failures as speakers in their early efforts. But
-no such failure awaited Pitt. He entered the
-House of Commons in 1781, at the age of
-twenty-two, and became a member of the opposition
-to Lord North, under the leadership
-of Burke and Fox. His first speech was in reply<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">7</span>
-to Lord Nugent on the subject of economic
-reform, a matter that had been brought
-forward by Burke. Pitt had been asked to
-speak on the question; but, although he had
-hesitated in giving his answer, he had determined
-not to participate in the debate. His
-answer, however, was misunderstood, and therefore
-at the close of a speech by Lord Nugent,
-he was vociferously called upon by the Whig
-members of the House. Though taken by surprise,
-he finally yielded and with perfect self-possession
-began what was probably the most
-successful <em>first</em> speech ever given in the House
-of Commons. Unfortunately it was not reported
-and has not been preserved. But contemporaneous
-accounts of the impression it
-made are abundant. Not only was it received
-with enthusiastic applause from every part of
-the House; but Burke greeted him with the
-declaration that he was “not merely a chip of
-the old block, but the old block itself.” When
-some one remarked that Pitt promised to be
-one of the first speakers ever heard in Parliament,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">8</span>
-Fox replied, “He is so already.” This
-was at the proudest era of British eloquence,
-and when Pitt was but twenty-two.</p>
-
-<p>During the session of 1781–82 the powers of
-Burke, Fox, and Pitt were united in a strenuous
-opposition to the administration of Lord
-North. After staggering under their blows for
-some weeks, the ministry fell, and Lord North
-was succeeded by Rockingham in February of
-1782. Rockingham’s ministry, however, was
-terminated by the death of its chief after a
-short period of only thirteen weeks. Lord
-Shelburne was appointed his successor, and he
-chose Pitt as the Chancellor of the Exchequer
-and leader of the House of Commons. Thus
-Burke and Fox were passed by, and not only
-the responsible leadership of the Commons,
-but also the finances of the empire, were entrusted
-to a youth of twenty-three. The
-reason of this preference certainly was not
-an acknowledged pre-eminence of Pitt; but
-rather in the attitude he had assumed in
-the course of his attacks on the administration<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">9</span>
-of North. He had not inveighed against
-the king, but had attached all the responsibility
-of mismanagement to the ministry, where
-the Constitution itself places it. Fox, on the
-other hand, had allowed himself to be carried
-forward by the impetuosity of his nature, and
-had placed the responsibility where we now
-know it belonged—upon George III. The
-consequence had been that the enraged king
-would not listen to the promotion of Fox,
-though by constitutional usage he was clearly
-entitled to recognition. That Fox was offended
-was not singular, but it is impossible even for
-his most ardent admirers to justify the course
-he now determined to take. He had been
-the most bitter opponent of Lord North. He
-had denounced him as “the most infamous of
-mankind,” and as “the greatest criminal of
-the state.” He had declared of his ministry:
-“From the moment I should make any terms
-with one of them, I should rest satisfied to be
-called the most infamous of mankind.” He
-had said only eleven months before: “I could<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">10</span>
-not for a moment think of a coalition with men
-who, in every public and private transaction as
-ministers, have shown themselves void of every
-principle of honor and honesty.”<a id="FNanchor_A" href="#Footnote_A" class="fnanchor">A</a> And yet,
-notwithstanding these philippics, which almost
-seem to have been delivered as if to make
-a coalition impossible, Fox now deserted his
-old political companions, and joined hands
-with the very object of his fiercest denunciation.
-The Coalition thus formed voted down
-the Shelburne ministry in February, 1783.</p>
-
-<div class="footnotep">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_A" href="#FNanchor_A" class="fnanchor">A</a> Fox’s Speeches, II., 39.</p></div>
-
-<p>The debate which preceded the final vote
-was one of the most remarkable in English
-history. The subject immediately at issue was
-a vote of censure of Shelburne’s government
-for the terms of the treaty closing the American
-war. North assailed the treaty, as bringing
-disgrace upon the country by the concessions
-it had made. Fox spoke in the same
-strain, having reserved himself till the latter
-part of the night, with the evident purpose
-of overwhelming the young leader of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">11</span>
-House by the force and severity of his presentation.
-But the moment he sat down, Pitt
-arose and grappled with the argument of his
-opponent in a speech that has seldom been
-surpassed in the history of parliamentary debate.
-Lord North spoke of its eloquence as
-“amazing,” and, although the Coalition was
-too strong to be broken, it made such an
-impression that there could no longer be any
-doubt that Pitt was now the foremost man of
-his party.</p>
-
-<p>In the course of the speech Pitt intimated
-that even if the vote of censure came to pass,
-the king might not feel called upon to accept
-the decision. He declared it an unnatural
-Coalition, which had simply raised a storm
-of faction, and which had no other object
-than the infliction of a wound on Lord Shelburne.
-Then in one of his impassioned strains
-he exclaimed: “If, however, the baneful alliance
-is not already formed,—if this ill-omened
-marriage is not already solemnized, I know a
-just and lawful impediment,—and in the name
-of the public safety, I here forbid the banns.”</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">12</span>
-But all availed nothing. The vote of censure
-was passed, and Shelburne’s ministry tendered
-their resignation. The king hesitated.
-He was unwilling to bring the Coalition into
-power, because he had an insurmountable repugnance
-to Fox. He sent for Pitt, and
-urged him in the most pressing terms to accept
-the position of Prime-Minister. But Pitt, with
-that steadfast judgment which never deserted
-him, firmly rejected the flattering offer. The
-most he would consent to do was to remain in
-the office he then held till the succession could
-be fixed upon. The king was almost in despair;
-and thought seriously of retiring to Hanover.
-It was Thurlow that dissuaded him from
-taking so dangerous a step. “Nothing is easier
-than for your Majesty to go to his Electoral
-dominions;” said the old Chancellor, “but you
-may not find it so easy to return when you
-grow tired of staying there. James II. did the
-same; your Majesty must not follow his example.”
-He then assured the king that the
-Coalition was an unnatural one, and could not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">13</span>
-long remain in power without committing some
-fatal blunder. After six weeks the king reluctantly
-submitted, and appointed the Duke of
-Portland as the Prime-Minister, and North and
-Fox as the Chief Secretaries of State.</p>
-
-<p>The end came sooner than Thurlow had
-dared to anticipate. The Coalition ministry
-was formed on the second day of April, 1783.
-During the first week of the following session
-Fox brought forward his East India bill, which
-had for its object the entire remodelling of the
-government of the English domains in the
-East. The measure was in direct defiance of
-the wishes of the king. In view of the circumstances
-of Fox’s coalition with the Tories,
-it is not singular that many thought the scheme
-a desperate measure to intrench the Coalition
-so firmly in power that the king could not
-remove them. Pitt opposed the measure with
-great energy, and with so much skill that it soon
-became evident that he spoke the sentiments of
-the thinking men of the nation. The debate
-on the question lasted twelve days, and was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">14</span>
-closed by a masterly review of the question by
-Fox. The Coalition was so strong in the lower
-House that the final vote was 217 to 103 in
-favor of the measure.</p>
-
-<p>But in the House of Lords its fortune was
-different. At an interview with Lord Temple,
-a kinsman of Pitt’s, the king commissioned
-him to say to the members of the House “that
-whoever voted for the India bill were not only
-not his friends, but that he should consider
-them his enemies.” This message was widely
-but secretly circulated among the Lords.
-Thurlow denounced the bill in unqualified
-terms. Though the ministry fought for the
-measure as best they could, when the question
-came to a final issue, it was rejected by a vote
-of ninety-five to seventy-six. At twelve o’clock
-on the following night a messenger conveyed
-the orders of the king to the chief ministers to
-deliver up the seals of their offices, and to send
-them by the under secretaries, “as a personal
-interview on the occasion would be disagreeable
-to him.” The following day the other<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">15</span>
-ministers were dismissed with like evidences of
-disfavor.</p>
-
-<p>Pitt now, on the 22d of December, 1783, became
-Prime-Minister at the age of twenty-four.
-The situation was one that put all his powers
-to the severest test. In the last decisive vote
-in the House of Commons the majority against
-him had been more than two to one. Fox was
-inflamed with all the indignation of which his
-good-nature was capable. He declared on the
-floor of the House that “to talk of the <em>permanency</em>
-of such an administration would be only
-laughing at and insulting them”; and he alluded
-to “the <em>youth</em> of the Chancellor of the
-Exchequer and the weakness incident to his
-early period of life as the only possible excuse
-for his temerity.” And yet with such consummate
-tact did Pitt ward off the blows, and
-with such skill and power did he in turn advance
-to the assault, that the majority against
-him at once began to show signs of weakening.
-Fox threatened to cut off the supplies; whereupon
-Pitt met him with an unwavering defiance.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">16</span>
-Rapidly the majority went down till, on
-a test vote on the 8th of March, the opposition
-had only one majority. Pitt immediately decided
-to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the
-people. The result more than justified his
-determination. The question everywhere was
-“Fox or Pitt?” The cry “for Pitt and the
-King” carried the day by an overwhelming
-majority, and a complete revolution in the
-House of Commons was the result. More than
-a hundred and sixty of “Fox’s martyrs” lost
-their seats. The triumph was the most complete
-that any English minister ever obtained.
-It not only placed Pitt in power, but it gave
-him a predominance in authority that was only
-once interrupted in the course of more than
-twenty years.</p>
-
-<p>Within the next few years several subjects
-of national importance were brought forward
-by the ministry. But these are usually forgotten
-or regarded as insignificant when compared
-with the absorbing questions connected with
-the French Revolution and the Napoleonic<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">17</span>
-wars. It is as the leader and guide of what
-may be called the English policy in that memorable
-era that Pitt’s name will longest be
-remembered. Though that policy was not
-without strenuous opposition, it was carried
-consistently through to the end, and it was
-what contributed more than any thing else to
-break the power of Napoleon. It is for this
-reason that Pitt’s most elaborate speech on the
-policy of the English Government in relation
-to France is selected not only as a favorable
-specimen of his eloquence, but as having an influence
-of commanding importance on the
-stupendous affairs of the time. This speech
-is still the best exponent of the English view
-of the Napoleonic wars.</p>
-
-<p>Notwithstanding all his greatness, there was
-one weak point in Pitt’s line of policy. He
-made the mistake of constantly underestimating
-the power of the enthusiasm awakened by
-the revolutionary ideas in France. This was
-equivalent to attaching too low an estimate to
-the strength of the enemy. It was in consequence<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">18</span>
-of this error that he formed coalition
-after coalition, only to see them all shattered
-by Napoleon and his enthusiastic followers.
-When his last great coalition was broken by the
-battle of Austerlitz the blow was too much for
-his declining health; and, worn out with toil
-and anxiety, he sank rapidly, and expired on
-the 26th of January, 1806.</p>
-
-<p>It is the judgment of Alison that “Considered
-with reference to the general principles by
-which his conduct was regulated, and the constancy
-with which he maintained them through
-adverse fortune, the history of Europe has not
-so great a statesman to exhibit.”</p>
-
-<hr />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">19</span></p>
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="WILLIAM_PITT2">WILLIAM PITT.<br />
-
-<span class="subhead">ON HIS REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE WITH NAPOLEON
-BONAPARTE.<br />HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY
-3, 1800.</span></h2>
-</div>
-
-<blockquote class="end">
-
-<p>On the day after Bonaparte was inaugurated as First Consul
-of France, December 25, 1799, he addressed a personal letter
-to the King of England, asking for peace. The English Government,
-however, entertained a keen resentment at what
-they regarded the evasive and insulting conduct of the French
-Directory during the last negotiations. Accordingly, the reply
-of Lord Grenville, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, rejected
-the proposed opening of negotiations for peace. The Government
-justified its attitude by referring to the course of the
-French during the war. It declared that its beginning had
-been an “unprovoked attack” on the part of the French, that
-the “system” which inspired the war “continued to prevail,”
-that England could present “no defence but that of open and
-steady hostility” to the system, that “the best and most
-natural pledge of the reality and permanence of peace” had
-been rejected by the French, that although the English “did
-not claim to prescribe to France what shall be her form of
-government” yet they desired security for future peace, and
-that “unhappily no such security hitherto exists, no sufficient
-evidence of the principles by which the new government will
-be directed, no reasonable ground by which to judge of its
-stability.” To this letter Talleyrand wrote a spirited reply;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">20</span>
-and Lord Grenville closed the correspondence with a reaffirmation
-of his Government’s former position.</p>
-
-<p>The correspondence was called for, and was placed before
-the Commons on the 3d of February, 1800. Mr. Dundas immediately
-proposed an Address to the Throne approving of
-the course taken by the ministry. This opened the whole subject
-of the attitude of England toward Napoleon for debate.
-Whitbred, Canning, and Erskine complained in strong terms
-of the discourteous language used by Lord Grenville. Pitt
-made no defence on this point, but took up the subject on the
-broadest scale. He reviewed not only the origin of the war,
-but also the atrocities of the French in overrunning a large
-part of Europe, the instability of the successive French governments,
-his own motives in treating with the French on a
-former occasion, and the character of Bonaparte as a military
-commander. The speech is at once the most important and
-the most elaborate ever delivered by Pitt. It expressed and
-defined the policy of the nation in the great struggle which as
-yet had only begun. As a parliamentary oration, designed at
-once to inform and inspire, it has probably never been surpassed.</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>SIR,—I am induced, at this period of the debate,
-to offer my sentiments to the House, both
-from an apprehension that at a later hour the
-attention of the House must necessarily be exhausted,
-and because the sentiment with which
-the honorable and learned gentleman [Mr.
-Erskine] began his speech, and with which he
-has thought proper to conclude it, places the
-question precisely on that ground on which I
-am most desirous of discussing it. The learned<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">21</span>
-gentleman seems to assume as the foundation
-of his reasoning, and as the great argument for
-immediate treaty, that every effort to overturn
-the system of the French Revolution must be
-unavailing; and that it would be not only imprudent,
-but almost impious, to struggle longer
-against that order of things which, on I know
-not what principle of predestination, he appears
-to consider as immortal. Little as I am inclined
-to accede to this opinion, I am not sorry that
-the honorable gentleman has contemplated the
-subject in this serious view. I do, indeed, consider
-the French Revolution as the severest
-trial which the visitation of Providence has ever
-yet inflicted upon the nations of the earth; but
-I cannot help reflecting, with satisfaction, that
-this country, even under such a trial, has not
-only been exempted from those calamities which
-have covered almost every other part of Europe,
-but appears to have been reserved as a refuge
-and asylum to those who fled from its persecution,
-as a barrier to oppose its progress, and
-perhaps ultimately as an instrument to deliver
-the world from the crimes and miseries which
-have attended it.</p>
-
-<p>Under this impression, I trust the House will
-forgive me, if I endeavor, as far as I am able, to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">22</span>
-take a large and comprehensive view of this important
-question. In doing so, I agree with my
-honorable friend [Mr. Canning] that it would,
-in any case, be impossible to separate the
-present discussion from the former crimes and
-atrocities of the French Revolution; because
-both the papers now on the table, and the whole
-of the learned gentleman’s argument, force
-upon our consideration the origin of the war,
-and all the material facts which have occurred
-during its continuance. The learned gentleman
-[Mr. Erskine] has revived and retailed all those
-arguments from his own pamphlet, which had
-before passed through thirty-seven or thirty-eight
-editions in print, and now gives them to
-the House embellished by the graces of his
-personal delivery. The First Consul has also
-thought fit to revive and retail the chief arguments
-used by all the opposition speakers and
-all the opposition publishers in this country
-during the last seven years. And (what is still
-more material) the question itself, which is now
-immediately at issue—the question whether,
-under the present circumstances, there is such
-a prospect of security from any treaty with
-France as ought to induce us to negotiate, can
-not be properly decided upon without retracing,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">23</span>
-both from our own experience and from that
-of other nations, the nature, the causes, and the
-magnitude of the danger against which we have
-to guard, in order to judge of the security which
-we ought to accept.</p>
-
-<p>I say, then, that before any man can concur
-in opinion with that learned gentleman; before
-any man can think that the substance of his
-Majesty’s answer is any other than the safety of
-the country required; before any man can be
-of opinion that, to the overtures made by the
-enemy, at such a time and under such circumstances,
-it would have been safe to return an
-answer concurring in the negotiation—he must
-come within one of the three following descriptions:
-He must either believe that the French
-Revolution neither does now exhibit nor has at
-any time exhibited such circumstances of
-danger, arising out of the very nature of the
-system, and the internal state and condition of
-France, as to leave to foreign powers no adequate
-ground of security in negotiation; or, secondly,
-he must be of opinion that the change
-which has recently taken place has given that
-security which, in the former stages of the Revolution,
-was wanting; or, thirdly, he must be
-one who, believing that the danger exists, not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">24</span>
-undervaluing its extent nor mistaking its nature,
-nevertheless thinks, from his view of the present
-pressure on the country, from his view of
-its situation and its prospects, compared with
-the situation and prospects of its enemies, that
-we are, with our eyes open, bound to accept of
-inadequate security for every thing that is valuable
-and sacred, rather than endure the pressure,
-or incur the risk which would result from a farther
-prolongation of the contest.<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">1</a></p>
-
-<p>In discussing the last of these questions, we
-shall be led to consider what inference is to be
-drawn from the circumstances and the result of
-our own negotiations in former periods of the
-war; whether, in the comparative state of this
-country and France, we now see the same
-reason for repeating our then unsuccessful experiments;
-or whether we have not thence
-derived the lessons of experience, added to the
-deductions of reason, marking the inefficacy
-and danger of the very measures which are
-quoted to us as precedents for our adoption.</p>
-
-<p>Unwilling, sir, as I am to go into much detail
-on ground which has been so often trodden
-before; yet, when I find the learned gentleman,
-after all the information which he must have
-received, if he has read any of the answers to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">25</span>
-his work (however ignorant he might be when
-he wrote it), still giving the sanction of his
-authority to the supposition that the order to
-M. Chauvelin [French minister] to depart from
-this kingdom was the cause of the war between
-this country and France, I do feel it necessary
-to say a few words on that part of the subject.</p>
-
-<p>Inaccuracy in dates seems to be a sort of
-fatality common to all who have written on
-that side of the question; for even the writer
-of the note to his Majesty is not more correct,
-in this respect, than if he had taken his information
-only from the pamphlet of the learned
-gentleman. The House will recollect the first
-professions of the French Republic, which are
-enumerated, and enumerated truly, in that note.
-They are tests of every thing which would best
-recommend a government to the esteem and
-confidence of foreign powers, and the reverse
-of every thing which has been the system and
-practice of France now for near ten years. It
-is there stated that their first principles were
-love of peace, aversion to conquest, and respect
-for the independence of other countries. In
-the same note it seems, indeed, admitted that
-they since have violated all those principles;
-but it is alleged that they have done so only in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">26</span>
-consequence of the provocation of other powers.
-One of the first of those provocations is stated
-to have consisted in the various outrages offered
-to their ministers, of which the example is said
-to have been set by the King of Great Britain
-in his conduct to M. Chauvelin. In answer to
-this supposition, it is only necessary to remark,
-that before the example was given, before
-Austria and Prussia are supposed to have been
-thus encouraged to combine in a plan for the
-partition of France, that plan, if it ever existed
-at all, had existed and been acted upon for
-above eight months. France and Prussia had
-been at war eight months before the dismissal
-of M. Chauvelin. So much for the accuracy of
-the statement.</p>
-
-<p>I have been hitherto commenting on the
-arguments contained in the Notes. I come
-now to those of the learned gentleman. I
-understand him to say that the dismissal of M.
-Chauvelin was the real cause, I do not say of
-the general war, but of the rupture between
-France and England; and the learned gentleman
-states particularly that this dismissal rendered
-all discussion of the points in dispute
-impossible. Now I desire to meet distinctly
-every part of this assertion. I maintain, on the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">27</span>
-contrary, that an opportunity was given for
-discussing every matter in dispute between
-France and Great Britain as fully as if a regular
-and accredited French minister had been resident
-here; that the causes of war which existed
-at the beginning, or arose during the course of
-this discussion, were such as would have justified,
-twenty times over, a declaration of war on
-the part of this country; that all the explanations
-on the part of France were evidently
-unsatisfactory and inadmissible, and that M.
-Chauvelin had given in a peremptory ultimatum,
-declaring that if these explanations were not
-received as sufficient, and if we did not immediately
-disarm, our refusal would be considered
-as a declaration of war. After this followed
-that scene which no man can even now speak
-of without horror, or think of without indignation;
-that murder and regicide from which I
-was sorry to hear the learned gentleman date
-the beginning of the legal government of
-France.</p>
-
-<p>Having thus given in their ultimatum, they
-added, as a further demand (while we were
-smarting under accumulated injuries, for which
-all satisfaction was denied) that we should instantly
-receive M. Chauvelin as their embassador,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">28</span>
-with new credentials, representing them in
-the character which they had just derived from
-the murder of their sovereign. We replied,
-“he came here as the representative of a sovereign
-whom you have put to a cruel and illegal
-death; we have no satisfaction for the injuries
-we have received, no security from the danger
-with which we are threatened. Under these
-circumstances we will not receive your new credentials.
-The former credentials you have
-yourself recalled by the sacrifice of your King.”</p>
-
-<p>What, from that moment, was the situation
-of M. Chauvelin? He was reduced to the situation
-of a private individual, and was required
-to quit the kingdom under the provisions of
-the Alien Act, which, for the purpose of securing
-domestic tranquillity, had recently invested
-his Majesty with the power of removing out of
-this kingdom all foreigners suspected of revolutionary
-principles. Is it contended that he was
-then less liable to the provisions of that act
-than any other individual foreigner, whose conduct
-afforded to government just ground of objection
-or suspicion? Did his conduct and
-connections here afford no such ground? or will
-it be pretended that the bare act of refusing to
-receive fresh credentials from an infant republic,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">29</span>
-not then acknowledged by any one power
-of Europe, and in the very act of heaping upon
-us injuries and insults, was of itself a cause of
-war? So far from it, that even the very nations
-of Europe whose wisdom and moderation have
-been repeatedly extolled for maintaining neutrality,
-and preserving friendship with the
-French Republic, remained for years subsequent
-to this period without receiving from it any accredited
-minister, or doing any one act to
-acknowledge its political existence.</p>
-
-<p>In answer to a representation from the belligerent
-powers, in December, 1793, Count Bernstorff,
-the minister of Denmark, officially declared
-that “it was well known that the National
-Convention had appointed M. Grouville
-Minister Plenipotentiary at Denmark, but that
-it was also well known that he had neither been
-received nor acknowledged in that quality.”
-And as late as February, 1796, when the same
-minister was at length, for the first time, received
-in his official capacity, Count Bernstorff,
-in a public note, assigned this reason for that
-change of conduct: “So long as no other than
-a revolutionary government existed in France,
-his Majesty <em>could</em> not acknowledge the minister
-of that government; but now that the French<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">30</span>
-Constitution is completely organized, and a
-regular government established in France, his
-Majesty’s obligation ceases in that respect, and
-M. Grouville will therefore be acknowledged in
-the usual form.” How far the Court of Denmark
-was justified in the opinion that a revolutionary
-government then no longer existed in
-France it is not now necessary to inquire; but
-whatever may have been the fact in that respect,
-the <em>principle</em> on which they acted is clear
-and intelligible, and is a decisive instance in
-favor of the proposition which I have maintained.</p>
-
-<p>Is it, then, necessary to examine what were
-the terms of that ultimatum with which we refused
-to comply? Acts of hostility had been
-openly threatened against our allies; a hostility
-founded upon the assumption of a right which
-would at once supersede the whole law of nations.
-The pretended right to open the Scheldt
-we discussed at the time, not so much on account
-of its immediate importance (though it
-was important both in a maritime and commercial
-view) as on account of the general principle
-on which it was founded.<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">2</a> On the same arbitrary
-notion they soon afterward discovered
-that sacred law of nature which made the Rhine<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">31</span>
-and the Alps the legitimate boundaries of
-France, and assumed the power, which they
-have affected to exercise through the whole of
-the Revolution, of superseding, by a new code
-of their own, all the recognized principles of
-the law of nations. They were, in fact, actually
-advancing toward the republic of Holland, by
-rapid strides, after the victory of Jemappes and
-they had ordered their generals to pursue the
-Austrian troops into any neutral country, thereby
-explicitly avowing an intention of invading
-Holland. They had already shown their moderation
-and self-denial by incorporating Belgium
-with the French Republic. These lovers of
-peace, who set out with a sworn aversion to
-conquest, and professions of respect for the independence
-of other nations; who pretend that
-they departed from this system only in consequence
-of your aggression, themselves, in time
-of peace, while you were still confessedly neutral,
-without the pretence or shadow of provocation,
-wrested Savoy from the King of Sardinia,
-and had proceeded to incorporate it likewise
-with France.<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">3</a> These were their aggressions at
-this period, and more than these. They had
-issued a universal declaration of war against all
-the thrones of Europe, and they had, by their<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">32</span>
-conduct, applied it particularly and specifically
-to you. They had passed the decree of the 19th
-of November, 1792, proclaiming the promise of
-French succor to all nations who should manifest
-a wish to become free; they had, by all
-their language as well as their example, shown
-what they understood to be freedom; they had
-sealed their principles by the deposition of their
-sovereign; they had applied them to England
-by inviting and encouraging the addresses of
-those seditious and traitorous societies, who,
-from the beginning, favored their views, and
-who, encouraged by your forbearance, were
-even then publicly avowing French doctrines,
-and anticipating their success in this country—who
-were hailing the progress of those proceedings
-in France which led to the murder of its
-king; they were even then looking to the day
-when they should behold a National Convention
-in England formed upon similar principles.<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">4</a></p>
-
-<p>And what were the explanations they offered
-on these different grounds of offence? As to
-Holland: they told you the Scheldt was too
-insignificant for you to trouble yourselves about,
-and therefore it was to be decided as they chose,
-in breach of positive treaty, which they had
-themselves guaranteed, and which we, by our<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">33</span>
-alliance, were bound to support. If, however,
-after the war was over, Belgium should have
-consolidated its liberty (a term of which we
-now know the meaning, from the fate of every
-nation into which the arms of France have penetrated)
-then Belgium and Holland might, if
-they pleased, settle the question of the Scheldt
-by separate negotiation between themselves.
-With respect to aggrandizement, they assured
-us that they would retain possession of Belgium
-by arms no longer than they should find it
-necessary to the purpose already stated, of consolidating
-its liberty. And with respect to the
-decree of the 19th of November, 1792, applied
-as it was pointedly to you, by all the intercourse
-I have stated with all the seditious and traitorous
-part of this country, and particularly by
-the speeches of every leading man among them,
-they contented themselves with asserting that
-the declaration conveyed no such meaning as
-was imputed to it, and that, so far from encouraging
-sedition, it could apply only to countries
-where a great majority of the people should
-have already declared itself in favor of a revolution:
-a supposition which, as they asserted,
-necessarily implied a total absence of all sedition.</p>
-
-<p>What would have been the effect of admitting<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">34</span>
-this explanation? to suffer a nation, and
-an armed nation, to preach to the inhabitants
-of all the countries in the world that they themselves
-were slaves and their rulers tyrants; to
-encourage and invite them to revolution by a
-previous promise of French support to whatever
-might call itself a majority, or to whatever
-France might declare to be so. This was their
-explanation; and this, they told you, was their
-ultimatum.</p>
-
-<p>But was this all? Even at that very moment,
-when they were endeavoring to induce
-you to admit these explanations, to be contented
-with the avowal that France offered
-herself as a general guaranty for every successful
-revolution, and would interfere only to
-sanction and confirm whatever the free and uninfluenced
-choice of the people might have decided,
-what were their orders to their generals
-on the same subject? In the midst of these
-amicable explanations with you came forth a
-decree which I really believe must be effaced
-from the minds of gentlemen opposite to me, if
-they can prevail upon themselves for a moment
-to hint even a doubt upon the origin of this
-quarrel, not only as to this country, but as to
-all the nations of Europe with whom France<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">35</span>
-has been subsequently engaged in hostility. I
-speak of the decree of the 15th of December,
-1792. This decree, more even than all the
-previous transactions, amounted to a universal
-declaration of war against all thrones, and
-against all civilized governments. It said,
-wherever the armies of France shall come
-(whether within countries then at war or at
-peace is not distinguished) in all those countries
-it shall be the first care of their generals to
-introduce the principles and the practice of the
-French Revolution; to demolish all privileged
-orders, and every thing which obstructs the
-establishment of their new system.<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">5</a></p>
-
-<p>If any doubt is entertained whither the armies
-of France were intended to come; if it is contended
-that they referred only to those nations
-with whom they were then at war, or with
-whom, in the course of this contest, they might
-be driven into war; let it be remembered that
-at this very moment they had actually given
-orders to their generals to pursue the Austrian
-army from the Netherlands into Holland, with
-whom they were at that time in peace. Or,
-even if the construction contended for is admitted,
-let us see what would have been its application,
-let us look at the list of their aggressions,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">36</span>
-which was read by my right honorable
-friend [Mr. Dundas] near me. With whom
-have they been at war since the period of this
-declaration? With all the nations of Europe
-save two (Sweden and Denmark), and if not
-with these two, it is only because, with every
-provocation that could justify defensive war,
-those countries have hitherto acquiesced in repeated
-violations of their rights rather than
-recur to war for their vindication. Wherever
-their arms have been carried it will be a matter
-of short subsequent inquiry to trace whether
-they have faithfully applied these principles.
-If in <em>terms</em> this decree is a denunciation of war
-against all governments; if in <em>practice</em> it has
-been applied against every one with which
-France has come into contact; what is it but
-the deliberate code of the French Revolution,
-from the birth of the Republic, which has never
-once been departed from, which has been enforced
-with unremitted rigor against all the nations
-that have come into their power?</p>
-
-<p>If there could otherwise be any doubt
-whether the application of this decree was
-intended to be universal, whether it applied
-to all nations, and to England particularly;
-there is one circumstance which alone would<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">37</span>
-be decisive—that nearly at the same period it
-was proposed [by M. Baraillon], in the National
-Convention, to declare expressly that the decree
-of November 19th was confined to the nations
-with whom they were <em>then</em> at war; and that
-proposal was <em>rejected</em> by a great majority, by
-that very Convention from whom we were desired
-to receive these explanations as satisfactory.</p>
-
-<p>Such, sir, was the nature of the system. Let
-us examine a little farther, whether it was from
-the beginning intended to be acted upon in the
-extent which I have stated. At the very moment
-when their threats appeared to many little
-else than the ravings of madmen, they were digesting
-and methodizing the means of execution,
-as accurately as if they had actually foreseen
-the extent to which they have since been
-able to realize their criminal projects. They
-sat down coolly to devise the most regular and
-effectual mode of making the application of
-this system the current business of the day,
-and incorporating it with the general orders of
-their army; for (will the House believe it!) this
-confirmation of the decree of November 19th
-was accompanied by an exposition and commentary
-addressed to the general of every<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">38</span>
-army of France, containing a schedule as coolly
-conceived, and as methodically reduced, as any
-by which the most quiet business of a justice of
-peace, or the most regular routine of any department
-of state in this country could be conducted.
-Each commander was furnished with
-one general blank formula of a letter for all the
-nations of the world! The people of France to
-the people of ——, Greeting, “We are come
-to expel your tyrants.” Even this was not all;
-one of the articles of the decree of the fifteenth
-of December was expressly, “that those who
-should show themselves so brutish and so enamored
-of their chains as to refuse the restoration
-of their rights, to renounce liberty and
-equality, or to preserve, recall, or treat with
-their prince or privileged orders, were not entitled
-to the distinction which France, in other
-cases, had justly established between government
-and people; and that such a people
-ought to be treated according to the rigor of
-war, and of conquest.” Here is their love of
-peace; here is their aversion to conquest; here
-is their respect for the independence of other
-nations!</p>
-
-<p>It was then, after receiving such explanations
-as these, after receiving the ultimatum of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">39</span>
-France, and after M. Chauvelin’s credentials
-had ceased, that he was required to depart.
-Even at that period, I am almost ashamed to
-record it, we did not on our part shut the door
-against other attempts to negotiate, but this
-transaction was immediately followed by the
-declaration of war, proceeding not from England
-in vindication of her rights, but from
-France, as the completion of the injuries and
-insults they had offered. And on a war thus
-originating, can it be doubted by an English
-House of Commons whether the aggression
-was on the part of this country or of France?
-or whether the manifest aggression on the part
-of France was the result of any thing but the
-principles which characterize the French Revolution?<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">6</a>
-* * *</p>
-
-<p>I will enlarge no farther on the origin of the
-war. I have read and detailed to you a system
-which was in itself a declaration of war against
-all nations, which was so intended, and which
-has been so applied, which has been exemplified
-in the extreme peril and hazard of almost all
-who for a moment have trusted to treaty, and
-which has not at this hour overwhelmed Europe
-in one indiscriminate mass of ruin, only
-because we have not indulged, to a fatal extremity,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">40</span>
-that disposition which we have, however,
-indulged too far; because we have not
-consented to trust to profession and compromise,
-rather than to our own valor and exertion, for
-security against a system from which we never
-shall be delivered till either the principle is
-extinguished, or till its strength is exhausted.</p>
-
-<p>I might, sir, if I found it necessary, enter into
-much detail upon this part of the subject; but
-at present I only beg leave to express my
-readiness at any time to enter upon it, when
-either my own strength or the patience of the
-House will admit of it; but I say, without distinction,
-against every nation in Europe, and
-against some out of Europe, the principle has
-been faithfully applied. You cannot look at
-the map of Europe, and lay your hand upon
-that country against which France has not
-either declared an open and aggressive war,
-or violated some positive treaty, or broken
-some recognized principle of the law of nations.</p>
-
-<p>This subject may be divided into various periods.
-There were some acts of hostility committed
-previous to the war with this country,
-and very little, indeed, subsequent to that declaration,
-which abjured the love of conquest.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">41</span>
-The attack upon the papal state, by the seizure
-of Avignon, in 1791, was accompanied with
-specimens of all the vile arts and perfidy that
-ever disgraced a revolution. Avignon was separated
-from its lawful sovereign, with whom not
-even the pretence of quarrel existed, and forcibly
-incorporated in the tyranny of one and indivisible
-France.<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">7</a> The same system led, in the
-same year, to an aggression against the whole
-German Empire, by the seizure of Porentrui,
-part of the dominions of the Bishop of Basle.
-Afterward, in 1792, unpreceded by any declaration
-of war, or any cause of hostility,<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">8</a> and in
-direct violation of the solemn pledge to abstain
-from conquest, they made war against the King
-of Sardinia, by the seizure of Savoy, for the
-purpose of incorporating it, in like manner,
-with France. In the same year, they had proceeded
-to the declaration of war against Austria,
-against Prussia, and against the German Empire,
-in which they have been justified only on the
-ground of a rooted hostility, combination, and
-league of sovereigns, for the dismemberment of
-France. I say that some of the documents
-brought to support this pretence are spurious
-and false. I say that even in those that are
-not so, there is not one word to prove the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">42</span>
-charge principally relied upon, that of an intention
-to effect the dismemberment of France,
-or to impose upon it, by force, any particular
-constitution. I say that, as far as we have been
-able to trace what passed at Pilnitz, the declaration
-there signed referred to the imprisonment
-of Louis XVI.; its immediate view was to
-effect his deliverance, if a concert sufficiently
-extensive could be formed with other sovereigns
-for that purpose. It left the internal state of
-France to be decided by the king restored to
-his liberty, with the free consent of the states
-of his kingdom, and it did not contain one
-word relative to the <em>dismemberment</em> of France.<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">9</a></p>
-
-<p>In the subsequent discussions, which took
-place in 1792, and which embraced at the same
-time all the other points of jealousy which had
-arisen between the two countries, the Declaration
-of Pilnitz was referred to, and explained on
-the part of Austria in a manner precisely conformable
-to what I have now stated. The
-amicable explanations which took place, both
-on this subject and on all the matters in dispute,
-will be found in the official correspondence between
-the two courts which has been made public;
-and it will be found, also, that as long as
-the negotiation continued to be conducted<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">43</span>
-through M. Delessart, then Minister for Foreign
-Affairs, there was a great prospect that those
-discussions would be amicably terminated; but
-it is notorious, and has since been clearly proved
-on the authority of Brissot himself, that the violent
-party in France considered such an issue of
-the negotiation as likely to be fatal to their
-projects, and thought, to use his own words,
-that “war was necessary to consolidate the
-Revolution.” For the express purpose of producing
-the war, they excited a popular tumult
-in Paris; they insisted upon and obtained the
-dismissal of M. Delessart. A new minister was
-appointed in his room, the tone of the negotiation
-was immediately changed, and an ultimatum
-was sent to the Emperor, similar to that
-which was afterward sent to this country, affording
-him no satisfaction on his just grounds of
-complaint, and requiring him, under those circumstances,
-to disarm. The first events of the
-contest proved how much more France was prepared
-for war than Austria, and afford a strong
-confirmation of the proposition which I maintain,
-that no offensive intention was entertained
-on the part of the latter power.</p>
-
-<p>War was then declared against Austria, a war
-which I state to be a war of aggression on the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">44</span>
-part of France. The King of Prussia had
-declared that he should consider war against
-the Emperor or empire as war against himself.
-He had declared that, as a coestate of the empire,
-he was determined to defend their rights;
-that, as an ally of the Emperor, he would support
-him to the utmost against any attack; and
-that, for the sake of his own dominions, he felt
-himself called upon to resist the progress of
-French principles, and to maintain the balance
-of power in Europe. With this notice before
-them, France declared war upon the Emperor,
-and the war with Prussia was the necessary consequence
-of this aggression, both against the
-Emperor and the empire.</p>
-
-<p>The war against the King of Sardinia follows
-next. The declaration of that war was the
-seizure of Savoy by an invading army—and on
-what ground? On that which has been stated
-already. They had found out, by some light of
-nature, that the Rhine and the Alps were the
-natural limits of France. Upon that ground
-Savoy was seized; and Savoy was also incorporated
-with France.</p>
-
-<p>Here finishes the history of the wars in which
-France was engaged antecedent to the war with
-Great Britain, with Holland, and with Spain.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">45</span>
-With respect to Spain, we have seen nothing
-which leads us to suspect that either attachment
-to religion, or the ties of consanguinity,
-or regard to the ancient system of Europe,
-was likely to induce that court to connect itself
-in offensive war against France. The war was
-evidently and incontestably begun by France
-against Spain.</p>
-
-<p>The case of Holland is so fresh in every
-man’s recollection, and so connected with the
-immediate causes of the war with this country,
-that it cannot require one word of observation.
-What shall I say, then, on the case of Portugal?
-I cannot, indeed, say that France ever
-declared war against that country. I can hardly
-say even that she ever made war, but she required
-them to make a treaty of peace, as if
-they had been at war; she obliged them to purchase
-that treaty; she broke it as soon as it was
-purchased; and she had originally no other
-ground of complaint than this, that Portugal
-had performed, though inadequately, the engagements
-of its ancient defensive alliance with
-this country in the character of an auxiliary—a
-conduct which cannot of itself make any power
-a principal in a war.</p>
-
-<p>I have now enumerated all the nations at war<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">46</span>
-at that period, with the exception only of Naples.
-It can hardly be necessary to call to the recollection
-of the House the characteristic feature
-of revolutionary principles which was shown,
-even at this early period, in the personal insult
-offered to the King of Naples, by the commander
-of a French squadron riding uncontrolled
-in the Mediterranean, and (while our
-fleets were yet unarmed) threatening destruction
-to all the coast of Italy.</p>
-
-<p>It was not till a considerably later period
-that almost all the other nations of Europe
-found themselves equally involved in actual hostility;
-but it is not a little material to the whole
-of my argument, compared with the statement
-of the learned gentleman, and with that contained
-in the French note, to examine at what
-period this hostility extended itself. It extended
-itself, in the course of 1796, to the
-States of Italy which had hitherto been exempted
-from it. In 1797 it had ended in the
-destruction of most of them; it had ended in
-the virtual deposition of the King of Sardinia;
-it had ended in the conversion of Genoa and
-Tuscany into democratic republics; it had
-ended in the revolution of Venice, in the violation
-of treaties with the new Venetian Republic;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">47</span>
-and, finally, in transferring that very republic,
-the creature and vassal of France, to
-the dominion of Austria. * * *</p>
-
-<p>Let these facts and these dates be compared
-with what we have heard. The honorable gentleman
-has told us, and the author of the note
-from France has told us also, that all the French
-conquests were produced by the operations of
-the allies. It was, when they were pressed on
-all sides, when their own territory was in danger,
-when their own independence was in question,
-when the confederacy appeared too strong,
-it was then they used the means with which
-their power and their courage furnished them,
-and, “attacked upon all sides, they carried
-everywhere their defensive arms.”<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">10</a> * * *</p>
-
-<p>Let us look at the conduct of France immediately
-subsequent to this period. She had
-spurned at the offers of Great Britain; she had
-reduced her continental enemies to the necessity
-of accepting a precarious peace; she had
-(in spite of those pledges repeatedly made and
-uniformly violated) surrounded herself by new
-conquests on every part of her frontier but one.
-That one was Switzerland. The first effect of
-being relieved from the war with Austria, of
-being secured against all fears of continental<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">48</span>
-invasion on the ancient territory of France,
-was their unprovoked attack against this unoffending
-and devoted country. This was one
-of the scenes which satisfied even those who
-were the most incredulous that France had
-thrown off the mask, “<em>if indeed she had ever
-worn it</em>.” It collected, in one view, many of
-the characteristic features of that revolutionary
-system which I have endeavored to trace—the
-perfidy which alone rendered their arms successful—the
-pretexts of which they availed
-themselves to produce division and prepare the
-entrance of Jacobinism in that country—the
-proposal of armistice, one of the known and
-regular engines of the Revolution, which was,
-as usual, the immediate prelude to military execution,
-attended with cruelty and barbarity,
-of which there are few examples. All these
-are known to the world. The country they attacked
-was one which had long been the faithful
-ally of France, which, instead of giving cause
-of jealousy to any other power, had been for
-ages proverbial for the simplicity and innocence
-of its manners, and which had acquired and
-preserved the esteem of all the nations of Europe;
-which had almost, by the common consent
-of mankind, been exempted from the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">49</span>
-sound of war, and marked out as a land of
-Goshen, safe and untouched in the midst of surrounding
-calamities.</p>
-
-<p>Look, then, at the fate of Switzerland, at the
-circumstances which led to its destruction.
-Add this instance to the catalogue of aggression
-against all Europe, and then tell me
-whether the system I have described has not
-been prosecuted with an unrelenting spirit,
-which can not be subdued in adversity, which
-cannot be appeased in prosperity, which neither
-solemn professions, nor the general law of nations,
-nor the obligation of treaties (whether
-previous to the Revolution or subsequent to
-it) could restrain from the subversion of every
-state into which, either by force or fraud, their
-arms could penetrate. Then tell me, whether
-the disasters of Europe are to be charged upon
-the provocation of this country and its allies,
-or on the inherent principle of the French Revolution,
-of which the natural result produced
-so much misery and carnage in France, and
-carried desolation and terror over so large a
-portion of the world.</p>
-
-<p>Sir, much as I have now stated, I have not
-finished the catalogue. America, almost as
-much as Switzerland, perhaps, contributed to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">50</span>
-that change which has taken place in the minds
-of those who were originally partial to the
-principles of the French Government. The
-hostility against America followed a long course
-of neutrality adhered to under the strongest
-provocations, or rather of repeated compliances
-to France, with which we might well have been
-dissatisfied. It was on the face of it unjust
-and wanton; and it was accompanied by those
-instances of sordid corruption which shocked
-and disgusted even the enthusiastic admirers of
-revolutionary purity, and threw a new light on
-the genius of revolutionary government.<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">11</a></p>
-
-<p>After this, it remains only shortly to remind
-gentlemen of the aggression against Egypt,
-not omitting, however, to notice the capture of
-Malta in the way to Egypt. Inconsiderable as
-that island may be thought, compared with the
-scenes we have witnessed, let it be remembered
-that it is an island of which the government
-had long been recognized by every state of
-Europe, against which France pretended no
-cause of war, and whose independence was as
-dear to itself and as sacred as that of any country
-in Europe. It was in fact not unimportant,
-from its local situation to the other powers of
-Europe; but in proportion as any man may<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">51</span>
-diminish its importance, the instance will only
-serve the more to illustrate and confirm the
-proposition which I have maintained. The all-searching
-eye of the French Revolution looks
-to every part of Europe, and every quarter of
-the world, in which can be found an object
-either of acquisition or plunder. Nothing is
-too great for the temerity of its ambition, nothing
-too small or insignificant for the grasp of
-its rapacity. From hence Bonaparte and his
-army proceeded to Egypt. The attack was
-made, pretences were held out to the natives of
-that country in the name of the French King,
-whom they had murdered. They pretended to
-have the approbation of the Grand Seignior,
-whose territories they were violating; their
-project was carried on under the profession of
-a zeal for Mohammedanism; it was carried on
-by proclaiming that France had been reconciled
-to the Mussulman faith, had abjured that of
-Christianity, or, as he in his impious language
-termed it, of <em>the sect of the Messiah</em>.<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">12</a></p>
-
-<p>The only plea which they have since held out
-to color this atrocious invasion of a neutral and
-friendly territory, is that it was the road to attack
-the English power in India. It is most
-unquestionably true that this was one and a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">52</span>
-principal cause of this unparalleled outrage;
-but another, and an equally substantial, cause
-(as appears by their own statements) was the
-division and partition of the territories of what
-they thought a falling power. It is impossible
-to dismiss this subject without observing that
-this attack against Egypt was accompanied by
-an attack upon the British possessions in India,
-made on true revolutionary principles. In
-Europe the propagation of the principles of
-France had uniformly prepared the way for the
-progress of its arms. To India the lovers of
-peace had sent the messengers of Jacobinism,
-for the purpose of inculcating war in those distant
-regions on Jacobin principles, and of forming
-Jacobin clubs, which they actually succeeded
-in establishing; and which in most respects
-resembled the European model, but which
-were distinguished by this peculiarity, that they
-were required to swear in one breath hatred to
-tyranny, the love of liberty, and the destruction
-of all kings and sovereigns, except the good
-and faithful ally of the French Republic, <em>Citizen</em>
-Tippoo!<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">13</a></p>
-
-<p>What, then, was the nature of this system?
-Was it any thing but what I have stated it
-to be? an insatiable love of aggrandizement,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">53</span>
-an implacable spirit of destruction against all
-the civil and religious institutions of every
-country. This is the first moving and acting
-spirit of the French Revolution; this is the spirit
-which animated it at its birth, and this is the
-spirit which will not desert it till the moment
-of its dissolution, “which grew with its growth,
-which strengthened with its strength,” but
-which has not abated under its misfortunes, nor
-declined in its decay. It has been invariably
-the same in every period, operating more or less,
-according as accident or circumstances might
-assist it; but it has been inherent in the Revolution
-in all its stages; it has equally belonged
-to Brissot, to Robespierre, to Tallien, to Reubel,
-to Barras, and to every one of the leaders
-of the Directory, but to none more than to
-Bonaparte, in whom now all their powers are
-united. What are its characters? Can it be
-accident that produced them? No, it is only
-from the alliance of the most horrid principles,
-with the most horrid means, that such miseries
-could have been brought upon Europe. It is
-this paradox which we must always keep in
-mind when we are discussing any question relative
-to the effects of the French Revolution.
-Groaning under every degree of misery, the victim<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">54</span>
-of its own crimes, and as I once before expressed
-in this House, asking pardon of God
-and of man for the miseries which it has brought
-upon itself and others, France still retains (while
-it has neither left means of comfort nor almost
-of subsistence to its own inhabitants) new and
-unexampled means of annoyance and destruction
-against all the other powers of Europe.</p>
-
-<p>Its first fundamental principle was to bribe
-the poor against the rich by proposing to transfer
-into new hands, on the delusive notion of
-equality, and in breach of every principle of
-justice, the whole property of the country.
-The practical application of this principle was
-to devote the whole of that property to indiscriminate
-plunder, and to make it the foundation
-of a revolutionary system of finance, productive
-in proportion to the misery and desolation
-which it created. It has been accompanied
-by an unwearied spirit of proselytism, diffusing
-itself over all the nations of the earth; a spirit
-which can apply itself to all circumstances and
-all situations, which can furnish a list of grievances
-and hold out a promise of redress equally
-to all nations; which inspired the teachers of
-French liberty with the hope of alike recommending
-themselves to those who live under<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">55</span>
-the feudal code of the German Empire; to the
-various states of Italy, under all their different
-institutions; to the old republicans of Holland,
-and to the new republicans of America; to the
-Catholic of Ireland, whom it was to deliver
-from Protestant usurpation; to the Protestant
-of Switzerland, whom it was to deliver from
-Popish superstition; and to the Mussulman of
-Egypt, whom it was to deliver from Christian
-persecution; to the remote Indian, blindly bigoted
-to his ancient institutions; and to the
-natives of Great Britain, enjoying the perfection
-of practical freedom, and justly attached to
-their Constitution, from the joint result of
-habit, of reason, and of experience. The last
-and distinguishing feature is a perfidy which
-nothing can bind, which no tie of treaty, no
-sense of the principles generally received among
-nations, no obligation, human or divine, can
-restrain. Thus qualified, thus armed for destruction,
-the genius of the French Revolution
-marched forth, the terror and dismay of the
-world. Every nation has in its turn been the
-witness, many have been the victims of its principles;
-and it is left for us to decide whether
-we will compromise with such a danger, while
-we have yet resources to supply the sinews of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">56</span>
-war, while the heart and spirit of the country is
-yet unbroken, and while we have the means of
-calling forth and supporting a powerful co-operation
-in Europe.</p>
-
-<p>Much more might be said on this part of the
-subject; but if what I have said already is a
-faithful, though only an imperfect, sketch of
-those excesses and outrages which even history
-itself will hereafter be unable fully to represent
-and record, and a just representation of the
-principle and source from which they originated,
-will any man say that we ought to accept
-a precarious security against so tremendous a
-danger? Much more—will he pretend, after
-the experience of all that has passed in the different
-stages of the French Revolution, that we
-ought to be deterred from probing this great
-question to the bottom, and from examining,
-without ceremony or disguise, whether the
-change which has recently taken place in
-France is sufficient now to give security, not
-against a common danger, but against such a
-danger as that which I have described?</p>
-
-<p>In examining this part of the subject, let
-it be remembered that there is one other characteristic
-of the French Revolution as striking
-as its dreadful and destructive principles: I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">57</span>
-mean the instability of its government, which
-has been of itself sufficient to destroy all reliance,
-if any such reliance could at any time
-have been placed on the good faith of any of its
-rulers. Such has been the incredible rapidity
-with which the revolutions in France have succeeded
-each other, that I believe the names of
-those who have successively exercised absolute
-power, under the pretence of liberty, are to be
-numbered by the years of the Revolution, and
-by each of the new Constitutions, which, under
-the same pretence, has in its turn been imposed
-by force on France, all of which alike were
-founded upon principles which professed to be
-universal, and were intended to be established
-and perpetuated among all the nations of the
-earth. Each of these will be found, upon an
-average, to have had about two years as the
-period of its duration.</p>
-
-<p>Under this revolutionary system, accompanied
-with this perpetual fluctuation and
-change, both in the form of the government
-and in the persons of the rulers, what is the
-security which has hitherto existed, and what
-new security is now offered? Before an answer
-is given to this question, let me sum up
-the history of all the revolutionary governments<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">58</span>
-of France, and of their characters in relation to
-other powers, in words more emphatical than
-any which I could use—the memorable words
-pronounced, on the eve of this last Constitution,
-by the orator who was selected to report to
-an Assembly, surrounded by a file of grenadiers,
-the new form of liberty which it was destined
-to enjoy under the auspices of General Bonaparte.
-From this reporter, the mouth and
-organ of the new government, we learn this
-important lesson:</p>
-
-<p>“It is easy to conceive why peace was not concluded
-before the establishment of the constitutional
-government. The only government which
-then existed described itself as revolutionary; it
-was, in fact, only the tyranny of a few men who
-were soon overthrown by others, and it consequently
-presented no stability of principles or
-of views, no security either with respect to men
-or with respect to things.</p>
-
-<p>“It should seem that that stability and that
-security ought to have existed from the establishment,
-and as the effect of the constitutional
-system; and yet they did not exist more, perhaps
-even less, than they had done before. In
-truth, we did make some partial treaties; we
-signed a continental peace, and a general congress<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">59</span>
-was held to confirm it; but these treaties,
-these diplomatic conferences, appear to have
-been the source of a new war, more inveterate
-and more bloody than before.</p>
-
-<p>“Before the 18th Fructidor (4th September)
-of the fifth year, the French Government exhibited
-to foreign nations so uncertain an existence
-that they refused to treat with it. After this
-great event, the whole power was absorbed in
-the Directory; the legislative body can hardly
-be said to have existed; treaties of peace were
-broken, and war carried everywhere, without
-that body having any share in those measures.
-The same Directory, after having intimidated
-all Europe, and destroyed, at its pleasure, several
-governments, neither knowing how to make
-peace or war, or how even to establish itself,
-was overturned by a breath, on the 13th Prairial
-(18th June), to make room for other men, influenced
-perhaps by different views, or who might
-be governed by different principles.</p>
-
-<p>“Judging, then, only from notorious facts, the
-French Government must be considered as exhibiting
-nothing fixed, neither in respect to men
-nor to things.”</p>
-
-<p>Here, then, is the picture, down to the period
-of the last revolution, of the state of France
-under all its successive governments!</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">60</span>
-Having taken a view of what it was, let us
-now examine what it is. In the first place, we
-see, as has been truly stated, a change in the
-description and form of the sovereign authority.
-A supreme power is placed at the head of
-this nominal republic, with a more open avowal
-of military despotism than at any former period;
-with a more open and undisguised abandonment
-of the names and pretences under which that
-despotism long attempted to conceal itself.
-The different institutions, republican in their
-form and appearance, which were before the instruments
-of that despotism, are now annihilated;
-they have given way to the absolute
-power of one man, concentrating in himself all
-the authority of the state, and differing from
-other monarchs only in this, that (as my honorable
-friend [Mr. Canning] truly stated it) he
-wields a sword instead of a sceptre. What,
-then, is the confidence we are to derive either
-from the frame of the government, or from the
-character and past conduct of the person who is
-now the absolute ruler of France?</p>
-
-<p>Had we seen a man of whom we had no previous
-knowledge suddenly invested with the
-sovereign authority of the country; invested
-with the power of taxation, with the power of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">61</span>
-the sword, the power of war and peace, the unlimited
-power of commanding the resources, of
-disposing of the lives and fortunes, of every
-man in France; if we had seen at the same moment
-all the inferior machinery of the Revolution,
-which, under the variety of successive
-shocks, had kept the system in motion, still
-remaining entire,—all that, by requisition and
-plunder, had given activity to the revolutionary
-system of finance, and had furnished the means
-of creating an army, by converting every man
-who was of age to bear arms into a soldier, not
-for the defence of his own country, but for the
-sake of carrying the war into the country of
-the enemy; if we had seen all the subordinate
-instruments of Jacobin power subsisting in their
-full force, and retaining (to use the French
-phrase) all their original organization; and had
-then observed this single change in the conduct
-of their affairs, that there was now <em>one
-man</em>, with no rival to thwart his measures, no
-colleague to divide his powers, no council to
-control his operations, no liberty of speaking or
-writing, no expression of public opinion to
-check or influence his conduct; under such circumstances,
-should we be wrong to pause, or
-wait for the evidence of facts and experience,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">62</span>
-before we consented to trust our safety to the
-forbearance of a single man, in such a situation,
-and to relinquish those means of defence which
-have hitherto carried us safe through all the
-storms of the Revolution, if we were to ask
-what are the principles and character of this
-stranger, to whom fortune has suddenly committed
-the concerns of a great and powerful
-nation?</p>
-
-<p>But is this the actual state of the present
-question? Are we talking of a stranger of
-whom we have heard nothing? No, sir, we
-have heard of him; we, and Europe, and the
-world, have heard both of him and of the satellites
-by whom he is surrounded, and it is impossible
-to discuss fairly the propriety of any
-answer which could be returned to his overtures
-of negotiation without taking into consideration
-the inferences to be drawn from his personal
-character and conduct. I know it is the fashion
-with some gentlemen to represent any reference
-to topics of this nature as invidious and irritating;
-but the truth is, that they rise unavoidably
-out of the very nature of the question.
-Would it have been possible for ministers to
-discharge their duty, in offering their advice to
-their sovereign, either for accepting or declining<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">63</span>
-negotiation, without taking into their
-account the reliance to be placed on the disposition
-and the principles of the person on whose
-disposition and principles the security to be
-obtained by treaty must, in the present circumstances,
-principally depend? Or would they
-act honestly or candidly toward Parliament and
-toward the country if, having been guided by
-these considerations, they forbore to state,
-publicly and distinctly, the real grounds which
-have influenced their decision; and if, from a
-false delicacy and groundless timidity, they
-purposely declined an examination of a point,
-the most essential toward enabling Parliament
-to form a just determination on so important a
-subject?</p>
-
-<p>What opinion, then, are we led to form of the
-pretensions of the Consul to those particular
-qualities for which, in the official note, his
-personal character is represented to us as the
-surest pledge of peace? We are told this is
-his second attempt at general pacification.
-Let us see, for a moment, how his attempt has
-been conducted. There is, indeed, as the
-learned gentleman has said, a word in the first
-declaration which refers to general peace, and
-which states this to be the second time in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">64</span>
-which the Consul has endeavored to accomplish
-that object. We thought fit, for the reasons
-which have been assigned, to decline altogether
-the proposal of treating, under the present circumstances,
-but we, at the same time, expressly
-stated that, whenever the moment for treaty
-should arrive, we would in no case treat but in
-conjunction with our allies. Our general refusal
-to negotiate at the present moment does
-not prevent the Consul from renewing his overtures;
-but are they renewed for the purpose of
-general pacification? Though he had hinted
-at general peace in the terms of his first note;
-though we had shown by our answer that we
-deemed negotiation, even for general peace, at
-this moment inadmissible; though we added
-that, even at any future period, we would treat
-only in conjunction with our allies, what was
-the proposal contained in his last note? To
-treat for a separate peace between Great Britain
-and France.</p>
-
-<p>Such was the second attempt to effect <em>general
-pacification</em>—a proposal for a <em>separate</em> treaty
-with Great Britain. What had been the first?
-The conclusion of a separate treaty with Austria;
-and there are two anecdotes connected
-with the conclusion of this treaty, which are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">65</span>
-sufficient to illustrate the disposition of this
-pacificator of Europe. This very treaty of
-Campo Formio was ostentatiously professed to
-be concluded with the Emperor for the purpose
-of enabling Bonaparte to take the command
-of the army of England, and to dictate
-a separate peace with this country on the banks
-of the Thames. But there is this additional
-circumstance, singular beyond all conception,
-considering that we are now referred to the
-treaty of Campo Formio as a proof of the personal
-disposition of the Consul to general peace.
-He sent his two confidential and chosen friends,
-Berthier and Monge, charged to communicate
-to the Directory this treaty of Campo Formio;
-to announce to them that one enemy was
-humbled, that the war with Austria was terminated,
-and, therefore, that now was the moment
-to prosecute their operations against this country;
-they used on this occasion the memorable
-words: “<em>The kingdom of Great Britain and the
-French Republic can not exist together.</em>”<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">14</a> This,
-I say, was the solemn declaration of the deputies
-and embassadors of Bonaparte himself,
-offering to the Directory the first-fruits of this
-first attempt at general pacification.</p>
-
-<p>So much for his disposition toward general<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">66</span>
-pacification. Let us look next at the part he
-has taken in the different stages of the French
-Revolution, and let us then judge whether we
-are to look to him as the security against revolutionary
-principles. Let us determine what
-reliance we can place on his engagements with
-other countries, when we see how he has observed
-his engagements to his own. When the
-Constitution of the third year was established
-under Barras, that Constitution was imposed by
-the arms of Bonaparte, then commanding the
-army of the triumvirate in Paris. To that
-Constitution he then swore fidelity. How
-often he has repeated the same oath, I know
-not, but twice, at least, we know that he has
-not only repeated it himself, but tendered it to
-others, under circumstances too striking not to
-be stated.</p>
-
-<p>Sir, the House cannot have forgotten the
-Revolution of the 4th of September, which
-produced the dismissal of Lord Malmesbury
-from Lisle. How was that revolution procured?
-It was procured chiefly by the promise of
-Bonaparte, in the name of his army, decidedly
-to support the Directory in those measures
-which led to the infringement and violation of
-every thing that the authors of the Constitution<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">67</span>
-of 1795, or its adherents, could consider as fundamental,
-and which established a system of
-despotism inferior only to that now realized in
-his own person. Immediately before this event,
-in the midst of the desolation and bloodshed of
-Italy he had received the sacred present of new
-banners from the Directory; he delivered
-them to his army with this exhortation: “Let
-us swear, fellow-soldiers, by the names of the
-patriots who have died by our side, eternal
-hatred to the enemies of the Constitution of
-the third year,”—that very Constitution which
-he soon after enabled the Directory to violate,
-and which at the head of his grenadiers he
-has now finally destroyed. Sir, that oath was
-again renewed, in the midst of that very scene
-to which I have last referred; the oath of
-fidelity to the Constitution of the third year
-was administered to all the members of the
-Assembly then sitting, under the terror of the
-bayonet, as the solemn preparation for the business
-of the day; and the morning was ushered
-in with swearing attachment to the Constitution,
-that the evening might close with its destruction.</p>
-
-<p>If we carry our views out of France, and look
-at the dreadful catalogue of all the breaches of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">68</span>
-treaty, all the acts of perfidy at which I have
-only glanced, and which are precisely commensurate
-with the number of treaties which the
-Republic has made (for I have sought in vain
-for any one which it has made and which it has
-not broken); if we trace the history of them all
-from the beginning of the Revolution to the
-present time, or if we select those which have
-been accompanied by the most atrocious cruelty,
-and marked the most strongly with the
-characteristic features of the Revolution, the
-name of Bonaparte will be found allied to more
-of them than that of any other that can be
-handed down in the history of the crimes and
-miseries of the last ten years. His name will
-be recorded with the horrors committed in
-Italy, in the memorable campaign of 1796 and
-1797, in the Milanese, in Genoa, in Modena, in
-Tuscany, in Rome, and in Venice.</p>
-
-<p>His entrance into Lombardy was announced
-by a solemn proclamation, issued on the 27th
-of April, 1796, which terminated with these
-words: “Nations of Italy! the French Army
-is come to break your chains; the French are
-the friends of the people in every country;
-your religion, your property, your customs shall
-be respected.” This was followed by a second<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">69</span>
-proclamation, dated from Milan, 20th of May,
-and signed “<em>Bonaparte</em>,” in these terms: “Respect
-for property and personal security;
-respect for the religion of countries—these
-are the sentiments of the government of the
-French Republic and of the army of Italy.
-The French, victorious, consider the nations of
-Lombardy as their brothers.” In testimony of
-this fraternity, and to fulfil the solemn pledge
-of respecting property, this very proclamation
-imposed on the Milanese a provisional contribution
-to the amount of twenty millions of
-livres, or near one million sterling, and successive
-exactions were afterward levied on that
-single state to the amount, in the whole, of
-near six millions sterling. The regard to religion
-and to the customs of the country was
-manifested with the same scrupulous fidelity.
-The churches were given up to indiscriminate
-plunder. Every religious and charitable fund,
-every public treasure, was confiscated. The
-country was made the scene of every species of
-disorder and rapine. The priests, the established
-form of worship, all the objects of religious
-reverence, were openly insulted by the
-French troops; at Pavia, particularly, the tomb
-of St. Augustin, which the inhabitants were accustomed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">70</span>
-to view with peculiar veneration, was
-mutilated and defaced; this last provocation
-having roused the resentment of the people
-they flew to arms, surrounded the French garrison
-and took them prisoners, but carefully
-abstained from offering any violence to a single
-soldier. In revenge for this conduct, Bonaparte,
-then on his march to the Mincio, suddenly
-returned, collected his troops, and carried the
-extremity of military execution over the country.
-He burned the town of Benasco, and
-massacred eight hundred of its inhabitants; he
-marched to Pavia, took it by storm, and delivered
-it over to general plunder, and published,
-at the same moment, a proclamation of
-the 26th of May, ordering his troops to shoot
-all those who had not laid down their arms and
-taken an oath of obedience, and to burn every
-village where the tocsin should be sounded,
-and to put its inhabitants to death.</p>
-
-<p>The transactions with Modena were on a
-smaller scale, but in the same character. Bonaparte
-began by signing a treaty, by which the
-Duke of Modena was to pay twelve millions of
-livres, and neutrality was promised him in return;
-this was soon followed by the personal
-arrest of the Duke, and by a fresh extortion of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">71</span>
-two hundred thousand sequins. After this he
-was permitted, on the payment of a farther sum,
-to sign another treaty, called a <i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">convention de
-sureté</i>, which of course was only the prelude to
-the repetition of similar exactions.</p>
-
-<p>Nearly at the same period, in violation of the
-rights of neutrality and of the treaty which had
-been concluded between the French Republic
-and the Grand Duke of Tuscany in the preceding
-year, and in breach of a positive promise
-given only a few days before, the French army
-forcibly took possession of Leghorn, for the
-purpose of seizing the British property which
-was deposited there and confiscating it as a
-prize; and shortly after, when Bonaparte agreed
-to evacuate Leghorn, in return for the evacuation
-of the island of Elba, which was in possession
-of the British troops, he insisted upon a
-separate article, by which, in addition to the
-plunder before obtained, by the infraction of
-the law of nations, it was stipulated that the
-Grand Duke should pay the expense which
-the French had incurred by this invasion of his
-territory.</p>
-
-<p>In the proceedings toward Genoa we shall
-find not only a continuance of the same system
-of extortion and plunder, in violation of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">72</span>
-solemn pledge contained in the proclamations
-already referred to, but a striking instance of
-the revolutionary means employed for the destruction
-of independent governments. A
-French minister was at that time resident at
-Genoa, which was acknowledged by France to
-be in a state of neutrality and friendship; in
-breach of this neutrality Bonaparte began, in
-the year 1796, with the demand of a loan. He
-afterward, from the month of September, required
-and enforced the payment of a monthly
-subsidy, to the amount which he thought
-proper to stipulate. These exactions were accompanied
-by repeated assurances and protestations
-of friendship; they were followed, in
-May, 1797, by a conspiracy against the government,
-fomented by the emissaries of the French
-embassy, and conducted by the partisans of
-France, encouraged and afterward protected
-by the French minister. The conspirators
-failed in their first attempt. Overpowered by
-the courage and voluntary exertions of the inhabitants,
-their force was dispersed, and many
-of their number were arrested. Bonaparte instantly
-considered the defeat of the conspirators
-as an act of aggression against the French Republic;
-he despatched an aid-de-camp with an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">73</span>
-order to the Senate of this independent State;
-first, to release all the French who were detained;
-secondly, to punish those who had arrested
-them; thirdly, to declare that <em>they had
-no share in the insurrection</em>; and fourthly, to
-disarm the people. Several French prisoners
-were immediately released, and a proclamation
-was preparing to disarm the inhabitants, when,
-by a second note, Bonaparte required the arrest
-of the three inquisitors of state, and immediate
-alterations in the Constitution. He accompanied
-this with an order to the French minister
-to quit Genoa, if his commands were not
-immediately carried into execution; at the same
-moment his troops entered the territory of the
-Republic; and shortly after, the councils, intimidated
-and overpowered, abdicated their functions.
-Three deputies were then sent to Bonaparte
-to receive from him a new Constitution.
-On the 6th of June, after the conferences at
-Montebello, he signed a convention, or rather
-issued a decree, by which he fixed the new
-form of their government; he himself named
-provisionally all the members who were to
-compose it, and he required the payment of
-seven millions of livres as the price of the subversion
-of their Constitution and their independence.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">74</span>
-These transactions require but one
-short comment. It is to be found in the official
-account given of them at Paris; which is in
-these memorable words: “General Bonaparte
-has pursued the only line of conduct which
-could be allowed in the representative of a nation
-which has supported the war only to procure
-the solemn acknowledgment of the right
-of nations to change the form of their government.
-He contributed nothing toward the
-revolution of Genoa, but he seized the first moment
-to acknowledge the new government, as
-soon as he saw that it was the result of the
-wishes of the people.”</p>
-
-<p>It is unnecessary to dwell on the wanton attacks
-against Rome, under the direction of
-Bonaparte himself, in the year 1796, and in the
-beginning of 1797, which terminated first by
-the treaty of Tolentino concluded by Bonaparte,
-in which, by enormous sacrifices, the
-Pope was allowed to purchase the acknowledgment
-of his authority as a sovereign prince;
-and secondly, by the violation of that very
-treaty, and the subversion of the papal authority
-by Joseph Bonaparte, the brother and the
-agent of the general, and the minister of the
-French Republic to the Holy See. A transaction<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">75</span>
-accompanied by outrages and insults
-toward the pious and venerable Pontiff, in spite
-of the sanctity of his age and the unsullied
-purity of his character, which even to a Protestant
-seem hardly short of the guilt of sacrilege.</p>
-
-<p>But of all the disgusting and tragical scenes
-which took place in Italy in the course of the
-period I am describing, those which passed at
-Venice are perhaps the most striking and the
-most characteristic. In May, 1796, the French
-army, under Bonaparte, in the full tide of its
-success against the Austrians, first approached
-the territories of this Republic, which from the
-commencement of the war had observed a rigid
-neutrality. Their entrance on these territories
-was, as usual, accompanied by a solemn proclamation
-in the name of their general:</p>
-
-<blockquote>
-<p class="center">BONAPARTE TO THE REPUBLIC OF VENICE.</p>
-
-<p>“It is to deliver the finest country in Europe <em>from the iron
-yoke of the proud house of Austria</em>, that the French army has
-braved obstacles the most difficult to surmount. Victory in
-union with justice has crowned its efforts. The wreck of the enemy’s
-army has retired behind the Mincio. The French army,
-in order to follow them, passes over the territory of the Republic
-of Venice; but it will never forget that ancient friendship
-unites the two republics. Religion, government, customs,
-and property shall be respected. That the people may
-be without apprehension, the most severe discipline shall be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">76</span>
-maintained. All that may be provided for the army shall be
-faithfully paid for in money. The general-in-chief engages
-the officers of the Republic of Venice, the magistrates, and the
-priests, to make known these sentiments to the people, in order
-that confidence may cement that friendship which has so long
-united the two nations. Faithful in the path of honor as in
-that of victory, the French soldier is terrible only to the enemies
-of his liberty and his government.</p>
-
-<p class="sigright">“<span class="smcap">Bonaparte.</span>”</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>This proclamation was followed by exactions
-similar to those which were practised against
-Genoa, by the renewal of similar professions of
-friendship, and the use of similar means to excite
-insurrection. At length, in the spring of
-1797, occasion was taken, from disturbances
-thus excited, to forge in the name of the
-Venetian Government, a proclamation hostile
-to France, and this proceeding was made the
-ground for military execution against the
-country, and for effecting by force the subversion
-of its ancient government and the establishment
-of the democratic forms of the French
-Revolution. This revolution was sealed by a
-treaty, signed in May, 1797, between Bonaparte
-and commissioners appointed on the part of the
-new and revolutionary government of Venice.
-By the second and third secret articles of this
-treaty, Venice agreed to give as a ransom, to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">77</span>
-secure itself against all further exactions or demands,
-the sum of three millions of livres in
-money, the value of three millions more in
-articles of naval supply, and three ships of the
-line; and it received in return the assurances of
-the friendship and support of the French Republic.
-Immediately after the signature of this
-treaty, the arsenal, the library, and the palace
-of St. Marc were ransacked and plundered, and
-heavy additional contributions were imposed
-upon its inhabitants. And, in not more than
-four months afterward, this very Republic of
-Venice, united by alliance to France, the
-creature of Bonaparte himself, from whom it
-had received the present of French liberty, was
-by the same Bonaparte transferred, under the
-treaty of Campo Formio, to “<em>that iron yoke of
-the proud house of Austria</em>,” to deliver it from
-which he had represented in his first proclamation
-to be the great object of all his operations.</p>
-
-<p>Sir, all this is followed by the memorable expedition
-into Egypt, which I mention, not
-merely because it forms a principal article in
-the catalogue of those acts of violence and perfidy
-in which Bonaparte has been engaged; not
-merely because it was an enterprise peculiarly
-his own, of which he was himself the planner,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">78</span>
-the executor, and the betrayer; but chiefly because
-when from thence he retires to a different
-scene, to take possession of a new throne, from
-which he is to speak upon an equality with the
-kings and governors of Europe, he leaves behind
-him, at the moment of his departure, a
-specimen, which cannot be mistaken, of his
-principles of negotiation. The intercepted correspondence
-which has been alluded to in this
-debate, seems to afford the strongest ground to
-believe that his offers to the Turkish Government
-to evacuate Egypt were made solely with
-a view to gain time; that the ratification of any
-treaty on this subject was to be delayed with
-the view of finally eluding its performance, if
-any change of circumstances favorable to the
-French should occur in the interval. But whatever
-gentlemen may think of the intention with
-which these offers were made, there will at least
-be no question with respect to the credit due to
-those professions by which he endeavored to
-prove in Egypt his pacific dispositions. He expressly
-enjoins his successor strongly and steadily
-to insist, in all his intercourse with the
-Turks, that he came to Egypt with no hostile
-design, and that he never meant to keep possession
-of the country; while, on the opposite<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">79</span>
-page of the same instructions, he states in the
-most unequivocal manner his regret at the discomfiture
-of his favorite project of colonizing
-Egypt, and of maintaining it as a territorial acquisition.
-Now, sir, if in any note addressed to
-the Grand Vizier or the Sultan, Bonaparte had
-claimed credit for the sincerity of his professions,
-that he came to Egypt with no view hostile
-to Turkey, and solely for the purpose of
-molesting the British interests, is there any one
-argument now used to induce us to believe his
-present professions to us, which might not have
-been equally urged on that occasion? Would
-not those professions have been equally supported
-by solemn asseveration, by the same reference
-which is now made to personal character,
-with this single difference, that they would have
-then had one instance less of hypocrisy and
-falsehood, which we have since had occasion to
-trace in this very transaction?</p>
-
-<p>It is unnecessary to say more with respect to
-the credit due to his professions, or the reliance
-to be placed on his general character. But it
-will, perhaps, be argued that whatever may be
-his character, or whatever has been his past conduct,
-he has now an interest in making and
-observing peace. That he has an interest in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">80</span>
-making peace is at best but a doubtful proposition,
-and that he has an interest in preserving
-it is still more uncertain. That it is his interest
-to negotiate, I do not indeed deny. It is his
-interest, above all, to engage this country in
-separate negotiation, in order to loosen and dissolve
-the whole system of the confederacy on
-the continent, to palsy at once the arms of
-Russia, or of Austria, or of any other country
-that might look to you for support; and then
-either to break off his separate treaty, or, if he
-should have concluded it, to apply the lesson
-which is taught in his school of policy in Egypt,
-and to revive at his pleasure those claims of indemnification
-which <em>may have been reserved to
-some happier period</em>.</p>
-
-<p>This is precisely the interest which he has in
-negotiation. But on what grounds are we to
-be convinced that he has an interest in concluding
-and observing a solid and permanent pacification?
-Under all the circumstances of his
-personal character, and his newly acquired
-power, what other security has he for retaining
-that power but the sword? His hold upon
-France is the sword, and he has no other. Is
-he connected with the soil, or with the habits,
-the affections, or the prejudices of the country?<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">81</span>
-He is a stranger, a foreigner, and a usurper.
-He unites in his own person every thing that a
-pure republican must detest; every thing that
-an enraged Jacobin has abjured; every thing
-that a sincere and faithful royalist must feel as
-an insult. If he is opposed at any time in his
-career, what is his appeal? <em>He appeals to his
-fortune</em>; in other words, to his army and his
-sword. Placing, then, his whole reliance upon
-military support, can he afford to let his military
-renown pass away, to let his laurels wither, to
-let the memory of his trophies sink in obscurity?
-Is it certain that with his army confined within
-France, and restrained from inroads upon her
-neighbors, that he can maintain, at his devotion,
-a force sufficiently numerous to support his
-power? Having no object but the possession
-of absolute dominion, no passion but military
-glory, is it to be reckoned as certain that he
-can feel such an interest in permanent peace as
-would justify us in laying down our arms,
-reducing our expense, and relinquishing our
-means of security, on the faith of his engagements?
-Do we believe that, after the conclusion
-of peace, he would not still sigh over the
-lost trophies of Egypt, wrested from him by
-the celebrated victory of Aboukir, and the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">82</span>
-brilliant exertions of that heroic band of British
-seamen, whose influence and example rendered
-the Turkish troops invincible at Acre? Can he
-forget that the effect of these exploits enabled
-Austria and Russia, in one campaign, to recover
-from France all which she had acquired by his
-victories, to dissolve the charm which for a
-time fascinated Europe, and to show that their
-generals, contending in a just cause, could efface,
-even by their success and their military glory,
-the most dazzling triumphs of his victorious
-and desolating ambition?</p>
-
-<p>Can we believe, with these impressions on
-his mind, that if, after a year, eighteen months,
-or two years of peace had elapsed, he should
-be tempted by the appearance of fresh insurrection
-in Ireland, encouraged by renewed and
-unrestrained communication with France, and
-fomented by the fresh infusion of Jacobin
-principles; if we were at such a moment without
-a fleet to watch the ports of France, or to
-guard the coasts of Ireland, without a disposable
-army, or an embodied militia, capable of
-supplying a speedy and adequate re-enforcement,
-and that he had suddenly the means of
-transporting thither a body of twenty or thirty
-thousand French troops; can we believe that,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">83</span>
-at such a moment, his ambition and vindictive
-spirit would be restrained by the recollection of
-engagements or the obligation of treaty? Or if,
-in some new crisis of difficulty and danger to
-the Ottoman Empire, with no British navy in
-the Mediterranean, no confederacy formed, no
-force collected to support it, an opportunity
-should present itself for resuming the abandoned
-expedition to Egypt, for renewing the
-avowed and favorite project of conquering and
-colonizing that rich and fertile country, and of
-opening the way to wound some of the vital
-interests of England, and to plunder the treasures
-of the East, in order to fill the bankrupt
-coffers of France,—would it be the interest of
-Bonaparte, under such circumstances, or his
-principles, his moderation, his love of peace, his
-aversion to conquest, and his regard for the
-independence of other nations—would it be all
-or any of these that would secure us against an
-attempt which would leave us only the option
-of submitting without a struggle to certain loss
-and disgrace, or of renewing the contest which
-we had prematurely terminated, without allies,
-without preparation, with diminished means,
-and with increased difficulty and hazard?</p>
-
-<p>Hitherto I have spoken only of the reliance<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">84</span>
-which we can place on the professions, the
-character, and the conduct of the present First
-Consul; but it remains to consider the stability
-of his power. The Revolution has been marked
-throughout by a rapid succession of new depositaries
-of public authority, each supplanting
-its predecessor. What grounds have we to believe
-that this new usurpation, more odious and
-more undisguised than all that preceded it, will
-be more durable? Is it that we rely on the
-particular provisions contained in the code of
-the pretended Constitution, which was proclaimed
-as accepted by the French people as
-soon as the garrison of Paris declared their determination
-to exterminate all its enemies, and
-before any of its articles could even be known
-to half the country, whose consent was required
-for its establishment?</p>
-
-<p>I will not pretend to inquire deeply into the
-nature and effects of a Constitution which can
-hardly be regarded but as a farce and a mockery.
-If, however, it could be supposed that its
-provisions were to have any effect, it seems
-equally adapted to two purposes: that of giving
-to its founder, for a time, an absolute and uncontrolled
-authority; and that of laying the certain
-foundation of disunion and discord, which,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">85</span>
-if they once prevail, must render the exercise
-of all the authority under the Constitution impossible,
-and leave no appeal but to the sword.</p>
-
-<p>Is, then, military despotism that which we
-are accustomed to consider as a stable form of
-government? In all ages of the world it has
-been attended with the least stability to the
-persons who exercised it, and with the most
-rapid succession of changes and revolutions.
-In the outset of the French Revolution, its
-advocates boasted that it furnished a security
-forever, not to France only, but to all countries
-in the world, against military despotism; that
-the force of standing armies was vain and delusive;
-that no artificial power could resist
-public opinion; and that it was upon the foundation
-of public opinion alone that any government
-could stand. I believe that in this instance,
-as in every other, the progress of the
-French Revolution has belied its professions;
-but, so far from its being a proof of the prevalence
-of public opinion against military force, it
-is, instead of the proof, the strongest exception
-from that doctrine which appears in the history
-of the world. Through all the stages of the
-Revolution military force has governed, and
-public opinion has scarcely been heard. But<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">86</span>
-still I consider this as only an exception from a
-general truth. I still believe that in every civilized
-country, not enslaved by a Jacobin faction,
-public opinion is the only sure support of any
-government. I believe this with the more satisfaction,
-from a conviction that, if this contest
-is happily terminated, the established governments
-of Europe will stand upon that rock
-firmer than ever; and, whatever may be the
-defects of any particular Constitution, those
-who live under it will prefer its continuance to
-the experiment of changes which may plunge
-them in the unfathomable abyss of revolution,
-or extricate them from it only to expose them
-to the terrors of military despotism. And to
-apply this to France, I see no reason to believe
-that the present usurpation will be more permanent
-than any other military despotism
-which has been established by the same means,
-and with the same defiance of public opinion.</p>
-
-<p>What, then, is the inference I draw from all
-that I have now stated? Is it that we will in
-<em>no case</em> treat with Bonaparte? I say no such
-thing. But I say, as has been said in the answer
-returned to the French note, that we
-ought to wait for “<em>experience and the evidence of
-facts</em>” before we are convinced that such a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">87</span>
-treaty is admissible. The circumstances I have
-stated would well justify us if we should be
-slow in being convinced; but on a question of
-peace and war, every thing depends upon degree
-and upon comparison. If, on the one
-hand, there should be an appearance that the
-policy of France is at length guided by different
-maxims from those which have hitherto
-prevailed; if we should hereafter see signs of
-stability in the government which are not
-now to be traced; if the progress of the allied
-army should not call forth such a spirit in
-France as to make it probable that the act of
-the country itself will destroy the system now
-prevailing; if the danger, the difficulty, the risk
-of continuing the contest should increase, while
-the hope of complete ultimate success should
-be diminished; all these, in their due place, are
-considerations which, with myself and, I can
-answer for it, with every one of my colleagues,
-will have their just weight. But at present
-these considerations all operate one way; at
-present there is nothing from which we can
-presage a favorable disposition to change in
-the French councils. There is the greatest
-reason to rely on powerful co-operation from
-our allies; there are the strongest marks of a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">88</span>
-disposition in the interior of France to active
-resistance against this new tyranny; and there
-is every ground to believe, on reviewing our
-situation and that of the enemy, that, if we are
-ultimately disappointed of that complete success
-which we are at present entitled to hope,
-the continuance of the contest, instead of making
-our situation comparatively worse, will have
-made it comparatively better.</p>
-
-<p>If, then, I am asked how long are we to persevere
-in the war, I can only say that no period
-can be accurately assigned. Considering the
-importance of obtaining complete security for
-the objects for which we contend, we ought not
-to be discouraged too soon; but, on the contrary,
-considering the importance of not impairing
-and exhausting the radical strength of the
-country, there are limits beyond which we
-ought not to persist, and which we can determine
-only by estimating and comparing fairly,
-from time to time, the degree of security to be
-obtained by treaty, and the risk and disadvantage
-of continuing the contest.</p>
-
-<p>But, sir, there are some gentlemen in the
-House who seem to consider it already certain
-that the ultimate success to which I am looking
-is unattainable. They suppose us contending<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">89</span>
-only for the restoration of the French monarchy,
-which they believe to be impracticable,
-and deny to be desirable for this country. We
-have been asked in the course of this debate:
-Do you think you can impose monarchy upon
-France, against the will of the nation? I never
-thought it, I never hoped it, I never wished it.
-I have thought, I have hoped, I have wished,
-that the time might come when the effect of
-the arms of the allies might so far overpower
-the military force which keeps France in bondage,
-as to give vent and scope to the thoughts
-and actions of its inhabitants. We have, indeed,
-already seen abundant proof of what is
-the disposition of a large part of the country;
-we have seen almost through the whole of the
-Revolution the western provinces of France
-deluged with the blood of its inhabitants, obstinately
-contending for their ancient laws and
-religion. We have recently seen, in the revival
-of that war, fresh proof of the zeal which still
-animates those countries in the same cause.
-These efforts (I state it distinctly, and there are
-those near me who can bear witness to the truth
-of the assertion) were not produced by any
-instigation from hence; they were the effects
-of a rooted sentiment prevailing through all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">90</span>
-those provinces forced into action by the “law
-of the hostages” and the other tyrannical
-measures of the Directory, at the moment when
-we were endeavoring to discourage so hazardous
-an enterprise. If, under such circumstances,
-we find them giving proofs of their unalterable
-perseverance in their principles; if there is
-every reason to believe that the same disposition
-prevails in many other extensive provinces
-of France; if every party appears at length
-equally wearied and disappointed with all the
-successive changes which the Revolution has
-produced; if the question is no longer between
-monarchy, and even the pretence and name of
-liberty, but between the ancient line of hereditary
-princes on the one hand, and a military
-tyrant, a foreign usurper, on the other; if the
-armies of that usurper are likely to find sufficient
-occupation on the frontiers, and to be
-forced at length to leave the interior of the
-country at liberty to manifest its real feeling
-and disposition; what reason have we to anticipate,
-that the restoration of monarchy under
-such circumstances is impracticable?</p>
-
-<p>In the exhausted and impoverished state
-of France, it seems for a time impossible that
-any system but that of robbery and confiscation,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">91</span>
-any thing but the continued torture, which
-can be applied only by the engines of the Revolution,
-can extort from its ruined inhabitants
-more than the means of supporting in peace
-the yearly expenditure of its government. Suppose,
-then, the heir of the house of Bourbon
-reinstated on the throne, he will have sufficient
-occupation in endeavoring, if possible, to heal
-the wounds, and gradually to repair the losses
-of ten years of civil convulsion; to reanimate
-the drooping commerce, to rekindle the industry,
-to replace the capital, and to revive the
-manufactures of the country. Under such circumstances,
-there must probably be a considerable
-interval before such a monarch, whatever
-may be his views, can possess the power which
-can make him formidable to Europe; but while
-the system of the Revolution continues, the
-case is quite different. It is true, indeed, that
-even the gigantic and unnatural means by which
-that revolution has been supported are so far
-impaired; the influence of its principles and
-the terror of its arms so far weakened; and its
-power of action so much contracted and circumscribed,
-that against the embodied force of
-Europe, prosecuting a vigorous war, we may
-justly hope that the remnant and wreck of this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">92</span>
-system cannot long oppose an effectual resistance.</p>
-
-<p>But, supposing the confederacy of Europe
-prematurely dissolved; supposing our armies
-disbanded, our fleets laid up in our harbors, our
-exertions relaxed, and our means of precaution
-and defence relinquished; do we believe that
-the Revolutionary power, with this rest and
-breathing-time given it to recover from the
-pressure under which it is now sinking, possessing
-still the means of calling suddenly and violently
-into action whatever is the remaining
-physical force of France, under the guidance of
-military despotism; do we believe that this
-revolutionary power, the terror of which is now
-beginning to vanish, will not again prove formidable
-to Europe? Can we forget that in the
-ten years in which that power has subsisted, it
-has brought more misery on surrounding nations,
-and produced more acts of aggression,
-cruelty, perfidy, and enormous ambition than
-can be traced in the history of France for the
-centuries which have elapsed since the foundation
-of its monarchy, including all the wars
-which, in the course of that period, have been
-waged by any of those sovereigns, whose projects
-of aggrandizement and violations of treaty<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">93</span>
-afford a constant theme of general reproach
-against the ancient government of France?
-And if not, can we hesitate whether we have
-the best prospect of permanent peace, the best
-security for the independence and safety of
-Europe, from the restoration of the lawful government,
-or from the continuance of revolutionary
-power in the hands of Bonaparte?</p>
-
-<p>In compromise and treaty with such a power
-placed in such hands as now exercise it, and
-retaining the same means of annoyance which
-it now possesses, I see little hope of permanent
-security. I see no possibility at this moment
-of such a peace as would justify that liberal
-intercourse which is the essence of real amity;
-no chance of terminating the expenses or the
-anxieties of war, or of restoring to us any of
-the advantages of established tranquillity, and,
-as a sincere lover of peace, I cannot be content
-with its nominal attainment. I must be desirous
-of pursuing that system which promises to
-attain, in the end, the permanent enjoyment of
-its solid and substantial blessings for this country
-and for Europe. As a sincere lover of
-peace, I will not sacrifice it by grasping at the
-shadow when the reality is not substantially
-within my reach.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">94</span>
-Cur igitur pacem nolo? Quia infida est,
-quia periculosa, quia esse non potest.<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">15</a></p>
-
-<p>When we consider the resources and the
-spirit of the country, can any man doubt that if
-adequate security is not now to be obtained by
-treaty, we have the means of prosecuting the
-contest without material difficulty or danger,
-and with a reasonable prospect of completely
-attaining our object? I will not dwell on the
-improved state of public credit; on the continually
-increasing amount, in spite of extraordinary
-temporary burdens, of our permanent
-revenue; on the yearly accession of wealth to an
-extent unprecedented even in the most flourishing
-times of peace, which we are deriving, in
-the midst of war, from our extended and
-flourishing commerce; on the progressive improvement
-and growth of our manufactures;
-on the proofs which we see on all sides of
-the uninterrupted accumulation of productive
-capital; and on the active exertion of every
-branch of national industry which can tend to
-support and augment the population, the riches,
-and the power of the country.</p>
-
-<p>As little need I recall the attention of the
-House to the additional means of action which
-we have derived from the great augmentation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">95</span>
-of our disposable military force, the continued
-triumphs of our powerful and victorious navy,
-and the events which, in the course of the last
-two years, have raised the military ardor and
-military glory of the country to a height unexampled
-in any period of our history.</p>
-
-<p>In addition to these grounds of reliance on
-our own strength and exertions, we have seen
-the consummate skill and valor of the arms of
-our allies proved by that series of unexampled
-successes in the course of the last campaign, and
-we have every reason to expect a co-operation
-on the continent, even to a greater extent, in
-the course of the present year. If we compare
-this view of our own situation with every thing
-we can observe of the state and condition of
-our enemy—if we can trace him laboring under
-equal difficulty in finding men to recruit his
-army, or money to pay it—if we know that in
-the course of the last year the most rigorous
-efforts of military conscription were scarcely
-sufficient to replace to the French armies, at
-the end of the campaign, the numbers which
-they had lost in the course of it—if we have
-seen that that force, then in possession of
-advantages which it has since lost, was unable
-to contend with the efforts of the combined<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">96</span>
-armies—if we know that, even while supported
-by the plunder of all the countries which they
-had overrun, those armies were reduced, by
-the confession of their commanders, to the extremity
-of distress, and destitute not only of
-the principal articles of military supply, but
-almost of the necessaries of life—if we see them
-now driven back within their own frontiers, and
-confined within a country whose own resources
-have long since been proclaimed by their successive
-governments to be unequal either to
-paying or maintaining them—if we observe that
-since the last revolution no one substantial or effectual
-measure has been adopted to remedy the
-intolerable disorder of their finances, and to supply
-the deficiency of their credit and resources—if
-we see through large and populous districts
-of France, either open war levied against
-the present usurpation, or evident marks of disunion
-and distraction, which the first occasion
-may call forth into a flame—if, I say, sir, this
-comparison be just, I feel myself authorized to
-conclude from it, not that we are entitled to
-consider ourselves certain of ultimate success,
-not that we are to suppose ourselves exempted
-from the unforeseen vicissitudes of war, but
-that, considering the value of the object for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">97</span>
-which we are contending, the means for supporting
-the contest, and the probable course of human
-events, we should be inexcusable, if at
-this moment we were to relinquish the struggle
-on any grounds short of entire and complete
-security; that from perseverance in our efforts
-under such circumstances, we have the fairest
-reason to expect the full attainment of our
-object; but that at all events, even if we are
-disappointed in our more sanguine hopes, we
-are more likely to gain than to lose by the continuation
-of the contest; that every month to
-which it is continued, even if it should not in its
-effects lead to the final destruction of the Jacobin
-system, must tend so far to weaken and exhaust
-it, as to give us at least a greater comparative
-security in any termination of the war; that, on
-all these grounds, this is not the moment at which
-it is consistent with our interest or our duty to
-listen to any proposals of negotiation with the
-present ruler of France; but that we are not,
-therefore, pledged to any <em>unalterable</em> determination
-as to our future conduct; that in this we
-must be regulated by the course of events; and
-that it will be the duty of his Majesty’s ministers
-from time to time to adapt their measures to
-any variation of circumstances, to consider how<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">98</span>
-far the effects of the military operations of
-the allies or of the internal disposition of
-France correspond with our present expectations;
-and, on a view of the whole, to compare
-the difficulties or risks which may arise in the
-prosecution of the contest with the prospect of
-ultimate success, or of the degree of advantage
-to be derived from its farther continuance, and
-to be governed by the result of all these considerations
-in the opinion and advice which they
-may offer to their sovereign.</p>
-
-<hr />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">99</span></p>
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="CHARLES_JAMES_FOX">CHARLES JAMES FOX.</h2>
-</div>
-
-<p>Mr. Fox, one of the most celebrated of English
-orators, was the second son of the first
-Lord Holland, and was born in 1749. His
-father, though a man of dissolute habits, was
-an influential member of Parliament, indeed for
-many years was regarded as the most formidable
-opponent of the elder Pitt in the House of
-Commons. The elder Fox received, as a mark
-of royal favor, the most lucrative office in the
-gift of the Government, that of Paymaster of
-the Forces; and he administered the duties of
-this position so much to the satisfaction of the
-king, that he was soon advanced to the peerage.
-His great wealth and his marriage with
-Lady Georgiana Lennox, a very accomplished
-daughter of the Duke of Richmond, made
-Holland House what it continued to be for
-three generations, the favorite resort of whatever<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">100</span>
-of culture and fashion allied itself to the
-cause of its own political party.</p>
-
-<p>It was in the atmosphere of this society that
-the lot of young Fox was cast. The eldest
-son was afflicted with a nervous disease which
-impaired his faculties, and consequently all the
-hopes of the house were concentrated upon
-Charles. The father’s ambition for his son was
-twofold: He desired that his boy should become
-at once a great orator and a leader in the
-fashionable and dissolute society of the day.
-In the one interest he furnished him with the
-most helpful and inspiring instruction; in the
-other he personally introduced him to the most
-famous gambling-houses in England and on the
-continent. The boy profited by this instruction.
-He made extraordinary progress. His
-biographer tells us that before he was sixteen
-he was so thoroughly acquainted with Greek
-and Latin, that he read them as he read English,
-and took up Demosthenes and Cicero as
-he took up Chatham and Burke. The father
-paid his gambling bills with as much cheerfulness<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">101</span>
-as he heard him recite an ode of Horace
-or the funeral oration of Pericles. At the
-university the young scholar furnished his
-mind with abundant stores of literature and
-history, but he paid no attention to those great
-economic questions which, under the influence
-of Adam Smith were then beginning to play so
-large a part in national affairs. Even late in
-life he confessed that he had never read the
-“Wealth of Nations.”</p>
-
-<p>Leaving Oxford at seventeen, Fox went to
-the continent, where the prodigal liberality of
-his father encouraged him in a life of unbounded
-indulgence. He not only lost enormous
-sums of ready money, but his father was
-obliged to pay debts amounting to a hundred
-thousand pounds. To distract the boy’s attention
-from further excesses, Lord Holland resolved
-to put him into the House of Commons.
-The system of pocket boroughs made the opportunity
-easy; and, as no troublesome questions
-were asked, the young profligate took his seat
-in May of 1768, a year and eight months before
-he arrived at the eligible age.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">102</span>
-By education and early political alliance Fox
-was a Tory, and it is not singular therefore
-that the Government of Lord North hastened
-to avail itself of his talents. In 1770 he was
-made a Junior Lord of the Admiralty, and a
-little later found a seat on the bench of the
-Treasury. But his wayward spirit would not
-brook control. He even went so far as to take
-the floor in opposition to the Prime-Minister.
-This violation of party discipline brought its
-natural result, and in 1774 Fox was contemptuously
-dismissed.</p>
-
-<p>The blow was deserved, and was even needed
-for the saving of Fox himself. His excesses
-in London and on the continent had become
-so notorious that the public were fast coming
-to regard him simply as a reckless gambler,
-whose favor and whose opposition were alike
-of no importance. It was this contempt on the
-part of the ministry and the public which stung
-him into something like reform. Though he
-did not entirely abandon his old methods, he
-devoted himself to his work in the House with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">103</span>
-extraordinary energy. All his ambition was
-now directed to becoming a powerful debater.
-He afterward remarked that he had literally
-gained his skill “at the expense of the House,”
-for he had sometimes tasked himself to speak
-on every question that came up, whether he
-was interested in it or not, and even whether
-he knew any thing about it or not. The result
-was that in certain important qualities of a
-public speaker, he excelled all other men of
-his time. Burke even said of him, that “by
-slow degrees he rose to be the most brilliant
-and accomplished debater the world ever saw.”</p>
-
-<p>While this process of rising “by slow degrees”
-was going on, Fox was also acquiring
-fixed ideas in regard to governmental affairs.
-The contemptuous dismissal of Lord North
-probably stimulated his natural inclinations to
-go into the opposition. As the American question
-was gradually developed, Fox found himself
-in warm sympathy with the colonial cause.
-He denied the right of the mother country to
-inflict taxation, and was the first to denounce<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">104</span>
-the policy of the Government in the House of
-Commons. He enjoyed the friendship of the
-ablest men among the Whigs, and he resorted
-to them, especially to Burke, for every kind of
-political knowledge. Indeed, his obligations
-to that great political philosopher were such,
-that in 1791, at the time of their alienation on
-the question of England’s attitude toward the
-French Revolution, he declared in the House
-that “if he were to put all the political information
-which he had learned from books, all he
-had gained from science, and all which any
-knowledge of the world and its affairs had
-taught him, into one scale, and the improvement
-which he had derived from his right
-honorable friend’s instruction and conversation
-in the other, he should be at a loss to decide to
-which to give the preference.” Under this influence
-all his aspirations came to be devoted,
-as he once said “to widen the basis of freedom,—to
-infuse and circulate the spirit of liberty.”
-This subject it was that in one form or another
-drew forth the most inspiring strains of his
-eloquence.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">105</span>
-Fox’s political morality is not without one
-very dark stain. For some years he had been
-the leader of the opposition to Lord North’s
-administration. Under his repeated and powerful
-blows the great Tory ministry was obliged
-to give way. Fox had been so conspicuously
-at the head of the opposition that everybody
-looked to see him elevated to the position
-of First Minister. But the king had been
-scandalized by the irregularities of Fox’s life,
-and probably was quite willing to find an
-excuse for not calling so able a Whig into
-power. Lord Shelburne was appointed instead,
-and Fox refused to take office under him.
-But that was not all. He not only refused to
-support Shelburne, but within six months
-even formed a coalition against him with
-Lord North. Cooke, in his “History of Party,”
-characterizes his action as “a precedent which
-strikes at the foundation of political morality,
-and as a weapon in the hands of those who
-would destroy all confidence in the honesty of
-public men.” This characterization is not too<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">106</span>
-severe; for the ability and the lofty integrity
-of Lord Shelburne were such as to forbid us to
-suppose that Fox’s action was the result of any
-other motive than that of personal pique and
-disappointment. He carried his ardent followers
-with him; and so shocked were the
-thinking men of the time, that there was a
-general outcry either of regret or of indignation.</p>
-
-<p>Lord Shelburne was of course defeated, and
-the Coalition ministry, which it was afterward
-the great work of Pitt to break, came into
-power. The popular sentiment was shown in
-the fact that, in the first election that followed,
-a hundred and sixty of Fox’s friends lost their
-seats in the House, and became, in the language
-of the day, “Fox’s Martyrs.”</p>
-
-<p>The views of Fox in regard to the French
-Revolution were so opposed to those of Burke,
-that in 1791 their intimacy and even their
-friendship were broken violently asunder. Of
-that memorable and painful incident it is not
-necessary here to speak, other than to say that
-both of the orators were wrong and both of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">107</span>
-them were right. Time has shown that the evils
-predicted by Burke as the result of the Revolution
-were scarcely an exaggeration of what actually
-followed; but it has also shown that Fox
-was right in continually maintaining that nations,
-however wrong may be their principles
-and methods, should be left to conduct their internal
-affairs in their own way. It was this position
-of Fox that led him to oppose the general
-attitude of England in regard to the course of
-Napoleon. In the House of Commons he was
-always listened to with pleasure; but his habits
-were such as to prevent his gaining that confidence
-of the public which otherwise he might
-easily have enjoyed.</p>
-
-<hr />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">108</span></p>
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="CHARLES_JAMES_FOX2">CHARLES JAMES FOX.<br />
-
-<span class="subhead">ON THE REJECTION OF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE’S
-OVERTURES OF PEACE;<br />HOUSE OF COMMONS,
-FEBRUARY 3, 1800.</span></h2>
-</div>
-
-<blockquote class="end">
-
-<p>The following speech was delivered immediately after that
-of Pitt on the same subject, given above, and in answer to it.</p></blockquote>
-
-<p class="sal"><span class="smcap">Mr. Speaker:</span></p>
-
-<p>At so late an hour of the night, I am sure
-you will do me the justice to believe that I do
-not mean to go at length into the discussion of
-this great question. Exhausted as the attention
-of the House must be, and unaccustomed
-as I have been of late to attend in my place,
-nothing but a deep sense of my duty could
-have induced me to trouble you at all, and particularly
-to request your indulgence at such an
-hour.</p>
-
-<p>Sir, my honorable and learned friend [Mr.
-Erskine] has truly said, that the present is a
-new era in the war, and the right honorable
-gentleman opposite to me [Mr. Pitt] feels the
-justice of the remark; for, by travelling back to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">109</span>
-the commencement of the war, and referring
-again to all the topics and arguments which he
-has so often and so successfully urged upon the
-House, and by which he has drawn them on to
-the support of his measures, he is forced to
-acknowledge that, at the end of a seven years’
-conflict, we are come but to a new era in the
-war, at which he thinks it necessary only to
-press all his former arguments to induce us to
-persevere. All the topics which have so often
-misled us—all the reasoning which has so invariably
-failed—all the lofty predictions which
-have so constantly been falsified by events—all
-the hopes which have amused the sanguine, and
-all the assurances of the distress and weakness
-of the enemy which have satisfied the unthinking,
-are again enumerated and advanced as
-arguments for our continuing the war. What!
-at the end of seven years of the most burdensome
-and the most calamitous struggle in which
-this country ever was engaged, are we again to
-be amused with notions of finance, and calculations
-of the exhausted resources of the enemy,
-as a ground of confidence and of hope? Gracious
-God! were we not told five years ago
-that France was not only on the brink and in
-the jaws of ruin, but that she was actually<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">110</span>
-sunk into the gulf of bankruptcy? Were we
-not told, as an unanswerable argument against
-treating, “that she could not hold out another
-campaign—that nothing but peace could save
-her—that she wanted only time to recruit her
-exhausted finances—that to grant her repose
-was to grant her the means of again molesting
-this country, and that we had nothing to do
-but persevere for a short time, in order to save
-ourselves forever from the consequences of her
-ambition and her Jacobinism?” What! after
-having gone on from year to year upon assurances
-like these, and after having seen the
-repeated refutations of every prediction, are we
-again to be gravely and seriously assured, that
-we have the same prospect of success on the
-<em>same identical grounds</em>? And, without any
-other argument or security, are we invited, at
-this new era of the war, to conduct it upon
-principles which, if adopted and acted upon,
-may make it eternal? If the right honorable
-gentleman shall succeed in prevailing on Parliament
-and the country to adopt the principles
-which he has advanced this night, I see no possible
-termination to the contest. No man can
-see an end to it; and upon the assurances and
-predictions which have so uniformly failed, we<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">111</span>
-are called upon not merely to refuse all negotiations,
-but to countenance principles and views
-as distant from wisdom and justice, as they are
-in their nature wild and impracticable.</p>
-
-<p>I must lament, sir, in common with every
-genuine friend of peace, the harsh and unconciliating
-language which ministers have held to
-the French, and which they have even made
-use of in their answer to a respectful offer of a
-negotiation. Such language has ever been considered
-as extremely unwise, and has ever been
-reprobated by diplomatic men. I remember
-with pleasure the terms in which Lord Malmesbury,
-at Paris, in the year 1796, replied to expressions
-of this sort, used by M. de la Croix.
-He justly said, “that offensive and injurious
-insinuations were only calculated to throw new
-obstacles in the way of accommodation, and
-that it was not by revolting reproaches nor by
-reciprocal invective that a sincere wish to accomplish
-the great work of pacification could
-be evinced.” Nothing could be more proper
-nor more wise than this language; and such
-ought ever to be the tone and conduct of men
-intrusted with the very important task of treating
-with a hostile nation. Being a sincere friend
-to peace, I must say with Lord Malmesbury,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">112</span>
-that it is not by reproaches and by invective
-that we can hope for a reconciliation; and I am
-convinced, in my own mind, that I speak the
-sense of this House, and, if not of this House,
-certainly of a majority of the people of this
-country, when I lament that any unprovoked
-and unnecessary recriminations should be flung
-out, by which obstacles are put in the way of
-pacification. I believe it is the prevailing sentiment
-of the people, that we ought to abstain
-from harsh and insulting language; and in
-common with them, I must lament that both
-in the papers of Lord Grenville, and this night,
-such license has been given to invective and
-reproach.</p>
-
-<p>For the same reason, I must lament that the
-right honorable gentleman [Mr. Pitt] has
-thought proper to go at such length, and
-with such severity of minute investigation, into
-all the early circumstances of the war, which
-(whatever they were) are nothing to the present
-purpose, and ought not to influence the present
-feelings of the House. I certainly shall not
-follow him through the whole of this tedious
-detail, though I do not agree with him in many
-of his assertions. I do not know what impression
-his narrative may make on other gentlemen;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">113</span>
-but I will tell him fairly and candidly, he
-has not convinced me. I continue to think,
-and until I see better grounds for changing my
-opinion than any that the right honorable
-gentleman has this night produced, I shall continue
-to think, and to say, plainly and explicitly,
-“that this country was the aggressor in the
-war.” But with regard to Austria and Prussia—is
-there a man who, for one moment, can dispute
-that they were the aggressors? It will be
-vain for the right honorable gentleman to enter
-into long and plausible reasoning against the
-evidence of documents so clear, so decisive—so
-frequently, so thoroughly investigated. The
-unfortunate monarch, Louis XVI., himself, as
-well as those who were in his confidence, has
-borne decisive testimony to the fact, that between
-him and the Emperor [Leopold of Austria]
-there was an intimate correspondence
-and a perfect understanding. Do I mean by
-this that a positive treaty was entered into
-for the dismemberment of France? Certainly
-not. But no man can read the declarations
-which were made at Mantua<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">16</a> as
-well as at Pilnitz, as they are given by M.
-Bertrand de Molville, without acknowledging
-that this was not merely an intention, but a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">114</span>
-<em>declaration</em> of an intention, on the part of the
-great powers of Germany, to interfere in the
-internal affairs of France, for the purpose of
-regulating the government against the opinion
-of the people. This, though not a plan for
-the partition of France, was, in the eye of
-reason and common-sense, an aggression against
-France. The right honorable gentleman denies
-that there was such a thing as a treaty of Pilnitz.
-Granted. But was there not a declaration
-which amounted to an act of hostile aggression?
-The two powers, the Emperor of
-Germany and the King of Prussia, made a public
-declaration that they were determined to
-employ their forces, in conjunction with those
-of the other sovereigns of Europe, “to put the
-King of France in a situation to establish, in
-perfect liberty, the foundations of a monarchical
-government equally agreeable to the rights
-of sovereigns and the welfare of the French.”
-Whenever the other princes should agree to co-operate
-with them, “<em>then, and in that case</em>, their
-majesties were determined to act promptly and
-by mutual consent, with the forces necessary to
-obtain the end proposed by all of them. In the
-meantime, they declared, that they would give
-orders for their troops to be ready for actual<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">115</span>
-service.” Now, I would ask gentlemen to lay
-their hands upon their hearts, and say with candor
-what the true and fair construction of this
-declaration was—whether it was not a menace
-and an insult to France, since, in direct terms,
-it declared, that whenever the other powers
-should concur, they would attack France, then
-at peace with them, and then employed only in
-domestic and in internal regulations? Let us
-suppose the case to be that of Great Britain.
-Will any gentleman say that if two of the great
-powers should make a public declaration that
-they were determined to make an attack on
-this kingdom as soon as circumstances should
-favor their intention; that they only waited for
-this occasion, and that in the meantime they
-would keep their forces ready for the purpose,
-it would not be considered by the Parliament
-and people of this country as a hostile aggression?
-And is there any Englishman in existence
-who is such a friend to peace as to say
-that the nation could retain its honor and dignity
-if it should sit down under such a menace?
-I know too well what is due to the national
-character of England to believe that there
-would be two opinions on the case, if thus put
-home to our own feelings and understandings.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">116</span>
-We must, then, respect in others the indignation
-which such an act would excite in
-ourselves; and when we see it established on
-the most indisputable testimony, that both at
-Pilnitz and at Mantua declarations were made
-to this effect, it is idle to say that, as far as the
-Emperor and the King of Prussia were concerned,
-they were not the aggressors in the
-war.</p>
-
-<p>“Oh! but the decree of the 19th of November,
-1792.”<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">17</a> That, at least, the right honorable
-gentleman says, you must allow to be an act of
-aggression, not only against England, but
-against all the sovereigns of Europe. I am not
-one of those, sir, who attach much interest to
-the general and indiscriminate provocations
-thrown out at random, like this resolution of
-the 19th of November, 1792. I do not think it
-necessary to the dignity of any people to notice
-and to apply to themselves menaces without
-particular allusion, which are always unwise in
-the power which uses them, and which it is still
-more unwise to treat with seriousness. But if
-any such idle and general provocation to nations
-is given, either in insolence or in folly, by
-any government, it is a clear first principle that
-an <em>explanation</em> is the thing which a magnanimous<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">117</span>
-nation, feeling itself aggrieved, ought to
-demand; and if an explanation be given which
-is not satisfactory, it ought clearly and distinctly
-to say so. There should be no ambiguity, no
-reserve, on the occasion. Now, we all know,
-from documents on our table, that M. Chauvelin
-[the French minister] did give an explanation
-of this silly decree. He declared, “in the name
-of his government, that it was never meant that
-the French Government should favor insurrections;
-that the decree was applicable only to
-those people who, after having acquired their liberty
-by conquest, should demand the assistance
-of the Republic; but that France would respect
-not only the independence of England, but also
-that of her allies with whom she was not at
-war.” This was the explanation of the offensive
-decree. “But this explanation was not
-satisfactory.” Did you <em>say so</em> to M. Chauvelin?
-Did you tell him that you were not content with
-this explanation? and when you dismissed him
-afterward, on the death of the King [of France],
-did you say that this explanation was unsatisfactory?
-No. You did no such thing; and I
-contend that unless you demanded <em>further</em> explanations,
-and they were refused, you have no
-right to urge the decree of the 19th of November<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">118</span>
-as an act of aggression. In all your conferences
-and correspondence with M. Chauvelin
-did you hold out to him <em>what terms would
-satisfy you</em>? Did you give the French the
-power or the means of settling the misunderstanding
-which that decree, or any other of the
-points at issue, had created? I maintain that
-when a nation refuses to state to another the
-thing which would satisfy her, she shows that
-she is not actuated by a desire to preserve peace
-between them; and I aver that this was the
-case here. The Scheldt, for instance. You
-now say that the navigation of the Scheldt was
-one of your causes of complaint. Did you explain
-yourself on that subject? Did you make
-it one of the grounds for the dismissal of M.
-Chauvelin? Sir, I repeat it, that <em>a nation, to
-justify itself in appealing to the last solemn resort,
-ought to prove that it has taken every possible
-means, consistent with dignity, to demand the
-reparation and redress which would be satisfactory;
-and if she refuses to explain what would
-be satisfactory, she does not do her duty, nor exonerate
-herself from the charge of being the
-aggressor</em>.</p>
-
-<p>But “France,” it seems, “then declared war
-against us; and she was the aggressor, because<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">119</span>
-the declaration came from her.” Let us look
-at the circumstances of this transaction on both
-sides. Undoubtedly the declaration was made
-by them; but is a declaration the only thing
-which constitutes the commencement of a war?
-Do gentlemen recollect that, in consequence of
-a dispute about the commencement of war,
-respecting the capture of a number of ships, an
-article was inserted in our treaty with France,
-by which it was positively stipulated that in
-future, to prevent all disputes, the act of the
-<em>dismissal</em> of a minister from either of the two
-courts should be held and considered as tantamount
-to a declaration of war?<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">18</a> I mention
-this, sir, because when we are idly employed in
-this retrospect of the origin of a war which has
-lasted so many years, instead of turning our
-eyes only to the contemplation of the means of
-putting an end to it, we seem disposed to overlook
-every thing on our own parts, and to search
-only for grounds of imputation on the enemy.
-I almost think it an insult on the House to
-detain them with this sort of examination.
-Why, sir, if France was the aggressor, as the
-right honorable gentleman says she was <em>throughout</em>,
-did not Prussia call upon us for the stipulated
-number of troops, according to the article<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">120</span>
-of the definitive treaty of alliance subsisting
-between us, by which, in case that either of the
-contracting parties was attacked, they had a
-right to demand the stipulated aid? and the
-same thing again may be asked when we were attacked.
-The right honorable gentleman might
-here accuse himself, indeed, of reserve; but it
-unfortunately happened, that <em>at the time</em> the
-point was too clear on which side the aggression
-lay. Prussia was too sensible that the war
-could not entitle her to make the demand, and
-that it was not a case within the scope of the
-defensive treaty. This is evidence worth a
-volume of subsequent reasoning; for if, at the
-time when all the facts were present to their
-minds, they could not take advantage of existing
-treaties, and that too when the courts were
-on the most friendly terms with one another, it
-will be manifest to every thinking man that
-<em>they were sensible they were not authorized to
-make the demand</em>.</p>
-
-<p>I really, sir, cannot think it necessary to
-follow the right honorable gentleman into all
-the minute details which he has thought proper
-to give us respecting the first aggression; but
-that Austria and Prussia were the aggressors,
-not a man in any country, who has ever given<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">121</span>
-himself the trouble to think at all on the subject,
-can doubt. Nothing could be more hostile
-than their whole proceedings. Did they not
-declare to France, that it was her internal concerns,
-not her external proceedings, which provoked
-them to confederate against her? Look
-back to the proclamations with which they set
-out.<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">19</a> Read the declarations which they made
-themselves to justify their appeal to arms.
-They did not pretend to fear her ambition—her
-conquests—her troubling her neighbors; but
-they accused her of new-modelling her own
-government. They said nothing of her aggressions
-abroad. They spoke only of her clubs
-and societies at Paris.</p>
-
-<p>Sir, in all this, I am not justifying the
-French; I am not trying to absolve them from
-blame, either in their internal or external policy.
-I think, on the contrary, that their successive
-rulers have been as bad and as execrable,
-in various instances, as any of the most despotic
-and unprincipled governments that the
-world ever saw. I think it impossible, sir, that
-it should have been otherwise. It was not to
-be expected that the French, when once engaged
-in foreign wars, should not endeavor to spread
-destruction around them, and to form plans of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">122</span>
-aggrandizement and plunder on every side.
-Men bred in the school of the house of Bourbon
-could not be expected to act otherwise.
-They could not have lived so long under their
-ancient masters without imbibing the restless
-ambition, the perfidy, and the insatiable spirit
-of the race. They have imitated the practice
-of their great prototype, and, through their
-whole career of mischiefs and of crimes, have
-done no more than servilely trace the steps of
-their own Louis XIV. If they have overrun
-countries and ravaged them, they have done it
-upon Bourbon principles; if they have ruined
-and dethroned sovereigns, it is entirely after
-the Bourbon manner; if they have even fraternized
-with the people of foreign countries,
-and pretended to make their cause their own,
-they have only faithfully followed the Bourbon
-example. They have constantly had Louis, the
-Grand Monarque, in their eye. But it may be
-said, that this example was long ago, and that
-we ought not to refer to a period so distant.
-True, it is a remote period applied to the man,
-but not so of the principle. The principle was
-never extinct; nor has its operation been suspended
-in France, except, perhaps, for a short
-interval, during the administration of Cardinal<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">123</span>
-Fleury; and my complaint against the Republic
-of France is, not that she has generated new
-crimes—not that she has promulgated new mischief—but
-that she has adopted and acted upon
-the principles which have been so fatal to Europe
-under the practice of the House of Bourbon.
-It is said, that wherever the French have
-gone they have introduced revolution—they
-have sought for the means of disturbing neighboring
-states, and have not been content with
-mere conquest. What is this but adopting
-the ingenious scheme of Louis XIV.? He was
-not content with merely overrunning a state.
-Whenever he came into a new territory, he
-established what he called his chamber of
-claims, a most convenient device, by which he
-inquired whether the conquered country or
-province had any dormant or disputed claims—any
-cause of complaint—any unsettled demand
-upon any other state or province—upon which
-he might wage war upon such state, thereby
-discover again ground for new devastation, and
-gratify his ambition by new acquisitions. What
-have the republicans done more atrocious, more
-Jacobinical than this? Louis went to war with
-Holland. His pretext was, that Holland had
-not treated him with sufficient <em>respect</em>. A very
-just and proper cause for war indeed!</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">124</span>
-This, sir, leads me to an example which I
-think seasonable, and worthy the attention of
-his Majesty’s ministers. When our Charles II.,
-as a short exception to the policy of his reign,
-made the triple alliance for the protection of
-Europe, and particularly of Holland, against
-the ambition of Louis XIV., what was the conduct
-of that great, virtuous, and most able statesman,
-M. de Witt, when the confederates came
-to deliberate upon the terms upon which they
-should treat with the French monarch? When
-it was said that he had made unprincipled conquests,
-and that he ought to be forced to surrender
-them all, what was the language of that
-great and wise man? “No,” said he; “I think
-we ought not to look back to the origin of the
-war so much as the means of putting an end to
-it. If you had united in time to prevent these
-conquests, well; but now that he has made
-them, he stands upon the ground of conquest,
-and we must agree to treat with him, not with
-reference to the origin of the conquest, but
-with regard to his present posture. He has
-those places, and some of them we must be
-content to give up as the means of peace; for
-conquest will always successfully set up its
-claims to indemnification.” Such was the language<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">125</span>
-of this minister, who was the ornament
-of his time; and such, in my mind, ought to be
-the language of statesmen, with regard to the
-French, at this day; and the same ought to
-have been said at the formation of the confederacy.
-It was true that the French had overrun
-Savoy; but they had overrun it upon Bourbon
-principles; and, having gained this and
-other conquests before the confederacy was
-formed, they ought to have treated with her
-rather for future security than for past correction.
-States in possession, whether monarchical
-or republican, will claim indemnity in proportion
-to their success; and it will never so
-much be inquired by what right they gained
-possession as by what means they can be prevented
-from enlarging their depredations. Such
-is the safe practice of the world; and such
-ought to have been the conduct of the powers
-when the reduction of Savoy made them coalesce.
-The right honorable gentleman may
-know more of the secret particulars of their
-overrunning Savoy than I do; but certainly, as
-they have come to my knowledge, it was a most
-Bourbon-like act. A great and justly celebrated
-historian, I mean Mr. Hume, a writer certainly
-estimable in many particulars, but who is a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">126</span>
-childish lover of princes, talks of Louis XIV. in
-very magnificent terms. But he says of him,
-that, though he managed his enterprises with
-great skill and bravery, he was unfortunate in
-this, <em>that he never got a good and fair pretence
-for war</em>. This he reckons among his misfortunes.
-Can we say more of the republican
-French? In seizing on Savoy I think they
-made use of the words “<i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">convénances morales et
-physiques</i>.” These were her reasons. A most
-Bourbon-like phrase. And I therefore contend
-that as we never scrupled to treat with the
-princes of the House of Bourbon on account of
-their rapacity, their thirst of conquest, their
-violation of treaties, their perfidy, and their
-restless spirit, so, I contend, we ought not to
-refuse to treat with their republican imitators.</p>
-
-<p>Ministers could not pretend ignorance of the
-unprincipled manner in which the French had
-seized on Savoy. The Sardinian minister complained
-of the aggression, and yet no stir
-was made about it. The courts of Europe
-stood by and saw the outrage; and our ministers
-saw it. The right honorable gentleman
-will in vain, therefore, exert his power to
-persuade me of the interest he takes in the
-preservation of the rights of nations, since, at<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">127</span>
-the moment when an interference might have
-been made with effect, no step was taken, no
-remonstrance made, no mediation negotiated,
-to stop the career of conquest. All the pretended
-and hypocritical sensibility “for the
-rights of nations, and for social order,” with
-which we have since been stunned, can not impose
-upon those who will take the trouble to
-look back to the period when this sensibility
-ought to have roused us into seasonable exertion.
-At that time, however, the right honorable
-gentleman makes it his boast that he was prevented,
-by a sense of neutrality, from taking
-any measures of precaution on the subject. I
-do not give the right honorable gentleman much
-credit for his spirit of neutrality on the occasion.
-It flowed from the sense of the country
-at the time, the great majority of which was
-clearly and decidedly against all interruptions
-being given to the French in their desire of
-regulating their own internal government.</p>
-
-<p>But this neutrality, which respected only the
-internal rights of the French, and from which
-the people of England would never have
-departed but for the impolitic and hypocritical
-cant which was set up to arouse their jealousy
-and alarm their fears, was very different from<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">128</span>
-the great principle of political prudence which
-ought to have actuated the councils of the
-nation, on seeing the first steps of France toward
-a career of external conquest. My opinion
-is, that when the unfortunate King of France
-offered to us, in the letter delivered by M.
-Chauvelin and M. Talleyrand, and even entreated
-us to mediate between him and the
-allied powers of Austria and Prussia, they
-[ministers] ought to have accepted of the offer,
-and exerted their influence to save Europe
-from the consequence of a system which was
-then beginning to manifest itself.<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">20</a> It was, at
-least, a question of prudence; and as we had
-never refused to treat and to mediate with the
-old princes on account of their ambition or
-their perfidy, we ought to have been equally
-ready now, when the same principles were acted
-upon by other men. I must doubt the sensibility
-which could be so cold and so indifferent
-at the proper moment for its activity. I fear
-that there were at that moment the germs of
-ambition rising in the mind of the right honorable
-gentleman, and that he was beginning, like
-others, to entertain hopes that something might
-be obtained out of the coming confusion. What
-but such a sentiment could have prevented him<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">129</span>
-from overlooking the fair occasion that was
-offered for preventing the calamities with which
-Europe was threatened? What but some such
-interested principle could have made him forego
-the truly honorable task, by which his administration
-would have displayed its magnanimity
-and its power? But for some such feeling,
-would not this country, both in wisdom and
-in dignity, have interfered, and, in conjunction
-with the other powers, have said to France:
-“You ask for a mediation. We will mediate
-with candor and sincerity, but we will at the
-same time declare to you our apprehensions.
-We do not trust to your assertion of a determination
-to avoid all foreign conquest, and that
-you are desirous only of settling your own
-constitution, because your language is contradicted
-by experience and the evidence of facts.
-You are Frenchmen, and you can not so soon
-have forgotten and thrown off the Bourbon
-principles in which you were educated. You
-have already imitated the bad practice of your
-princes. You have seized on Savoy without
-a color of right. But here we take our stand.
-Thus far you have gone, and we can not help
-it; but you must go no farther. We will tell
-you distinctly what we shall consider as an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">130</span>
-attack on the balance and the security of
-Europe; and, as the condition of our interference,
-we will tell you also the securities that
-we think essential to the general repose.” This
-ought to have been the language of his Majesty’s
-ministers when their mediation was solicited;
-and something of this kind they evidently
-thought of when they sent the instructions to
-Petersburgh which they have mentioned this
-night, but upon which they never acted. Having
-not done so, I say they have no right to
-talk now about the violated rights of Europe,
-about the aggression of the French, and about
-the origin of the war in which this country was
-so suddenly afterward plunged. Instead of
-this, what did they do? They hung back;
-they avoided explanation; they gave the
-French no means of satisfying them; and I
-repeat my proposition—when there is a question
-of peace and war between two nations, <em>that
-government finds itself in the wrong which refuses
-to state with clearness and precision what she
-should consider as a satisfaction and a pledge of
-peace</em>.</p>
-
-<p>Sir, if I understand the true precepts of the
-Christian religion, as set forth in the New Testament,
-I must be permitted to say, that there<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">131</span>
-is no such thing as a rule or doctrine by which
-we are directed, or can be justified, in waging a
-war for religion. The idea is subversive of the
-very foundations upon which it stands, which
-are those of peace and good-will among men.
-Religion never was and never can be a justifiable
-cause of war; but it has been too often
-grossly used as the pretext and the apology for
-the most unprincipled wars.</p>
-
-<p>I have already said, and I repeat it, that the
-conduct of the French to foreign nations can
-not be justified. They have given great cause
-of offence, but certainly not to all countries
-alike. The right honorable gentlemen opposite
-to me have made an indiscriminate catalogue
-of all the countries which the French
-have offended, and, in their eagerness to
-throw odium on the nation, have taken no
-pains to investigate the sources of their several
-quarrels. I will not detain you, sir, by
-entering into the long detail which has been
-given of their aggressions and their violences;
-but let me mention Sardinia as one
-instance which has been strongly insisted upon.
-Did the French attack Sardinia when at peace
-with them? No such thing. The King of
-Sardinia had accepted of a subsidy from Great<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">132</span>
-Britain; and Sardinia was, to all intents and
-purposes, a belligerent power. Several other
-instances might be mentioned; but though,
-perhaps, in the majority of instances, the
-French may be unjustifiable, is this the moment
-for us to dwell upon these enormities—to
-waste our time and inflame our passions by
-criminating and recriminating upon each other?
-There is no end to such a war. I have somewhere
-read, I think in Sir Walter Raleigh’s
-“History of the World,” of a most bloody and
-fatal battle which was fought by two opposite
-armies, in which almost all the combatants on
-both sides were killed, “because,” says the historian,
-“though they had offensive weapons on
-both sides, they had none for defence.” So, in
-this war of words, if we are to use only
-offensive weapons—if we are to indulge only
-in invective and abuse, the contest must be
-eternal.</p>
-
-<p>If this war of reproach and invective is to be
-countenanced, may not the French with equal
-reason complain of the outrages and horrors
-committed by the powers opposed to them?
-If we must not treat with the French on account
-of the iniquity of their former transactions,
-ought we not to be as scrupulous of connecting<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">133</span>
-ourselves with other powers equally
-criminal? Surely, sir, if we must be thus rigid
-in scrutinizing the conduct of an enemy, we
-ought to be equally careful in not committing
-ourselves, our honor, and our safety, with an
-ally who has manifested the same want of respect
-for the rights of other nations. Surely, if
-it is material to know the character of a power
-with whom you are about only to treat for
-peace, it is more material to know the character
-of allies with whom you are about to enter into
-the closest connection of friendship, and for
-whose exertions you are about to pay. Now,
-sir, what was the conduct of your own allies to
-Poland? Is there a single atrocity of the French,
-in Italy, in Switzerland, in Egypt, if you please,
-more unprincipled and inhuman than that of
-Russia, Austria, and Prussia, in Poland? What
-has there been in the conduct of the French to
-foreign powers; what in the violation of solemn
-treaties; what in the plunder, devastation, and
-dismemberment of unoffending countries; what
-in the horrors and murders perpetrated upon
-the subdued victims of their rage in any district
-which they have overrun, worse than the conduct
-of those three great powers in the miserable,
-devoted, and trampled-on kingdom of Poland,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">134</span>
-and who have been, or are, our allies in
-this war for religion and social order, and the
-rights of nations? “Oh! but you regretted
-the partition of Poland!” Yes, regretted! you
-regretted the violence, and that is all you did.
-You united yourselves with the actors; you, in
-fact, by your acquiescence, confirmed the
-atrocity. But they are your allies; and though
-they overran and divided Poland, there was
-nothing, perhaps, in the manner of doing it
-which stamped it with peculiar infamy and disgrace.
-The hero of Poland [Suwarroff], perhaps,
-was merciful and mild! He was “as
-much superior to Bonaparte in bravery, and
-in the discipline which he maintained, as he
-was superior in virtue and humanity!”<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">21</a> He
-was animated by the purest principles of Christianity,
-and was restrained in his career by the
-benevolent precepts which it inculcates. Was
-he? Let unfortunate Warsaw, and the miserable
-inhabitants of the suburb of Praga in particular,
-tell! What do we understand to have
-been the conduct of this magnanimous hero,
-with whom, it seems, Bonaparte is not to be
-compared? He entered the suburb of Praga,
-the most populous suburb of Warsaw; and
-there he let his soldiery loose on the miserable,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">135</span>
-unarmed, and unresisting people. Men,
-women, and children, nay, infants at the breast,
-were doomed to one indiscriminate massacre!
-Thousands of them were inhumanly, wantonly
-butchered! And for what? Because they had
-dared to join in a wish to meliorate their own
-condition as a people, and to improve their
-constitution, which had been confessed by their
-own sovereign to be in want of amendment.
-And such is the hero upon whom the cause of
-religion and social order is to repose! And
-such is the man whom we praise for his discipline
-and his virtue, and whom we hold out as
-our boast and our dependence; while the conduct
-of Bonaparte unfits him to be even treated
-with as an enemy?</p>
-
-<p>But the behavior of the French toward Switzerland
-raises all the indignation of the right
-honorable gentleman, and inflames his eloquence.
-I admire the indignation which he
-expresses, and I think he felt it, in speaking of
-this country, so dear and so congenial to every
-man who loves the sacred name of liberty.
-“He who loves Liberty,” says the right honorable
-gentleman, “thought himself at home on
-the favored and happy mountains of Switzerland,
-where she seemed to have taken up her abode<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">136</span>
-under a sort of implied compact, among all
-other states, that she should not be disturbed
-in this her chosen asylum.” I admire the eloquence
-of the right honorable gentleman in
-speaking of this country of liberty and peace,
-to which every man would desire, once in his
-life at least, to make a pilgrimage! But who,
-let me ask him, first proposed to the Swiss
-people to <em>depart from the neutrality</em>, which was
-their chief protection, and to join the confederacy
-against the French? I aver that a noble
-relation of mine [Lord Robert Fitzgerald], then
-the Minister of England to the Swiss Cantons,
-was instructed, in direct terms, to propose to
-the Swiss, by an official note, to break from the
-safe line they had laid down for themselves, and
-to tell them, “in such a contest neutrality was
-criminal.” I know that noble Lord too well,
-though I have not been in habits of intercourse
-with him of late, from the employments in
-which he has been engaged, to suspect that he
-would have presented such a paper without the
-express instructions of his court, or that he
-would have gone beyond those instructions.</p>
-
-<p>But was it only to Switzerland that this sort
-of language was held? What was our language
-also to Tuscany and Genoa? An honorable<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">137</span>
-gentleman [Mr. Canning] has denied the authenticity
-of a pretended letter which has been
-circulated, and ascribed to Lord Harvey. He
-says, it is all a fable and a forgery. Be it so;
-but is it also a fable that Lord Harvey did
-speak in terms to the Grand Duke, which he
-considered as offensive and insulting? I can
-not tell, for I was not present; but was it not,
-and is it not, believed? Is it a fable that Lord
-Harvey went into the closet of the Grand Duke,
-laid his watch on the table and demanded, in a
-peremptory manner, that he should, within a
-certain number of minutes (I think I have
-heard within a quarter of an hour), determine,
-aye or no, to dismiss the French Minister, and
-order him out of his dominions, with the menace,
-that if he did not, the English fleet should
-bombard Leghorn? Will the honorable gentleman
-deny this also? I certainly do not know
-it from my own knowledge; but I know that
-persons of the first credit, then at Florence,
-have stated these facts, and that they have
-never been contradicted. It is true that, upon
-the Grand Duke’s complaint of this indignity,
-Lord Harvey was recalled; but was the <em>principle</em>
-recalled? was the mission recalled? Did
-not ministers persist in the demand which Lord<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">138</span>
-Harvey had made, perhaps ungraciously? and
-was not the Grand Duke forced, in consequence,
-to dismiss the French Minister? and did they
-not drive him to enter into an unwilling war
-with the republic? It is true that he afterward
-made his peace, and that, having done so, he
-was treated severely and unjustly by the French;
-but what do I conclude from all this, but that
-we have no right to be scrupulous, we who have
-violated the respect due to peaceable powers
-ourselves, in this war, which, more than any
-other that ever afflicted human nature, has
-been distinguished by the greatest number of
-disgusting and outrageous insults by the great
-to the smaller powers? And I infer from this,
-also, that the instances not being confined to
-the French, but having been perpetrated by
-every one of the allies, and by England as much
-as by others, we have no right, either in personal
-character, or from our own deportment, to refuse
-to treat with the French on this ground.
-Need I speak of your conduct to Genoa also?
-Perhaps the note delivered by Mr. Drake was
-also a forgery. Perhaps the blockade of the
-port never took place. It is impossible to deny
-the facts, which were so glaring at the time.
-It is a painful thing to me, sir, to be obliged to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">139</span>
-go back to these unfortunate periods of the
-history of this war, and of the conduct of this
-country; but I am forced to the task by the
-use which has been made of the atrocities of
-the French as an argument against negotiation.
-I think I have said enough to prove, that if the
-French have been guilty, we have not been
-innocent. Nothing but determined incredulity
-can make us deaf and blind to our own acts,
-when we are so ready to yield an assent to all
-the reproaches which are thrown out on the
-enemy, and upon which reproaches we are
-gravely told to continue the war.</p>
-
-<p>“But the French,” it seems, “have behaved
-ill everywhere. They seized on Venice, which
-had preserved the most exact neutrality, or
-rather,” as it is hinted, “had manifested symptoms
-of friendship to them.” I agree with the
-right honorable gentleman, it was an abominable
-act. I am not the apologist, much less the
-advocate, of their iniquities; neither will I
-countenance them in their pretences for the injustice.
-I do not think that much regard is to
-be paid to the charges which a triumphant
-soldiery bring on the conduct of a people
-whom they have overrun. Pretences for outrage
-will never be wanting to the strong, when<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">140</span>
-they wish to trample on the weak; but when
-we accuse the French of having seized on
-Venice, after stipulating for its neutrality, and
-guaranteeing its independence, we should also
-remember the excuse that they made for the
-violence, namely, that their troops had been
-attacked and murdered. I say I am always incredulous
-about such excuses; but I think it
-fair to hear whatever can be alleged on the
-other side. We can not take one side of a
-story only. Candor demands that we should
-examine the whole before we make up our
-minds on the guilt. I can not think it quite
-fair to state the view of the subject of one
-party as indisputable fact, without even mentioning
-what the other party has to say for itself.
-But, sir, is this all? Though the perfidy
-of the French to the Venetians be clear and
-palpable, was it worse in morals, in principle,
-and in example, than the conduct of Austria?
-My honorable friend [Mr. Whitbread] properly
-asked: “Is not the receiver as bad as the
-thief?” If the French seized on the territory
-of Venice, did not the Austrians agree to receive
-it? “But this,” it seems, “is not the
-same thing.” It is quite in the nature and
-within the rule of diplomatic morality, for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">141</span>
-Austria to receive the country which was thus
-seized upon unjustly. “The Emperor took it
-as a compensation. It was his by barter. He
-was not answerable for the guilt by which it
-was obtained.” What is this, sir, but the false
-and abominable reasoning with which we have
-been so often disgusted on the subject of the
-slave-trade? Just in the same manner have I
-heard a notorious wholesale dealer in this inhuman
-traffic justify his abominable trade. “I
-am not guilty of the horrible crime of tearing
-that mother from her infants; that husband
-from his wife; of depopulating that village; of
-depriving that family of their sons, the support
-of their aged parents! No, thank Heaven! I
-am not guilty of this horror. I only bought
-them in the fair way of trade. They were
-brought to the market; they had been guilty
-of crimes, or they had been made prisoners of
-war; they were accused of witchcraft, of obi,
-or of some other sort of sorcery; and they
-were brought to me for sale. I gave a valuable
-consideration for them. But God forbid that
-I should have stained my soul with the guilt of
-dragging them from their friends and families!”
-Such has been the precious defence of the
-slave-trade, and such is the argument set up for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">142</span>
-Austria in this instance of Venice. “I did not
-commit the crime of trampling on the independence
-of Venice; I did not seize on the
-city; I gave a <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">quid pro quo</i>. It was a matter
-of barter and indemnity; I gave half a million
-of human beings to be put under the yoke of
-France in another district, and I had these people
-turned over to me in return!”<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">22</a> This, sir, is
-the defence of Austria, and under such detestable
-sophistry is the infernal traffic in human
-flesh, whether in white or black, to be continued,
-and even justified! At no time has that
-diabolical traffic been carried to a greater length
-than during the present war, and that by England
-herself, as well as Austria and Russia.</p>
-
-<p>“But France,” it seems, “has roused all the
-nations of Europe against her”; and the long
-catalogue has been read to you, to prove that
-she must have been atrocious to provoke them
-all. Is it true, sir, that she has roused them
-all? It does not say much for the address of
-his Majesty’s ministers, if this be the case.
-What, sir! have all your negotiations, all your
-declamation, all your money, been squandered
-in vain? Have you not succeeded in stirring
-the indignation, and engaging the assistance, of
-a single power? But you do yourselves injustice.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">143</span>
-Between the crimes of France and
-your money the rage <em>has</em> been excited, and full
-as much is due to your seductions as to her
-atrocities. My honorable and learned friend
-[Mr. Erskine] was correct, therefore, in his
-argument; for you can not take both sides of
-the case; you can not accuse France of having
-provoked all Europe, and at the same time
-claim the merit of having roused all Europe to
-join you.</p>
-
-<p>You talk, sir, of your allies. I wish to know
-who your allies are? Russia is one of them, I
-suppose. Did France attack Russia? Has the
-<em>magnanimous</em> Paul taken the field for social
-order and religion, or on account of personal
-aggression?<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">23</a> The Emperor of Russia has declared
-himself Grand Master of Malta, though
-his religion is as opposite to that of the Knights
-as ours is; and he is as much considered a
-heretic by the Church of Rome as we are. The
-King of Great Britain might, with as much
-reason and propriety, declare himself the head
-of the order of the Chartreuse monks. Not
-content with taking to himself the commandery
-of this institution of Malta, Paul has even
-created a married man a Knight, contrary to
-all the most sacred rules and regulations of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">144</span>
-order; and yet this ally of ours is fighting for
-religion! So much for his religion. Let us
-see his regard to social order! How does he
-show his abhorrence of the principles of the
-French, in their violation of the rights of other
-nations? What has been his conduct to Denmark?
-He says to her: “You have seditious
-clubs at Copenhagen; no Danish vessel shall
-therefore enter the ports of Russia!” He holds
-a still more despotic language to Hamburg.
-He threatens to lay an embargo on her trade;
-and he forces her to surrender up men who are
-claimed by the French as their citizens, whether
-truly or not, I do not inquire. He threatens
-her with his own vengeance if she refuse, and
-subjects her to that of the French if she comply.
-And what has been his conduct to Spain?
-He first sends away the Spanish minister from
-Petersburgh, and then complains, as a great insult,
-that his minister was dismissed from
-Madrid! This is one of our allies; and he has
-declared that the object for which he has taken
-up arms is to replace the ancient race of the
-house of Bourbon on the throne of France, and
-that he does this for the cause of religion and
-social order! Such is the respect for religion
-and social order which he himself displays, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">145</span>
-such are the examples of it with which we
-coalesce.</p>
-
-<p>No man regrets, sir, more than I do, the enormities
-that France has committed; but how do
-they bear upon the question as it at present
-stands? Are we forever to deprive ourselves
-of the benefits of peace because France has
-perpetrated acts of injustice? Sir, we can not
-acquit ourselves upon such ground. We <em>have</em>
-negotiated. With the knowledge of these acts
-of injustice and disorder, we have treated with
-them twice; yet the right honorable gentleman
-can not enter into negotiation with them again;
-and it is worth while to attend to the reasons
-that he gives for refusing their offer. The
-Revolution itself is no more an objection now
-than it was in the year 1796, when he did
-negotiate. For the government of France at
-that time was surely as unstable as it is at
-present. * * *</p>
-
-<p>But you say you have not refused to treat.
-You have stated a case in which you will be
-ready immediately to enter into a negotiation,
-viz., the restoration of the House of Bourbon.
-But you deny that this is a <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">sine qua non</i>; and
-in your nonsensical language, which I do not
-understand, you talk of “limited possibilities,”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">146</span>
-which may induce you to treat without the restoration
-of the House of Bourbon. But do you
-state what they are? Now, sir, I say, that if
-you put one case upon which you declare that
-you are willing to treat immediately, and say
-that there are other possible cases which may
-induce you to treat hereafter, without mentioning
-what these possible cases are, you do state
-a <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">sine qua non</i> of immediate treaty. Suppose
-I have an estate to sell, and I say my demand
-is £1,000 for it. For that sum I will sell the
-estate immediately. To be sure, there may be
-other terms upon which I may be willing to
-part with it; but I mention nothing of them.
-The £1,000 is the only condition that I state at
-the time. Will any gentleman assert that I do
-not make the £1,000 the <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">sine qua non</i> of the immediate
-sale? Thus you say the restoration of
-the Bourbons is not the only possible ground;
-but you give no other. This is your project.
-Do you demand a counter project? Do you
-follow your own rule? Do you not do the
-thing of which you complained in the enemy?
-You seemed to be afraid of receiving another
-proposition; and, by confining yourselves to
-this one point, you make it in fact, though not
-in terms, your <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">sine qua non</i>.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">147</span>
-But the right honorable gentleman, in his
-speech, does what the official note avoids. He
-finds there the convenient words, “experience
-and the evidence of facts.” Upon these he
-goes into detail; and in order to convince the
-House that new evidence is required, he reverts
-to all the earliest acts and crimes of the Revolution;
-to all the atrocities of all the governments
-that have passed away; and he contends
-that he must have experience that these foul
-crimes are repented of, and that a purer and a
-better system is adopted in France, by which
-he may be sure that they will be capable of
-maintaining the relations of peace and amity.
-Sir, these are not conciliatory words; nor is this
-a practicable ground to gain experience. Does
-he think it possible that evidence of a peaceable
-demeanor can be obtained in war? What
-does he mean to say to the French consul?
-“Until you shall, in <em>war</em>, behave yourself in a
-<em>peaceable</em> manner, I will not treat with you!”
-Is there not in this something extremely ridiculous?
-In duels, indeed, we have often heard
-of such language. Two gentlemen go out and
-fight, when, having discharged their pistols at
-one another, it is not unusual for one of them
-to say to the other: “Now I am satisfied. I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">148</span>
-see that you are a man of honor, and we are
-friends again.” There is something, by-the-by,
-ridiculous, even here. But between nations it
-is more than ridiculous. It is criminal. It is a
-ground which no principle can justify, and
-which is as impracticable as it is impious. That
-two nations should be set on to <em>beat</em> one another
-into friendship, is too abominable even for the
-fiction of romance; but for a statesman seriously
-and gravely to lay it down as a system
-upon which he means to act, is monstrous.
-What can we say of such a test as he means to
-put the French Government to, but that it is
-hopeless? It is in the nature of war to inflame
-animosity; to exasperate, not to soothe; to
-widen, not to approximate. So long as this is
-to be acted upon, I say it is in vain to hope
-that we can have the evidence which we require.</p>
-
-<p>The right honorable gentleman, however,
-thinks otherwise; and he points out four distinct
-possible cases, besides the re-establishment
-of the Bourbon family, in which he would agree
-to treat with the French.</p>
-
-<p>(1) “If Bonaparte shall conduct himself so as
-to convince him that he has abandoned the
-principles which were objectionable in his predecessors,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">149</span>
-and that he will be actuated by a
-more moderate system.” I ask you, sir, if this
-is likely to be ascertained in war? It is the
-nature of war not to allay, but to inflame the
-passions; and it is not by the invective and
-abuse which have been thrown upon him and
-his government, nor by the continued irritations
-which war is sure to give, that the virtues
-of moderation and forbearance are to be nourished.</p>
-
-<p>(2) “If, contrary to the expectations of ministers,
-the people of France shall show a disposition
-to acquiesce in the government of Bonaparte.”
-Does the right honorable gentleman
-mean to say, that because it is a usurpation on
-the part of the present chief, that therefore the
-people are not likely to acquiesce in it? I have
-not time, sir, to discuss the question of this
-usurpation, or whether it is likely to be permanent;
-but I certainly have not so good an opinion
-of the French, nor of any people, as to believe
-that it will be short-lived, <em>merely</em> because
-it was a usurpation, and because it is a system
-of military despotism. Cromwell was a usurper;
-and in many points there may be found a resemblance
-between him and the present Chief
-Consul of France. There is no doubt but that,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">150</span>
-on several occasions of his life, Cromwell’s sincerity
-may be questioned, particularly in his
-self-denying ordinance, in his affected piety,
-and other things; but would it not have been
-insanity in France and Spain to refuse to treat
-with him because he was a usurper or wanted
-candor? No, sir, these are not the maxims by
-which governments are actuated. They do not
-inquire so much into the means by which power
-may have been acquired, as into the fact of
-where the power resides. The people did acquiesce
-in the government of Cromwell. But
-it may be said that the splendor of his talents,
-the vigor of his administration, the high tone
-with which he spoke to foreign nations, the
-success of his arms, and the character which he
-gave to the English name, induced the nation
-to acquiesce in his usurpation; and that we
-must not try Bonaparte by his example. Will
-it be said that Bonaparte is not a man of great
-abilities? Will it be said that he has not, by
-his victories, thrown a splendor over even the
-violence of the Revolution, and that he does
-not conciliate the French people by the high
-and lofty tone in which he speaks to foreign
-nations? Are not the French, then, as likely
-as the English in the case of Cromwell, to acquiesce<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">151</span>
-in his government? If they should do
-so, the right honorable gentleman may find
-that this possible predicament may fail him.
-He may find that though one power may make
-war, it requires two to make peace. He may
-find that Bonaparte was as insincere as himself
-in the proposition which he made; and in his
-turn he may come forward and say: “I have no
-occasion now for concealment. It is true that,
-in the beginning of the year 1800, I offered to
-treat, not because I wished for peace, but because
-the people of France wished for it; and
-besides, my old resources being exhausted, and
-there being no means of carrying on the war
-without ‘a new and solid system of finance,’ I
-pretended to treat, because I wished to procure
-the unanimous assent of the French people to
-this ‘new and solid system of finance.’ Did
-you think I was in earnest? You were deceived.
-I now throw off the mask. I have
-gained my point, and I reject your offers with
-scorn.”<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">24</a> Is it not a very possible case that he
-may use this language? Is it not within the
-right honorable gentleman’s <em>knowledge of human
-nature</em>?<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">25</a> But even if this should not be the
-case, will not the very test which you require,
-the acquiescence of the people of France in his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">152</span>
-government, give him an advantage-ground in
-the negotiation which he does not now possess.
-Is it quite sure, that when he finds himself safe
-in his seat, he will treat on the same terms as
-at present, and that you will get a better peace
-some time hence than you might reasonably
-hope to obtain at this moment? Will he not
-have one interest less to do it? and do you not
-overlook a favorable occasion for a chance
-which is exceedingly doubtful? These are the
-considerations which I would urge to his Majesty’s
-ministers against the dangerous experiment
-of waiting for the acquiescence of the
-people of France.</p>
-
-<p>(3) “If the allies of this country shall be less
-successful than they have every reason to expect
-they will be in stirring up the people of
-France against Bonaparte, and in the further
-prosecution of the war.” And,</p>
-
-<p>(4) “If the pressure of the war should be
-heavier upon us than it would be convenient
-for us to continue to bear.” These are the
-other two possible emergencies in which the
-right honorable gentleman would treat even
-with Bonaparte. Sir, I have often blamed the
-right honorable gentleman for being disingenuous
-and insincere. On the present occasion I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">153</span>
-certainly can not charge him with any such
-thing. He has made to-night a most honest
-confession. He is open and candid. He tells
-Bonaparte fairly what he has to expect. “I
-mean,” says he, “to do every thing in my power
-to raise up the people of France against you; I
-have engaged a number of allies, and our combined
-efforts shall be used to excite insurrection
-and civil war in France. I will strive to murder
-you, or to get you sent away. If I succeed,
-well; but if I fail, then I will treat with you.
-My resources being exhausted; even my ‘solid
-system of finance’ having failed to supply me
-with the means of keeping together my allies,
-and of feeding the discontents I have excited
-in France, then you may expect to see me renounce
-my high tone, my attachment to the
-House of Bourbon, my abhorrence of your
-crimes, my alarm at your principles; for then I
-shall be ready to own that, on the balance and
-comparison of circumstances, there will be less
-danger in concluding a peace than in the continuance
-of war!” Is this political language
-for one state to hold to another? And what
-sort of peace does the right honorable gentleman
-expect to receive in that case? Does he
-think that Bonaparte would grant to baffled insolence,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">154</span>
-to humiliated pride, to disappointment,
-and to imbecility the same terms which he
-would be ready to give now? The right honorable
-gentleman can not have forgotten what
-he said on another occasion:</p>
-
-<div class="poem-container">
-<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
-<span class="i12">“Potuit quæ plurima virtus<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">Esse, fuit. Toto certatum est corpore regni.”<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">26</a><br /></span>
-</div></div>
-</div>
-
-<p class="in0">He would then have to repeat his words, but
-with a different application. He would have to
-say: “All our efforts are vain. We have exhausted
-our strength. Our designs are impracticable,
-and we must sue to you for peace.”</p>
-
-<p>Sir, what is the question to-night? We are
-called upon to support ministers in refusing a
-frank, candid, and respectful offer of negotiation,
-and to countenance them in continuing
-the war. Now I would put the question in
-another way. Suppose that ministers had been
-inclined to adopt the line of conduct which
-they pursued in 1796 and 1797, and that to-night,
-instead of a question on a war address, it
-had been an address to his Majesty to thank
-him for accepting the overture, and for opening
-a negotiation to treat for peace, I ask the gentlemen
-opposite—I appeal to the whole five
-hundred and fifty-eight representatives of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">155</span>
-people—to lay their hands upon their hearts and
-to say whether they would not have cordially
-voted for such an address. Would they, or
-would they not? Yes, sir, if the address had
-breathed a spirit of peace, your benches would
-have resounded with rejoicings, and with praises
-of a measure that was likely to bring back the
-blessings of tranquillity. On the present occasion,
-then, I ask for the vote of no gentlemen
-but of those who, in the secret confession of
-their conscience, admit, at this instant, while
-they hear me, that they would have cheerfully
-and heartily voted with the minister for an address
-directly the reverse of the one proposed.
-If every such gentleman were to vote with me,
-I should be this night in the greatest majority
-that ever I had the honor to vote with in this
-House. I do not know that the right honorable
-gentleman would find, even on the benches
-around him, a single individual who would not
-vote with me. I am sure he would not find
-many. I do not know that in this House I
-could single out the individual who would think
-himself bound by consistency to vote against
-the right honorable gentleman on an address
-for negotiation. There may be some, but they
-are very few. I do know, indeed, one most<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">156</span>
-honorable man in another place, whose purity
-and integrity I respect, though I lament the
-opinion he has formed on this subject, who
-would think himself bound, from the uniform
-consistency of his life, to vote against an address
-for negotiation. Earl Fitzwilliam would,
-I verily believe, do so. He would feel himself
-bound, from the previous votes he has given, to
-declare his objection to all treaty. But I own I
-do not know more in either House of Parliament.
-There may be others, but I do not
-know them. What, then, is the House of
-Commons come to, when, notwithstanding their
-support given to the right honorable gentleman
-in 1796 and 1797 on his entering into negotiation;
-notwithstanding their inward conviction
-that they would vote with him this moment for
-the same measure; who, after supporting the
-minister in his negotiation for a solid system of
-finance, can now bring themselves to countenance
-his abandonment of the ground he took,
-and to support him in refusing all negotiation!
-What will be said of gentlemen who shall vote
-in this way, and yet feel, in their consciences,
-that they would have, with infinitely more readiness,
-voted the other?</p>
-
-<p>Sir, we have heard to-night a great many<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">157</span>
-most acrimonious invectives against Bonaparte,
-against all the course of his conduct, and
-against the unprincipled manner in which he
-seized upon the reins of government. I will
-not make his defence. I think all this sort of
-invective, which is used only to inflame the
-passions of this House and of the country, exceedingly
-ill-timed, and very impolitic. But I
-say I will not make his defence. I am not sufficiently
-in possession of materials upon which
-to form an opinion on the character and conduct
-of this extraordinary man. On his arrival
-in France, he found the government in a very
-unsettled state, and the whole affairs of the
-Republic deranged, crippled, and involved.
-He thought it necessary to reform the government;
-and he did reform it, just in the way in
-which a military man may be expected to carry
-on a reform. He seized on the whole authority
-for himself. It will not be expected from me
-that I should either approve or apologize for
-such an act. I am certainly not for reforming
-governments by such expedients; but how this
-House can be so violently indignant at the idea
-of military despotism, is, I own, a little singular,
-when I see the composure with which they
-can observe it nearer home; nay, when I see<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">158</span>
-them regard it as a frame of government most
-peculiarly suited to the exercise of free opinion,
-on a subject the most important of any that
-can engage the attention of a people. Was it
-not the system which was so <em>happily</em> and so
-<em>advantageously</em> established of late, all over
-Ireland, and which even now the government
-may, at its pleasure, proclaim over the whole of
-that kingdom? Are not the persons and property
-of the people left, in many districts, at
-this moment, to the entire will of military
-commanders? and is not this held out as peculiarly
-proper and advantageous, at a time
-when the people of Ireland are freely, and with
-unbiassed judgments, to discuss the most interesting
-question of a legislative union? Notwithstanding
-the existence of martial law, so
-far do we think Ireland from being enslaved,
-that we presume it precisely the period and the
-circumstances under which she may best declare
-her free opinion? Now, really, sir, I can
-not think that gentlemen who talk in this way
-about Ireland, can, with a good grace, rail at
-military despotism in France.</p>
-
-<p>But, it seems, “Bonaparte has broken his
-oaths. He has violated his oath of fidelity to
-the constitution of the third year.” Sir, I am<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">159</span>
-not one of those who hold that any such oaths
-ought ever to be exacted. They are seldom or
-ever of any effect; and I am not for sporting
-with a thing so sacred as an oath. I think it
-would be good to lay aside all such oaths.
-Who ever heard that, in revolutions, the oath
-of fidelity to the former government was ever
-regarded, or even that, when violated, it was
-imputed to the persons as a crime? In times
-of revolution, men who take up arms are called
-rebels. If they fail, they are adjudged to be
-traitors; but who before ever heard of their
-being perjured? On the restoration of King
-Charles II., those who had taken up arms
-for the Commonwealth were stigmatized as
-rebels and traitors, but not as men forsworn.
-Was the Earl of Devonshire charged with being
-perjured, on account of the allegiance he had
-sworn to the House of Stuart, and the part he
-took in those struggles which preceded and
-brought about the Revolution? The violation
-of oaths of allegiance was never imputed to
-the people of England, and will never be imputed
-to any people. But who brings up the
-question of oaths? He who strives to make
-twenty-four millions of persons violate the
-oaths they have taken to their present constitution,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">160</span>
-and who desires to re-establish the
-House of Bourbon by such violation of their
-vows. I put it so, sir, because, if the question
-of oaths be of the least consequence, it is equal
-on both sides! He who desires the whole people
-of France to perjure themselves, and who
-hopes for success in his project only upon their
-doing so, surely can not make it a charge
-against Bonaparte that he has done the same!</p>
-
-<p>“Ah! but Bonaparte has declared it as his
-opinion, that the two governments of Great
-Britain and of France can not exist together.
-After the treaty of Campo Formio, he sent two
-confidential persons, Berthier and Monge, to
-the Directory, to say so in his name.” Well,
-and what is there in this absurd and puerile
-assertion, if it were ever made? Has not the
-right honorable gentleman, in this House, said
-the same thing? In this at least they resemble
-one another! They have both made use of
-this assertion; and I believe that these two illustrious
-persons are the only two on earth who
-think it! But let us turn the tables. We ought
-to put ourselves at times in the place of the
-enemy, if we are desirous of really examining
-with candor and fairness the dispute between
-us. How may they not interpret the speeches<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">161</span>
-of ministers and their friends, in both Houses of
-the British Parliament? If we are to be told
-of the idle speech of Berthier and Monge, may
-they not also bring up speeches, in which it has
-not been merely hinted, but broadly asserted,
-that “the two constitutions of England and
-France could not exist together?” May not
-these offences and charges be reciprocated without
-end? Are we ever to go on in this miserable
-squabble about words? Are we still, as
-we happen to be successful on the one side or
-the other, to bring up these impotent accusations,
-insults, and provocations against each
-other; and only when we are beaten and unfortunate,
-to think of treating? Oh! pity the
-condition of man, gracious God, and save us
-from such a system of malevolence, in which
-all our old and venerated prejudices are to be
-done away, and by which we are to be taught
-to consider war as the natural state of man, and
-peace but as a dangerous and difficult extremity!</p>
-
-<p>Sir, this temper must be corrected. It is a
-diabolical spirit, and would lead to an interminable
-war. Our history is full of instances
-that, where we have overlooked a proffered occasion
-to treat, we have uniformly suffered by<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">162</span>
-delay. At what time did we ever profit by obstinately
-persevering in war? We accepted at
-Ryswick the terms we refused five years before,
-and the same peace which was concluded at
-Utrecht might have been obtained at Gertruydenberg;
-and as to security from the future
-machinations or ambition of the French, I ask
-you what security you ever had or could have?
-Did the different treaties made with Louis XIV.
-serve to tie up his hands, to restrain his ambition,
-or to stifle his restless spirit? At what time,
-in old or in recent periods, could you safely
-repose on the honor, forbearance, and moderation
-of the French Government? Was there
-<em>ever</em> an idea of refusing to treat, because the
-peace might be afterward insecure? The
-peace of 1763 was not accompanied with securities;
-and it was no sooner made than the
-French court began, as usual, its intrigues.
-And what security did the right honorable
-gentleman exact at the peace of 1783, in which
-he was engaged? Were we rendered secure
-by that peace? The right honorable gentleman
-knows well that, soon after that peace, the
-French formed a plan, in conjunction with the
-Dutch, of attacking our India possessions, of
-raising up the native powers against us, and of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">163</span>
-driving us out of India; as they were more
-recently desirous of doing, only with this difference,
-that the cabinet of France formerly entered
-into this project in a moment of profound
-peace, and when they conceived us to be lulled
-into a perfect security. After making the peace
-of 1783, the right honorable gentleman and his
-friends went out, and I, among others, came
-into office. Suppose, sir, that we had taken up
-the jealousy upon which the right honorable
-gentleman now acts, and had refused to ratify
-the peace which he had made. Suppose that
-we had said—No! France is acting a perfidious
-part; we see no security for England in this
-treaty; they want only a respite in order to
-attack us again in an important part of our
-dominions, and we ought not to confirm the
-treaty. I ask you would the right honorable
-gentleman have supported us in this refusal?
-I say, that upon his present reasoning he ought.
-But I put it fairly to him, would he have supported
-us in refusing to ratify the treaty upon
-such a pretence? He certainly ought not, and
-I am sure he would not; but the course of
-reasoning which he now assumes would have
-justified his taking such a ground. On the
-contrary, I am persuaded that he would have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">164</span>
-said: “This security is a refinement upon
-jealousy. You have security, the only security
-that you can ever expect to get. It is the
-present interest of France to make peace. She
-will keep it, if it be her interest. She will
-break it, if it be her interest. Such is the state
-of nations; and you have nothing but your
-own vigilance for your security.”</p>
-
-<p>“It is not the interest of Bonaparte,” it
-seems, “sincerely to enter into a negotiation,
-or, if he should even make peace, sincerely to
-keep it.” But how are we to decide upon his
-sincerity? By refusing to treat with him?
-Surely, if we mean to discover his sincerity, we
-ought to hear the propositions which he desires
-to make. “But peace would be unfriendly
-to his system of military despotism.” Sir, I
-hear a great deal about the short-lived nature of
-military despotism. I wish the history of the
-world would bear gentlemen out in this description
-of it. Was not the government
-erected by Augustus Cæsar a military despotism?
-and yet it endured for six or seven hundred
-years. Military despotism, unfortunately,
-is too likely in its nature to be permanent, and
-it is not true that it depends on the life of the
-first usurper. Though half of the Roman<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">165</span>
-emperors were murdered, yet the military despotism
-went on; and so it would be, I fear, in
-France. If Bonaparte should disappear from
-the scene, to make room, perhaps, for Berthier,
-or any other general, what difference would
-that make in the quality of French despotism,
-or in our relation to the country? We may as
-safely treat with a Bonaparte, or with any of
-his successors, be they whom they may, as we
-could with a Louis XVI., a Louis XVII., or a
-Louis XVIII. There is no difference but in
-the name. Where the power essentially resides,
-thither we ought to go for peace.</p>
-
-<p>But, sir, if we are to reason on the fact, I
-should think that it is the interest of Bonaparte
-to make peace. A lover of military glory, as
-that general must necessarily be, may he not
-think that his measure of glory is full; that it
-may be tarnished by a reverse of fortune, and
-can hardly be increased by any new laurels?
-He must feel that, in the situation to which he
-is now raised, he can no longer depend on his
-own fortune, his own genius, and his own talents,
-for a continuance of his success. He
-must be under the necessity of employing
-other generals, whose misconduct or incapacity
-might endanger his power, or whose triumphs<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">166</span>
-even might affect the interest which he holds in
-the opinion of the French. Peace, then, would
-secure to him what he has achieved, and fix the
-inconstancy of fortune. But this will not be
-his only motive. He must see that France also
-requires a respite—a breathing interval, to recruit
-her wasted strength. To procure her this
-respite, would be, perhaps, the attainment of
-more solid glory, as well as the means of acquiring
-more solid power, than any thing which
-he can hope to gain from arms, and from the
-proudest triumphs. May he not, then, be zealous
-to secure this fame, the only species of
-fame, perhaps, that is worth acquiring? Nay,
-granting that his soul may still burn with the
-thirst of military exploits, is it not likely that
-he is disposed to yield to the feelings of the
-French people, and to consolidate his power by
-consulting their interests? I have a right to
-argue in this way when suppositions of his insincerity
-are reasoned upon on the other side.
-Sir, these aspersions are, in truth, always idle,
-and even mischievous. I have been too long
-accustomed to hear imputations and calumnies
-thrown out upon great and honorable characters,
-to be much influenced by them. My honorable
-and learned friend [Mr. Erskine] has paid<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">167</span>
-this night a most just, deserved, and eloquent
-tribute of applause to the memory of that
-great and unparalleled character, who is so recently
-lost to the world.<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">27</a> I must, like
-him, beg leave to dwell a moment on the
-venerable <span class="smcap">George Washington</span>, though I
-know that it is impossible for me to bestow
-any thing like adequate praise on a character
-which gave us, more than any other human being,
-the example of a perfect man; yet, good,
-great, and unexampled as General Washington
-was, I can remember the time when he was not
-better spoken of in this House than Bonaparte
-is at present. The right honorable gentleman
-who opened this debate [Mr. Dundas] may remember
-in what terms of disdain, or virulence,
-even of contempt, General Washington was
-spoken of by gentlemen on that side of the
-House. Does he not recollect with what marks
-of indignation any member was stigmatized as
-an enemy to his country who mentioned with
-common respect the name of General Washington?
-If a negotiation had then been proposed
-to be opened with that great man, what would
-have been said? Would you treat with a
-rebel, a traitor! What an example would you
-not give by such an act! I do not know<span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">168</span>
-whether the right honorable gentleman may
-not yet possess some of his old prejudices on
-the subject. I hope not: I hope by this time
-we are all convinced that a republican government,
-like that of America, may exist without
-danger or injury to social order, or to established
-monarchies. They have happily shown
-that they can maintain the relations of peace
-and amity with other states. They have shown,
-too, that they are alive to the feelings of honor;
-but they do not lose sight of plain good sense
-and discretion. They have not refused to
-negotiate with the French, and they have accordingly
-the hopes of a speedy termination of
-every difference. We cry up their conduct, but
-we do not imitate it. At the beginning of the
-struggle, we were told that the French were
-setting up a set of wild and impracticable theories,
-and that we ought not to be misled by
-them; that they were phantoms with which we
-could not grapple. Now we are told that we
-must not treat, because, out of the lottery,
-Bonaparte has drawn such a prize as military
-despotism. Is military despotism a theory?
-One would think that that is one of the practical
-things which ministers might understand,
-and to which <em>they</em> would have no particular objection.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">169</span>
-But what is our present conduct
-founded on but a theory, and that a most wild and
-ridiculous theory? For what are we fighting?
-Not for a principle; not for security; not for
-conquest; but merely for an experiment and a
-speculation, to discover whether a gentleman at
-Paris may not turn out a better man than we
-now take him to be. * * *</p>
-
-<p>Sir, I wish the atrocities, of which we hear so
-much, and which I abhor as much as any man,
-were, indeed, unexampled. I fear that they do
-not belong exclusively to the French. When
-the right honorable gentleman speaks of the extraordinary
-successes of the last campaign, he
-does not mention the horrors by which some of
-these successes were accompanied. Naples, for
-instance, has been, among others, what is called
-<em>delivered</em>; and yet, if I am rightly informed, it
-has been stained and polluted by murders so
-ferocious, and by cruelties of every kind so abhorrent,
-that the heart shudders at the recital.
-It has been said, not only that the miserable
-victims of the rage and brutality of the fanatics
-were savagely murdered, but that, in many instances,
-their flesh was eaten and devoured by
-the cannibals, who are the advocates and the instruments
-of social order! Nay, England is not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">170</span>
-totally exempt from reproach, if the rumors
-which are circulated be true. I will mention a
-fact, to give ministers the opportunity, if it be
-false, to wipe away the stain that it must otherwise
-affix on the British name. It is said, that
-a party of the republican inhabitants of Naples
-took shelter in the fortress of the Castel de
-Uovo. They were besieged by a detachment
-from the royal army, to whom they refused to
-surrender; but demanded that a British officer
-should be brought forward, and to him they
-capitulated. They made terms with him under
-the sanction of the British name. It was agreed
-that their persons and property should be safe,
-and that they should be conveyed to Toulon.
-They were accordingly put on board a vessel;
-but, before they sailed, their property was confiscated,
-numbers of them taken out, thrown
-into dungeons, and some of them, I understand,
-notwithstanding the British guaranty, actually
-executed!<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">28</a></p>
-
-<p>Where, then, sir, is this war, which on every
-side is pregnant with such horrors, to be carried?
-Where is it to stop? Not till we establish
-the House of Bourbon! And this you
-cherish the hope of doing, because you have
-had a successful campaign. Why, sir, before<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">171</span>
-this you have had a successful campaign. The
-situation of the allies, with all they have gained,
-is surely not to be compared now to what it
-was when you had taken Valenciennes, Quesnoy,
-Condé, etc., which induced some gentlemen in
-this House to prepare themselves for a march
-to Paris. With all that you have gained, you
-surely will not say that the prospect is brighter
-now than it was then. What have you gained
-but the recovery of a part of what you before
-lost? One campaign is successful to you;
-another to them; and in this way, animated by
-the vindictive passions of revenge, hatred, and
-rancor, which are infinitely more flagitious, even,
-than those of ambition and the thirst of power,
-you may go on forever; as, with such black incentives,
-I see no end to human misery.</p>
-
-<p>And all this without an intelligible motive.
-All this because you may gain a better peace
-a year or two hence! So that we are called
-upon to go on merely as a speculation. We
-must keep Bonaparte for some time longer at
-war, as a state of probation. Gracious God, sir!
-is war a state of probation? Is peace a rash system?
-Is it dangerous for nations to live in amity
-with each other? Are your vigilance, your
-policy, your common powers of observation, to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">172</span>
-be extinguished by putting an end to the horrors
-of war? Can not this state of probation be as
-well undergone without adding to the catalogue
-of human sufferings? “But we must <em>pause</em>!”
-What! must the bowels of Great Britain be
-torn out—her best blood be spilled—her treasure
-wasted—that you may make an experiment?
-Put yourselves, oh! that you would
-put yourselves in the field of battle, and learn
-to judge of the sort of horrors that you excite!
-In former wars a man might, at least, have
-some feeling, some interest, that served to balance
-in his mind the impressions which a scene
-of carnage and of death must inflict. If a man
-had been present at the battle of Blenheim, for
-instance, and had inquired the motive of the
-battle, there was not a soldier engaged who
-could not have satisfied his curiosity, and even,
-perhaps, allayed his feelings. They were fighting,
-they knew, to repress the uncontrolled
-ambition of the Grand Monarch. But if a man
-were present now at a field of slaughter, and
-were to inquire for what they were fighting—“Fighting!”
-would be the answer; “they are
-not fighting; they are <em>pausing</em>.” “Why is that
-man expiring? Why is that other writhing
-with agony? What means this implacable<span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">173</span>
-fury?” The answer must be: “You are quite
-wrong, sir; you deceive yourself—they are not
-fighting—do not disturb them—they are merely
-<em>pausing</em>! This man is not expiring with agony—that
-man is not dead—he is only <em>pausing</em>!
-Lord help you, sir! they are not angry with
-one another; they have now no cause of quarrel;
-but their country thinks that there should
-be a <em>pause</em>. All that you see, sir, is nothing
-like fighting—there is no harm, nor cruelty, nor
-bloodshed in it whatever; it is nothing more
-than a <em>political pause</em>! It is merely to try an
-experiment—to see whether Bonaparte will not
-behave himself better than heretofore; and in
-the meantime we have agreed to a <em>pause</em>, in
-pure friendship!” And is this the way, sir,
-that you are to show yourselves the advocates
-of order? You take up a system calculated to
-uncivilize the world—to destroy order—to
-trample on religion—to stifle in the heart, not
-merely the generosity of noble sentiment, but
-the affections of social nature; and in the prosecution
-of this system, you spread terror and
-devastation all around you.</p>
-
-<p>Sir, I have done. I have told you my
-opinion. I think you ought to have given a
-civil, clear, and explicit answer to the overture<span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">174</span>
-which was fairly and handsomely made you.
-If you were desirous that the negotiation should
-have included all your allies, as the means of
-bringing about a general peace, you should
-have told Bonaparte so. But I believe you
-were afraid of his agreeing to the proposal.
-You took that method before. Ay, but you
-say the people were anxious for peace in 1797.
-I say they are friends to peace now; and I am
-confident that you will one day acknowledge it.
-Believe me, they are friends to peace; although
-by the laws which you have made, restraining
-the expression of the sense of the people, public
-opinion can not now be heard as loudly and
-unequivocally as heretofore. But I will not go
-into the internal state of this country. It is
-too afflicting to the heart to see the strides
-which have been made by means of, and under
-the miserable pretext of, this war, against liberty
-of every kind, both of power of speech and
-of writing, and to observe in another kingdom
-the rapid approaches to that military despotism
-which we affect to make an argument against
-peace. I know, sir, that public opinion, if it
-could be collected, would be for peace, as much
-now as in 1797; and that it is only by public
-opinion, and not by a sense of their duty, or by<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">175</span>
-the inclination of their minds, that ministers
-will be brought, if ever, to give us peace.</p>
-
-<p>I conclude, sir, with repeating what I said before:
-I ask for no gentleman’s vote who would
-have reprobated the compliance of ministers
-with the proposition of the French Government.
-I ask for no gentleman’s support to-night
-who would have voted against ministers,
-if they had come down and proposed to enter
-into a negotiation with the French. But I have
-a right to ask, and in honor, in consistency, in
-conscience, I have a right to expect, the vote of
-every honorable gentleman who would have
-voted with ministers in an address to his
-Majesty, diametrically opposite to the motion
-of this night.</p>
-
-<blockquote class="end">
-
-<p>This speech of Fox is said to have made a deep impression
-on the House; but it appears scarcely to have weakened the
-opposition to Napoleon’s measures as set forth in the speech of
-Pitt. The address approving of the Government’s course was
-carried by the overwhelming majority of 265 to 64. It was
-the reasoning of Pitt and the vote which followed the debate
-that determined the general line of English policy till Napoleon
-was landed at St. Helena. The speech of Fox, though
-not successful in defeating the governmental policy, was the
-ablest presentation ever made of the Opposition view.</p></blockquote>
-
-<hr />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">176</span></p>
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="SIR_JAMES_MACKINTOSH">SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH.</h2>
-</div>
-
-<p>Born on the 24th of October, 1765, James
-Mackintosh was fifteen years younger than
-Erskine, and thirty-five younger than Burke.
-He early showed a remarkable fondness for
-reading, and when he was ten years of age was
-regarded in the locality of his birth near Inverness,
-in Scotland, as “a prodigy of learning.”
-His favorite amusement at this period of his
-life appears to have been to gather his school-fellows
-about him and entertain them by delivering
-speeches in imitation of Fox and
-North, on the American war,—then the great
-question of the day. At fifteen, he entered
-King’s College, Aberdeen, where he soon established
-a friendship with Robert Hall, which
-continued through life. Their tastes were
-similar, and they devoted themselves with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">177</span>
-great earnestness to the study of the classics,
-and to the more abstruse forms of philosophical
-reasoning. They were in the habit of studying
-together and discussing the works of Berkeley,
-Butler, and Edwards, as well as those of
-Plato and Herodotus. This exercise, kept up
-during a large part of their collegiate course,
-appears to have exerted a great influence on
-the formation of their minds and tastes. Mackintosh
-afterward declared that he learned
-more from those discussions “than from all the
-books he ever read”; and Hall testified to the
-great ability of his companion, by saying that
-“he had an intellect more like that of Bacon
-than any other person of modern times.”</p>
-
-<p>After spending four years at Edinburgh in
-the study of medicine, Mackintosh repaired to
-London with a view to the practice of his profession.
-His heart seems, however, not to have
-been very fully enlisted in the work, and he
-was soon driven to the public press as a means
-of support. His first great work, published in
-1791, commanded immediate attention, not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">178</span>
-only for its elegant and expressive as well as
-keen and trenchant style, but also for the
-enthusiastic daring with which a young man of
-twenty-six grappled with the most powerful
-and accomplished writer of the day. The
-volume was nothing less than a “Defence of
-the French Revolution against the Accusations
-of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke.” In
-point of style the work is certainly not equal to
-that of his great antagonist; and no more than
-four years later, Mackintosh himself was so
-frank as to say to some Frenchmen who complimented
-him: “Ah, gentlemen, since that
-time you have entirely refuted me.” But, in
-spite of its obvious faults, its great qualities as
-a piece of literary workmanship made a prodigious
-impression. Fox quoted it with enthusiastic
-approbation in the House of Commons;
-and Canning, who ridiculed the Revolution, is
-said to have told a friend that he read the
-book “with as much admiration as he had ever
-felt.” Three editions were immediately called
-for; and it may be doubted whether even to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">179</span>
-the present day it is not the most successful as
-well as the most powerful argument that has
-ever been made in opposition to the more
-celebrated treatise.</p>
-
-<p>The publication of this masterly review
-showed plainly enough that another great
-writer had appeared. The reception the work
-received encouraged Mackintosh in the gratification
-of his tastes; and, finding himself irresistibly
-inclining to questions of political philosophy,
-he now abandoned the profession he had already
-entered, and turned his attention to the study of
-law. In 1795 he was admitted to the bar.
-Four years later he produced the second great
-literary impression of his life in the publication
-of the “Introduction to a Course of Lectures
-on the Law of Nature and of Nations.” The
-remarkable impression made by this single
-lecture was expressed by Campbell, when he
-said: “Even supposing that essay had been
-recovered only imperfect and mutilated—if but
-a score of consecutive sentences could be
-shown, they would bear a testimony to his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">180</span>
-genius as decided as the bust of Theseus bears
-to Grecian art among the Elgin marbles.”</p>
-
-<p>Mackintosh’s lectures, in the spring of 1799,
-at Lincoln’s Inn Hall, were attended by an
-auditory such as had never before met in England
-on a similar occasion. “Lawyers, members
-of Parliament, men of letters, and gentlemen
-from the country crowded the seats; and
-the Lord Chancellor, who, from a pressure of
-public business, was unable to attend, received
-a full report of each lecture in writing, and was
-loud in their praise.” The introductory lecture,
-the only one that was written out and
-preserved, is as remarkable for its eloquence as
-for the depth of its learning and the vigor and
-discrimination of its thought.</p>
-
-<p>Mackintosh now devoted himself to the
-practice of his profession with every prospect
-of the most flattering success. Regarding
-himself as more perfectly fitted for a position
-upon the bench than at the bar, he aspired to a
-judicial appointment at Trinidad or in India.
-The appointment was under contemplation,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">181</span>
-when he was engaged to defend M. Jean
-Peltier, a Frenchman who resided in London
-and published a newspaper opposed to the
-rising fortunes of Bonaparte. There is an
-English statute against “libel on a friendly
-government”; and Bonaparte, who was now
-for the moment at peace with England, demanded
-that the statute should be enforced. Action
-was brought against Peltier, and when the case
-came on for trial Mackintosh delivered the
-speech selected from his works for this volume.
-He labored under the disadvantage of having
-the law clearly against him; but he regarded
-the equities of the case as entirely on the side
-of Peltier, and therefore he devoted his remarkable
-powers to the discussion of the general
-principles involved in the case. It was a
-plea in behalf of freedom of the English press—its
-privilege and its duty to comment on and
-to criticise the crimes even of the proudest
-tyrants. The jury, under the law, was obliged
-to convict; but seldom before an English
-court has a speech made a greater impression.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">182</span>
-Of this fact we have the most conclusive evidence
-in the testimony of the greatest of English
-advocates. Erskine was present during its
-delivery, and before going to bed he sent to
-Mackintosh the following remarkable note:</p>
-
-<blockquote>
-
-<p>“<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>:—I can not shake off from my nerves the
-effect of your powerful and most wonderful speech, which so
-completely disqualifies you for Trinidad or India. I could
-not help saying to myself, as you were speaking: ‘<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">O terram
-illam beatam quæ hunc virum acciperit, hanc ingratam si
-ejicerit, miseram si amiserit.</i>’ I perfectly approve the verdict,
-but the manner in which you opposed it I shall always
-consider as one of the most splendid monuments of genius,
-literature, and eloquence.</p>
-
-<p class="sigright">
-“Yours ever, <span class="in4"><span class="smcap">T. Erskine</span>.”</span>
-</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>And Robert Hall, scarcely inferior to Erskine
-as a judge of what is worthy of praise in
-human speech, wrote to his old friend concerning
-it: “I speak my sincere sentiments when
-I say, it is the most extraordinary assemblage
-of whatever is most refined in address, profound
-in political and moral speculation, and
-masterly eloquence, which it has ever been my
-lot to read in the English language.”</p>
-
-<p>A few months after the defence of Peltier,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">183</span>
-Mackintosh received the honor of knighthood
-and was appointed Recorder at Bombay. This
-position took him to India, where he passed
-the next eight years, devoting his time to the
-duties of the bench and the pursuits of literature.
-On his return in 1812 to England he
-entered the House of Commons, and for four
-years was a firm supporter of the Whigs. In
-1818 he accepted the Professorship of Law and
-General Politics in the newly established Haileybury
-College, a position which he filled with
-great distinction until 1827.</p>
-
-<p>During all this period he did not relax his
-interest in the active affairs of government,
-nor in the questions that agitated the House of
-Commons. His speeches in the House, of
-which he continued to be a member, were remarkable
-for their wisdom; though perhaps
-not for their persuasive power. He will be remembered,
-not so much for his parliamentary
-services, as for his unrivalled plea in behalf of
-free speech, and for the many essays on philosophical
-and political subjects with which he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">184</span>
-enriched the literature of our language. Until
-his death in 1832, he was one of the most
-highly esteemed writers of the “Encyclopedia
-Britannica” and of the <cite>Edinburgh Review</cite>.</p>
-
-<hr />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">185</span></p>
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="SIR_JAMES_MACKINTOSH2">SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH.<br />
-
-<span class="subhead">IN BEHALF OF FREE SPEECH, ON THE TRIAL OF
-JEAN PELTIER,<br />ACCUSED OF LIBELLING
-NAPOLEON BONAPARTE;<br />COURT
-OF KING’S BENCH,<br />FEBRUARY
-21, 1803.</span></h2>
-</div>
-
-<p class="sal"><span class="smcap">Gentlemen of the Jury</span>:</p>
-
-<p>The time is now come for me to address you
-in behalf of the unfortunate gentleman who is
-the defendant on this record.</p>
-
-<p>I must begin with observing, that though I
-know myself too well to ascribe to any thing
-but to the kindness and good nature of my
-learned friend, the Attorney-General, the unmerited
-praises which he has been pleased to
-bestow on me, yet, I will venture to say, he has
-done me no more than justice in supposing that
-in this place, and on this occasion, where I exercise
-the functions of an inferior minister of
-justice, an inferior minister, indeed, but a minister
-of justice still, I am incapable of lending
-myself to the passions of any client, and that I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">186</span>
-will not make the proceedings of this court
-subservient to any political purpose. Whatever
-is respected by the laws and government
-of my country shall, in this place, be respected
-by me. In considering matters that deeply interest
-the quiet, the safety, and the liberty of
-all mankind, it is impossible for me not to feel
-warmly and strongly; but I shall make an
-effort to control my feelings however painful
-that effort may be, and where I can not speak
-out but at the risk of offending either sincerity
-or prudence, I shall labor to contain myself
-and be silent.</p>
-
-<p>I can not but feel, gentlemen, how much I
-stand in need of your favorable attention and
-indulgence. The charge which I have to defend
-is surrounded with the most invidious
-topics of discussion; but they are not of my
-seeking. The case and the topics which are inseparable
-from it are brought here by the
-prosecutor. Here I find them, and here it is
-my duty to deal with them, as the interests of
-Mr. Peltier seem to me to require. He, by his
-choice and confidence, has cast on me a very
-arduous duty, which I could not decline, and
-which I can still less betray. He has a right
-to expect from me a faithful, a zealous, and a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">187</span>
-fearless defence; and this his just expectation,
-according to the measure of my humble abilities,
-shall be fulfilled. I have said a fearless defence.
-Perhaps that word was unnecessary in
-the place where I now stand. Intrepidity in
-the discharge of professional duty is so common
-a quality at the English bar, that it has, thank
-God, long ceased to be a matter of boast or
-praise. If it had been otherwise, gentlemen, if
-the bar could have been silenced or overawed
-by power, I may presume to say that an
-English jury would not this day have been met
-to administer justice. Perhaps I need scarce
-say that my defence <em>shall</em> be fearless, in a place
-where fear never entered any heart but that of
-a criminal. But you will pardon me for having
-said so much when you consider who the real
-parties before you are.</p>
-
-<p>I. Gentlemen, the real prosecutor is the master
-of the greatest empire the civilized world
-ever saw. The defendant is a defenceless, proscribed
-exile. He is a French Royalist, who
-fled from his country in the autumn of 1792,
-at the period of that memorable and awful emigration,
-when all the proprietors and magistrates
-of the greatest civilized country in Europe
-were driven from their homes by the daggers<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">188</span>
-of assassins; when our shores were covered,
-as with the wreck of a great tempest, with
-old men, and women, and children, and ministers
-of religion, who fled from the ferocity of
-their countrymen as before an army of invading
-barbarians.</p>
-
-<p>The greatest part of these unfortunate exiles,
-of those, I mean, who have been spared by
-the sword, who have survived the effect of pestilential
-climates or broken hearts, have been
-since permitted to revisit their country. Though
-despoiled of their all, they have eagerly embraced
-even the sad privilege of being suffered
-to die in their native land.</p>
-
-<p>Even this miserable indulgence was to be
-purchased by compliances, by declarations of
-allegiance to the new government, which some
-of these suffering Royalists deemed incompatible
-with their consciences, with their dearest
-attachments, and their most sacred duties.
-Among these last is Mr. Peltier. I do not presume
-to blame those who submitted, and I
-trust you will not judge harshly of those who
-refused. You will not think unfavorably of a
-man who stands before you as the voluntary
-victim of his loyalty and honor. If a revolution
-(which God avert) were to drive us into<span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">189</span>
-exile, and to cast us on a foreign shore, we
-should expect, at least, to be pardoned by generous
-men, for stubborn loyalty and unseasonable
-fidelity to the laws and government of our
-fathers.</p>
-
-<p>This unfortunate gentleman had devoted a
-great part of his life to literature. It was the
-amusement and ornament of his better days.
-Since his own ruin and the desolation of his
-country, he has been compelled to employ it as
-a means of support. For the last ten years he
-has been engaged in a variety of publications
-of considerable importance; but since the peace
-he has desisted from serious political discussion,
-and confined himself to the obscure journal
-which is now before you; the least calculated,
-surely, of any publication that ever issued
-from the press, to rouse the alarms of the most
-jealous government; which will not be read in
-England, because it is not written in our language;
-which cannot be read in France, because
-its entry into that country is prohibited by a
-power whose mandates are not very supinely
-enforced, nor often evaded with impunity;
-which can have no other object than that of
-amusing the companions of the author’s principles
-and misfortunes, by pleasantries and sarcasms<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">190</span>
-on their victorious enemies. There is,
-indeed, gentlemen, one remarkable circumstance
-in this unfortunate publication; it is the
-only, or almost the only, journal which still
-dares to espouse the cause of that royal and
-illustrious family which but fourteen years ago
-was flattered by every press and guarded by
-every tribunal in Europe. Even the court in
-which we are met affords an example of the
-vicissitudes of their fortune. My learned friend
-has reminded you that the last prosecution
-tried in this place, at the instance of a French
-Government, was for a libel on that magnanimous
-princess, who has since been butchered
-in sight of her palace.</p>
-
-<p>I do not make these observations with any
-purpose of questioning the general principles
-which have been laid down by my learned
-friend. I must admit his right to bring before
-you those who libel any government recognized
-by his Majesty, and at peace with the British
-empire. I admit that, whether such a government
-be of yesterday, or a thousand years old;
-whether it be a crude and bloody usurpation,
-or the most ancient, just, and paternal authority
-upon earth, we are <em>here</em> equally bound, by his
-Majesty’s recognition, to protect it against<span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">191</span>
-libellous attacks. I admit that if, during our
-usurpation, Lord Clarendon had published his
-history at Paris, or the Marquess of Montrose
-his verses on the murder of his sovereign, or
-Mr. Cowley his “Discourse on Cromwell’s Government,”
-and if the English ambassador had
-complained, the President De Molí, or any
-other of the great magistrates who then adorned
-the Parliament of Paris, however reluctantly,
-painfully, and indignantly, might have been
-compelled to have condemned these illustrious
-men to the punishment of libellers. I say this
-only for the sake of bespeaking a favorable attention
-from your generosity and compassion
-to what will be feebly urged in behalf of my
-unfortunate client, who has sacrificed his fortune,
-his hopes, his connections, his country, to
-his conscience; who seems marked out for destruction
-in this his last asylum.</p>
-
-<p>That he still enjoys the security of this
-asylum, that he has not been sacrificed to the
-resentment of his powerful enemies, is perhaps
-owing to the firmness of the King’s government.
-If that be the fact, gentlemen; if his
-Majesty’s ministers have resisted applications
-to expel this unfortunate gentleman from England,
-I should publicly thank them for their<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">192</span>
-firmness, if it were not unseemly and improper
-to suppose that they could have acted otherwise—to
-thank an English Government for not
-violating the most sacred duties of hospitality;
-for not bringing indelible disgrace on their
-country.</p>
-
-<p>But be that as it may, gentlemen, he now
-comes before you, perfectly satisfied that an
-English jury is the most refreshing prospect
-that the eye of accused innocence ever met in
-a human tribunal; and he feels with me the
-most fervent gratitude to the Protector of empires
-that, surrounded as we are with the ruins
-of principalities and powers, we still continue
-to meet together, after the manner of our
-fathers, to administer justice in this, her ancient
-sanctuary.</p>
-
-<p>II. There is another point of view in which
-this case seems to me to merit your most serious
-attention. I consider it as the first of a
-long series of conflicts between the greatest
-power in the world and the only free press remaining
-in Europe. No man living is more
-thoroughly convinced than I am that my learned
-friend, Mr. Attorney-General, will never degrade
-his excellent character; that he will never
-disgrace his high magistracy by mean compliances,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">193</span>
-by an immoderate and unconscientious
-exercise of power; yet I am convinced, by circumstances
-which I shall now abstain from discussing,
-that I am to consider this as the first
-of a long series of conflicts between the greatest
-power in the world and the only free press now
-remaining in Europe. Gentlemen, this distinction
-of the English press is new; it is a proud
-and melancholy distinction. Before the great
-earthquake of the French Revolution had swallowed
-up all the asylums of free discussion on
-the continent, we enjoyed that privilege, indeed,
-more fully than others; but we did not
-enjoy it exclusively. In great monarchies, the
-press has always been considered as too formidable
-an engine to be intrusted to unlicensed
-individuals. But in other continental countries,
-either by the laws of the state, or by long
-habits of liberality and toleration in magistrates,
-a liberty of discussion has been enjoyed,
-perhaps sufficient for most useful purposes. It
-existed, in fact, where it was not protected by
-law; and the wise and generous connivance of
-governments was daily more and more secured
-by the growing civilization of their subjects. In
-Holland, in Switzerland, in the imperial towns
-of Germany, the press was either legally or<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">194</span>
-practically free. Holland and Switzerland are
-no more; and since the commencement of this
-prosecution, fifty imperial towns have been
-erased from the list of independent states by
-one dash of the pen. Three or four still preserve
-a precarious and trembling existence. I
-will not say by what compliances they must
-purchase its continuance. I will not insult the
-feebleness of states, whose unmerited fall I do
-most bitterly deplore.</p>
-
-<p>These governments were in many respects
-one of the most interesting parts of the ancient
-system of Europe. Unfortunately for the repose
-of mankind, great states are compelled, by
-regard to their own safety, to consider the military
-spirit and martial habits of their people as
-one of the main objects of their policy. Frequent
-hostilities seem almost the necessary condition
-of their greatness; and, without being
-great, they cannot long remain safe. Smaller
-states exempted from this cruel necessity—a
-hard condition of greatness, a bitter satire on
-human nature—devoted themselves to the arts
-of peace, to the cultivation of literature, and the
-improvement of reason. They became places
-of refuge for free and fearless discussion; they
-were the impartial spectators and judges of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">195</span>
-various contests of ambition which from time
-to time disturbed the quiet of the world. They
-thus became peculiarly qualified to be the organs
-of that public opinion which converted
-Europe into a great republic, with laws which
-mitigated, though they could not extinguish,
-ambition; and with moral tribunals to which
-even the most despotic sovereigns were amenable.
-If wars of aggrandizement were undertaken,
-their authors were arraigned in the face
-of Europe. If acts of internal tyranny were
-perpetrated, they resounded from a thousand
-presses throughout all civilized countries.
-Princes, on whose will there were no legal
-checks, thus found a moral restraint which the
-most powerful of them could not brave with
-absolute impunity. They acted before a vast
-audience, to whose applause or condemnation
-they could not be utterly indifferent. The very
-constitution of human nature, the unalterable
-laws of the mind of man, against which all
-rebellion is fruitless, subjected the proudest
-tyrants to this control. No elevation of power,
-no depravity however consummate, no innocence
-however spotless, can render man wholly
-independent of the praise or blame of his fellow-men.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">196</span>
-These governments were, in other respects,
-one of the most beautiful and interesting parts
-of our ancient system. The perfect security of
-such inconsiderable and feeble states, their undisturbed
-tranquillity amid the wars and conquests
-that surrounded them, attested, beyond
-any other part of the European system, the
-moderation, the justice, the civilization to which
-Christian Europe had reached in modern times.
-Their weakness was protected only by the
-habitual reverence for justice, which, during a
-long series of ages, had grown up in Christendom.
-This was the only fortification which
-defended them against those mighty monarchs
-to whom they offered so easy a prey. And till
-the French Revolution, this was sufficient.
-Consider, for instance, the situation of the Republic
-of Geneva. Think of her defenceless
-position, in the very jaws of France; but think
-also of her undisturbed security, of her profound
-quiet, of the brilliant success with which
-she applied to industry and literature, while
-Louis XIV. was pouring his myriads into Italy
-before her gates. Call to mind, if ages crowded
-into years have not effaced them from your
-memory, that happy period, when we scarcely
-dreamed more of the subjugation of the feeblest<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">197</span>
-republic of Europe than of the conquest
-of her mightiest empire; and tell me if you can
-imagine a spectacle more beautiful to the moral
-eye, or a more striking proof of progress in the
-noblest principles of true civilization.</p>
-
-<p>These feeble states—these monuments of the
-justice of Europe—the asylum of peace, of industry,
-and of literature—the organs of public
-reason—the refuge of oppressed innocence and
-persecuted truth, have perished with those ancient
-principles which were their sole guardians
-and protectors. They have been swallowed up
-by that fearful convulsion which has shaken
-the uttermost corners of the earth. They are
-destroyed and gone forever.</p>
-
-<p>One asylum of free discussion is still inviolate.
-There is still one spot in Europe where
-man can freely exercise his reason on the most
-important concerns of society, where he can
-boldly publish his judgment on the acts of
-the proudest and most powerful tyrants. The
-press of England is still free. It is guarded by
-the free constitution of our forefathers. It is
-guarded by the hearts and arms of Englishmen,
-and I trust I may venture to say that if it be
-to fall, it will fall only under the ruins of the
-British empire.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">198</span>
-It is an awful consideration, gentlemen.
-Every other monument of European liberty
-has perished. That ancient fabric which has
-been gradually reared by the wisdom and virtue
-of our fathers still stands. It stands,
-thanks be to God! solid and entire; but it
-stands alone, and it stands amid ruins.</p>
-
-<p>In these extraordinary circumstances, I repeat
-that I must consider this as the first of a
-long series of conflicts between the greatest
-power in the world and the only free press remaining
-in Europe. And I trust that you will
-consider yourselves as the advanced guard of
-liberty, as having this day to fight the first
-battle of free discussion against the most formidable
-enemy that it ever encountered. You
-will therefore excuse me, if, on so important an
-occasion, I remind you, at more length than is
-usual, of those general principles of law and
-policy on this subject which have been handed
-down to us by our ancestors.</p>
-
-<p>III. Those who slowly built up the fabric of
-our laws never attempted any thing so absurd
-as to define, by any precise rule, the obscure
-and shifting boundaries which divide libel from
-history or discussion. It is a subject which,
-from its nature, admits neither rules nor definitions.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">199</span>
-The same words may be perfectly innocent
-in one case, and most mischievous and
-libellous in another. A change of circumstances,
-often apparently slight, is sufficient to make the
-whole difference. These changes, which may
-be as numerous as the variety of human intentions
-and conditions, can never be foreseen nor
-comprehended under any legal definitions, and
-the framers of our law have never attempted to
-subject them to such definitions. They left
-such ridiculous attempts to those who call
-themselves philosophers, but who have, in fact,
-proved themselves most grossly and stupidly
-ignorant of that philosophy which is conversant
-with human affairs.</p>
-
-<p>The principles of the law of England on the
-subject of political libel are few and simple,
-and they are necessarily so broad, that, without
-a habitually mild administration of justice, they
-might encroach materially on the liberty of
-political discussion. Every publication which
-is intended to vilify either our own government
-or the government of any foreign state in amity
-with this kingdom, is, by the law of England,
-a libel.</p>
-
-<p>To protect political discussion from the danger
-to which it would be exposed by these wide<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">200</span>
-principles, if they were severely and literally enforced,
-our ancestors trusted to various securities—some
-growing out of the law and constitution,
-and others arising from the character of
-those public officers whom the constitution had
-formed, and to whom its administration is committed.
-They trusted, in the first place, to the
-moderation of the legal officers of the crown,
-educated in the maxims and imbued with the
-spirit of a free government; controlled by the
-superintending power of Parliament, and peculiarly
-watched in all political prosecutions by the
-reasonable and wholesome jealousy of their fellow-subjects.
-And I am bound to admit that,
-since the glorious era of the Revolution [1688],
-making due allowance for the frailties, the faults,
-and the occasional vices of men, they have, upon
-the whole, not been disappointed. I know
-that in the hands of my learned friend that
-trust will never be abused. But, above all, they
-confided in the moderation and good sense of
-juries, popular in their origin, popular in their
-feelings, popular in their very prejudices, taken
-from the mass of the people, and immediately returning
-to that mass again. By these checks and
-temperaments they hoped that they should
-sufficiently repress malignant libels, without endangering<span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">201</span>
-that freedom of inquiry which is the
-first security of a free state. They knew that
-the offence of a political libel is of a very peculiar
-nature, and differing in the most important
-particulars from all other crimes. In all other
-cases, the most severe execution of law can
-only spread terror among the guilty; but in
-political libels it inspires even the innocent
-with fear. This striking peculiarity arises from
-the same circumstances which make it impossible
-to define the limits of libel and innocent
-discussion; which make it impossible for a man
-of the purest and most honorable mind to be
-always perfectly certain whether he be within the
-territory of fair argument and honest narrative,
-or whether he may not have unwittingly over
-stepped the faint and varying line which bounds
-them. But, gentlemen, I will go further. This
-is the only offence where severe and frequent
-punishments not only intimidate the innocent,
-but deter men from the most meritorious acts,
-and from rendering the most important services
-to their country. They indispose and disqualify
-men for the discharge of the most sacred duties
-which they owe to mankind. To inform the
-public on the conduct of those who administer
-public affairs requires courage and conscious security.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">202</span>
-It is always an invidious and obnoxious
-office; but it is often the most necessary of all
-public duties. If it is not done boldly, it can
-not be done effectually, and it is not from
-writers trembling under the uplifted scourge
-that we are to hope for it.</p>
-
-<p>There are other matters, gentlemen, to which
-I am desirous of particularly calling your attention.
-These are the circumstances in the condition
-of this country which have induced our
-ancestors, at all times, to handle with more than
-ordinary tenderness that branch of the liberty
-of discussion which is applied to the conduct of
-foreign states. The relation of this kingdom
-to the commonwealth of Europe is so peculiar,
-that no history, I think, furnishes a parallel to
-it. From the moment in which we abandoned
-all projects of continental aggrandizement, we
-could have no interest respecting the state of the
-continent but the interests of national safety
-and of commercial prosperity. The paramount
-interest of every state—that which comprehends
-every other—is <em>security</em>. And the security of
-Great Britain requires nothing on the continent
-but the uniform observance of justice. It requires
-nothing but the inviolability of ancient
-boundaries and the sacredness of ancient possessions,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">203</span>
-which, on these subjects, is but another
-form of words for justice. A nation which
-is herself shut out from the possibility of continental
-aggrandizement can have no interest
-but that of preventing such aggrandizement in
-others. We can have no interest of safety but
-the preventing of those encroachments which,
-by their immediate effects, or by their example,
-may be dangerous to ourselves. We can have
-no interest of ambition respecting the continent.
-So that neither our real nor even our apparent
-interests can ever be at variance with justice.</p>
-
-<p>As to commercial prosperity, it is, indeed,
-a secondary, but it is still a very important,
-branch of our national interests, and it requires
-nothing on the continent of Europe but the
-<em>maintenance of peace</em>, as far as the paramount
-interest of security will allow.<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">29</a></p>
-
-<p>Whatever ignorant or prejudiced men may
-affirm, no war was ever gainful to a commercial
-nation. Losses may be less in some, and incidental
-profits may arise in others. But no such profits
-ever formed an adequate compensation for
-the waste of capital and industry which all wars
-must produce. Next to peace, our commercial
-greatness depends chiefly on the affluence and
-prosperity of our neighbors. A commercial<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">204</span>
-nation has, indeed, the same interest in the
-wealth of her neighbors that a tradesman has
-in the wealth of his customers. The prosperity
-of England has been chiefly owing to the general
-progress of civilized nations in the arts and
-improvements of social life. Not an acre of land
-has been brought into cultivation in the wilds of
-Siberia or on the shores of the Mississippi which
-has not widened the market for English industry.
-It is nourished by the progressive prosperity
-of the world, and it amply repays all that
-it has received. It can only be employed
-in spreading civilization and enjoyment over
-the earth; and by the unchangeable laws of
-nature, in spite of the impotent tricks of government,
-it is now partly applied to revive the industry
-of those very nations who are the loudest
-in their senseless clamors against its pretended
-mischiefs. If the blind and barbarous project
-of destroying English prosperity could be accomplished,
-it could have no other effect than that of
-completely beggaring the very countries who
-now stupidly ascribe their own poverty to our
-wealth.</p>
-
-<p>Under these circumstances, gentlemen, it became
-the obvious policy of the kingdom, a
-policy in unison with the maxims of a free<span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">205</span>
-government, to consider with great indulgence
-even the boldest animadversions of our political
-writers on the ambitious projects of foreign
-states.</p>
-
-<p>Bold, and sometimes indiscreet as these animadversions
-might be, they had, at least, the
-effect of warning the people of their danger,
-and of rousing the national indignation against
-those encroachments which England has almost
-always been compelled in the end to resist by
-arms. Seldom, indeed, has she been allowed to
-wait till a provident regard to her own safety
-should compel her to take up arms in defence of
-others. For as it was said by a great orator of
-antiquity that no man ever was the enemy of
-the republic who had not first declared war
-against him, so I may say, with truth, that no
-man ever meditated the subjugation of Europe
-who did not consider the destruction or the
-corruption of England as the first condition of
-his success.<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">30</a> If you examine history, you
-will find that no such project was ever formed
-in which it was not deemed a necessary preliminary,
-either to detach England from the
-common cause or to destroy her. It seems as
-if all the conspirators against the independence
-of nations might have sufficiently taught other<span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">206</span>
-states that England is their natural guardian
-and protector; that she alone has no interest
-but their preservation; that her safety is interwoven
-with their own. When vast projects
-of aggrandizement are manifested, when
-schemes of criminal ambition are carried into
-effect, the day of battle is fast approaching for
-England. Her free government can not engage
-in dangerous wars without the hearty and
-affectionate support of her people. A state
-thus situated can not without the utmost peril
-silence those public discussions which are to
-point the popular indignation against those who
-must soon be enemies. In domestic dissensions,
-it may sometimes be the supposed interest
-of government to overawe the press. But
-it never can be even their apparent interest
-when the danger is purely foreign. A king of
-England who, in such circumstances, should
-conspire against the free press of this country,
-would undermine the foundations of his own
-throne; he would silence the trumpet which is
-to call his people round his standard.</p>
-
-<p>Our ancestors never thought it their policy
-to avert the resentment of foreign tyrants by
-enjoining English writers to contain and repress
-their just abhorrence of the criminal enterprises<span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">207</span>
-of ambition. This great and gallant
-nation, which has fought in the front of every
-battle against the oppressors of Europe, has
-sometimes inspired fear, but, thank God, she
-has never felt it. We know that they are our
-real, and must soon become our declared
-foes.<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">31</a> We know that there can be no cordial
-amity between the natural enemies and the independence
-of nations. We have never
-adopted the cowardly and short-sighted
-policy of silencing our press, of breaking the
-spirit and palsying the hearts of our people for
-the sake of a hollow and precarious truce. We
-have never been base enough to purchase a
-short respite from hostilities by sacrificing the
-first means of defence; the means of rousing
-the public spirit of the people, and directing
-it against the enemies of their country and of
-Europe.</p>
-
-<p>Gentlemen, the public spirit of a people, by
-which I mean the whole body of those affections
-which unites men’s hearts to the commonwealth,
-is in various countries composed of various elements,
-and depends on a great variety of causes.
-In this country, I may venture to say that it
-mainly depends on the vigor of the popular
-parts and principles of our government, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">208</span>
-that the spirit of liberty is one of its most important
-elements. Perhaps it may depend less
-on those advantages of a free government
-which are most highly estimated by calm reason,
-than upon those parts of it which delight the
-imagination and flatter the just and natural
-pride of mankind. Among these we are certainly
-not to forget the political rights which are not
-uniformly withheld from the lowest classes, and
-the continual appeal made to them in public
-discussion, upon the greatest interests of the
-state. These are undoubtedly among the
-circumstances which endear to Englishmen
-their government and their country, and animate
-their zeal for that glorious institution
-which confers on the meanest of them a sort of
-distinction and nobility unknown to the most
-illustrious slaves who tremble at the frown of
-a tyrant. Whoever were unwarily and rashly
-to abolish or narrow these privileges, which it
-must be owned are liable to great abuse, and to
-very specious objections, might perhaps discover
-too late that he had been dismantling his
-country. Of whatever elements public spirit is
-composed, it is always and everywhere the
-chief defensive principle of a state. It is perfectly
-distinct from courage. Perhaps no nation,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">209</span>
-certainly no European nation, ever perished
-from an inferiority of courage. And undoubtedly
-no considerable nation was ever subdued
-in which the public affections were sound and
-vigorous. It is public spirit which binds together
-the dispersed courage of individuals and
-fastens it to the commonwealth. It is, therefore,
-as I have said, the chief defensive principle
-of every country. Of all the stimulants which
-arouse it into action, the most powerful among
-us is certainly the press; and it can not be restrained
-or weakened without imminent danger
-that the national spirit may languish, and that
-the people may act with less zeal and affection
-for their country in the hour of its danger.</p>
-
-<p>These principles, gentlemen, are not new—they
-are genuine old English principles. And
-though in our days they have been disgraced and
-abused by ruffians and fanatics, they are in themselves
-as just and sound as they are liberal; and
-they are the only principles on which a free state
-can be safely governed. These principles I have
-adopted since I first learned the use of reason,
-and I think I shall abandon them only with life.</p>
-
-<p>IV. On these principles I am now to call
-your attention to the libel with which this unfortunate
-gentleman is charged. I heartily<span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">210</span>
-rejoice that I concur with the greatest part of
-what has been said by my learned friend, Mr.
-Attorney-General, who has done honor even to
-his character by the generous and liberal principles
-which he has laid down. He has told
-you that he does not mean to attack <em>historical
-narrative</em>. He has told you that he does not
-mean to attack <em>political discussion</em>. He has told
-you, also, that he does not consider every intemperate
-word into which a writer, fairly
-engaged in narration or reasoning, might be
-betrayed, as a fit subject for prosecution. The
-essence of the crime of libel consists in the
-malignant mind which the publication proves,
-and from which it flows. A jury must be convinced,
-before they find a man guilty of libel,
-that his intention was to libel, not to state
-facts which he believed to be true, or reasonings
-which he thought just. My learned friend
-has told you that the liberty of history includes
-the right of publishing those observations
-which occur to intelligent men when
-they consider the affairs of the world; and
-I think he will not deny that it includes also
-the right of expressing those sentiments which
-all good men feel on the contemplation of extraordinary
-examples of depravity or excellence.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">211</span>
-One more privilege of the historian, which
-the Attorney-General has not named, but to
-which his principles extend, it is now my duty to
-claim on behalf of my client; I mean the right
-of <em>republishing</em>, <em>historically</em>, those documents,
-whatever their original malignity may be, which
-display the character and unfold the intentions
-of governments, or factions, or individuals. I
-think my learned friend will not deny that a
-historical compiler may innocently republish in
-England the most insolent and outrageous declaration
-of war ever published against his Majesty
-by a foreign government. The intention
-of the original author was to vilify and degrade
-his Majesty’s government; but the intention of
-the compiler is only to gratify curiosity, or, perhaps,
-to rouse just indignation against the
-calumniator whose production he republishes.
-His intention is not libellous—his republication
-is therefore not a libel. Suppose this to be the
-case with Mr. Peltier. Suppose him to have
-republished libels with a merely historical intention.
-In that case it can not be pretended that
-he is more a libeller than my learned friend, Mr.
-Abbott [junior counsel for the crown, afterward
-Lord Tenterden], who read these supposed
-libels to you when he opened the pleadings.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">212</span>
-Mr. Abbott republished them to you,
-that you might know and judge of them—Mr.
-Peltier, on the supposition I have made, also
-republished them, that the public might know
-and judge of them.</p>
-
-<p>You already know that the general plan of
-Mr. Peltier’s publication was to give a picture
-of the cabals and intrigues, of the hopes and
-projects, of French factions. It is undoubtedly
-a natural and necessary part of this plan to republish
-all the serious and ludicrous pieces
-which these factions circulate against each
-other. The ode ascribed to Chenier or Ginguené
-I do really believe to have been written
-at Paris, to have been circulated there, to have
-been there attributed to some one of these
-writers, to have been sent to England as their
-work, and as such to have been republished
-by Mr. Peltier. But I am not sure that I have
-evidence to convince you of the truth of this.
-Suppose that I have not; will my learned friend
-say that my client must necessarily be convicted?
-I, on the contrary, contend that it is
-for my learned friend to show that it is not an
-historical republication. Such it professes to
-be, and that profession it is for him to disprove.
-The profession may indeed be “a mask”; but<span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">213</span>
-it is for my friend to pluck off the mask, and
-expose the libeller, before he calls upon you for
-a verdict of guilty.</p>
-
-<p>If the general lawfulness of such republications
-be denied, then I must ask Mr. Attorney-General
-to account for the long impunity which
-English newspapers have enjoyed. I must request
-him to tell you why they have been suffered
-to republish all the atrocious official and
-unofficial libels which have been published
-against his Majesty for the last ten years, by
-the Brissots, the Marats, the Dantons, the
-Robespierres, the Barrères, the Talliens, the
-Reubells, the Merlins, the Barrases, and all that
-long line of bloody tyrants who oppressed their
-own country and insulted every other which
-they had not the power to rob. What must be
-the answer? That the English publishers were
-either innocent, if their motive was to gratify
-curiosity, or praiseworthy, if their intention was
-to rouse indignation against the calumniators of
-their country. If any other answer be made, I
-must remind my friend of a most sacred part of
-his duty—the duty of protecting the honest
-fame of those who are absent in the service of
-their country. Within these few days we have
-seen, in every newspaper in England, a publication,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">214</span>
-called the Report of Colonel Sebastiani, in
-which a gallant British officer [General Stuart]
-is charged with writing letters to procure assassination.
-The publishers of that infamous report
-are not, and will not be prosecuted, because
-their intention is not to libel General Stuart.
-On any other principle, why have all our newspapers
-been suffered to circulate that most
-atrocious of all libels against the king and people
-of England, which purports to be translated
-from the <cite>Moniteur</cite> of the ninth of August, 1802—a
-libel against a prince who has passed through
-a factious and stormy reign of forty-three years,
-without a single imputation on his personal
-character; against a people who have passed
-through the severest trials of national virtue
-with unimpaired glory—who alone in the world
-can boast of mutinies without murder, of triumphant
-mobs without massacre, of bloodless
-revolutions, and of civil wars unstained by a
-single assassination. That most impudent and
-malignant libel which charges such a king of
-such a people, not only with having hired assassins,
-but with being so shameless, so lost to all
-sense of character, as to have bestowed on these
-assassins, if their murderous projects had succeeded,
-the highest badges of public honor, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">215</span>
-rewards reserved for statesmen and heroes—the
-order of the Garter—the order which was
-founded by the heroes of Cressy and Poitiers—the
-garter which was worn by Henry the Great
-and by Gustavus Adolphus, which might now
-be worn by the hero who, on the shores of
-Syria [Sir Sydney Smith]—the ancient theatre
-of English chivalry—has revived the renown of
-English valor and of English humanity—that
-unsullied garter which a detestable libeller dares
-to say is to be paid as the price of murder.</p>
-
-<p>If I had now to defend an English publisher
-for the republication of that abominable libel,
-what must I have said in his defence? I must
-have told you that it was originally published
-by the French Government in their official
-gazette; that it was republished by the English
-editor to gratify the natural curiosity, perhaps
-to rouse the just resentment, of his English
-readers. I should have contended, and, I trust,
-with success, that his republication of a libel
-was not libellous; that it was lawful, that it was
-laudable. All that would be important, at
-least all that would be essential, in such a defence,
-I now state to you on behalf of Mr. Peltier;
-and if an English newspaper may safely
-republish the libels of the French Government<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">216</span>
-against his Majesty, I shall leave you to judge
-whether Mr. Peltier, in similar circumstances,
-may not with equal safety republish the libels
-of Chenier against the First Consul. On the
-one hand you have the assurances of Mr. Peltier
-in the context that this ode is merely a
-republication—you have also the general plan
-of his work, with which such a republication is
-perfectly consistent. On the other hand, you
-have only the suspicions of Mr. Attorney-General
-that this ode is an original production of
-the defendant.</p>
-
-<p>But supposing that you should think it his
-production, and that you should also think it a
-libel, even in that event, which I cannot anticipate,
-I am not left without a defence. The
-question will still be open, “Is it a libel on
-Bonaparte, or is it a libel on Chenier or Ginguené?”
-This is not an information for a libel
-on Chenier; and if you should think that this
-ode was produced by Mr. Peltier, and ascribed
-by him to Chenier, for the sake of covering
-that writer with the odium of Jacobinism, the
-defendant is entitled to your verdict of not
-guilty. Or if you should believe that it is ascribed
-to Jacobinical writers for the sake of
-<em>satirizing</em> a French Jacobinical faction, you<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">217</span>
-must also, in that case, acquit him. Butler puts
-seditious and immoral language into the mouth
-of rebels and fanatics; but “Hudibras” is not for
-that reason a libel on morality or government.
-Swift, in the most exquisite piece of irony in
-the world (his argument against the abolition
-of Christianity), uses the language of those shallow,
-atheistical coxcombs whom his satire was
-intended to scourge. The scheme of his irony
-required some levity and even some profaneness
-of language. But nobody was ever so dull
-as to doubt whether Swift meant to satirize
-atheism or religion. In the same manner Mr.
-Peltier, when he wrote a satire on French
-Jacobinism was compelled to ascribe to Jacobins
-a Jacobinical hatred of government. He
-was obliged, by dramatic propriety, to put
-into their mouths those anarchical maxims
-which are complained of in his ode. But it will
-be said, these incitements to insurrection are
-here directed against the authority of Bonaparte.
-This proves nothing, because they must
-have been so directed, if the ode were a satire
-on Jacobinism. French Jacobins must inveigh
-against Bonaparte, because he exercises the
-powers of government. The satirist who attacks
-them must transcribe their sentiments
-and adopt their language.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">218</span>
-I do not mean to say, gentlemen, that Mr.
-Peltier feels any affection or professes any
-allegiance to Bonaparte. If I were to say so,
-he would disown me. He would disdain to
-purchase an acquittal by the profession of sentiments
-which he disclaims and abhors. Not to
-love Bonaparte is no crime. The question is
-not whether Mr. Peltier loves or hates the First
-Consul, but whether he has put revolutionary
-language into the mouth of Jacobins with a
-view to paint their incorrigible turbulence, and
-to exhibit the fruits of Jacobinical revolutions
-to the detestation of mankind.</p>
-
-<p>Now, gentlemen, we can not give a probable
-answer to this question without previously examining
-two or three questions, on which the
-answer to the first must very much depend. Is
-there a faction in France which breathes the
-spirit, and is likely to employ the language, of
-this ode? Does it perfectly accord with their
-character and views? Is it utterly irreconcilable
-with the feelings, opinions, and wishes of
-Mr. Peltier? If these questions can be answered
-in the affirmative, then I think you
-must agree with me that Mr. Peltier does not
-in this ode speak his own sentiments, that he
-does not here vent his own resentment against<span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">219</span>
-Bonaparte; but that he personates a Jacobin,
-and adopts his language for the sake of satirizing
-his principles.</p>
-
-<p>These questions, gentlemen, lead me to those
-political discussions which, generally speaking,
-are in a court of justice odious and disgusting.
-Here, however, they are necessary, and I shall
-consider them only as far as the necessities of
-this cause require.</p>
-
-<p>Gentlemen, the French Revolution—I must
-pause after I have uttered words which present
-such an overwhelming idea. But I have not
-now to engage in an enterprise so far beyond
-my force as that of examining and judging that
-tremendous Revolution. I have only to consider
-the character of the factions which it
-must have left behind it.</p>
-
-<p>The French Revolution began with great and
-fatal errors. These errors produced atrocious
-crimes. A mild and feeble monarchy was succeeded
-by bloody anarchy, which very shortly
-gave birth to military despotism. France, in a
-few years, described the whole circle of human
-society.<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">32</a></p>
-
-<p>All this was in the order of nature. When
-every principle of authority and civil discipline,
-when every principle which enables some men<span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">220</span>
-to command, and disposes others to obey, was
-extirpated from the mind by atrocious theories,
-and still more atrocious examples; when every
-old institution was trampled down with contumely,
-and every new institution covered in its
-cradle with blood; when the principle of property
-itself, the sheet-anchor of society, was annihilated;
-when in the persons of the new
-possessors, whom the poverty of language
-obliges us to call proprietors, it was contaminated
-in its source by robbery and murder, and
-it became separated from that education and
-those manners, from that general presumption
-of superior knowledge and more scrupulous
-probity which form its only liberal titles to respect;
-when the people were taught to despise
-every thing old, and compelled to detest every
-thing new, there remained only one principle
-strong enough to hold society together, a principle
-utterly incompatible, indeed, with liberty
-and unfriendly to civilization itself, a tyrannical
-and barbarous principle; but in that miserable
-condition of human affairs, a refuge from still
-more intolerable evils. I mean the principle of
-military power which gains strength from that
-confusion and bloodshed in which all the other
-elements of society are dissolved, and which, in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">221</span>
-these terrible extremities, is the cement that
-preserves it from total destruction.</p>
-
-<p>Under such circumstances, Bonaparte usurped
-the supreme power in France. I say <em>usurped</em>,
-because an illegal assumption of power is a
-usurpation. But usurpation, in its strongest
-moral sense, is scarcely applicable to a period
-of lawless and savage anarchy. The guilt of
-military usurpation, in truth, belongs to the
-author of those confusions which sooner or
-later give birth to such a usurpation.</p>
-
-<p>Thus, to use the words of the historian:
-“By recent as well as all ancient example, it
-became evident that illegal violence, with whatever
-pretences it may be covered, and whatever
-object it may pursue, must inevitably end
-at last in the arbitrary and despotic government
-of a single person.” But though the government
-of Bonaparte has silenced the revolutionary
-factions, it has not and it can not have
-extinguished them. No human power could
-re-impress upon the minds of men all those
-sentiments and opinions which the sophistry
-and anarchy of fourteen years had obliterated.
-A faction must exist which breathes the spirit
-of the code now before you.</p>
-
-<p>It is, I know, not the spirit of the quiet and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">222</span>
-submissive majority of the French people.
-They have always rather suffered than acted in
-the Revolution. Completely exhausted by the
-calamities through which they have passed,
-they yield to any power which gives them repose.
-There is, indeed, a degree of oppression
-which rouses men to resistance; but there
-is another and a greater, which wholly subdues
-and unmans them. It is remarkable that
-Robespierre himself was safe till he attacked
-his own accomplices. The spirit of men of
-virtue was broken, and there was no vigor of
-character left to destroy him, but in those
-daring ruffians who were the sharers of his
-tyranny.</p>
-
-<p>As for the wretched populace who were
-made the blind and senseless instrument of so
-many crimes, whose frenzy can now be reviewed
-by a good mind with scarce any moral
-sentiment but that of compassion; that miserable
-multitude of beings, scarcely human, have
-already fallen into a brutish forgetfulness of
-the very atrocities which they themselves perpetrated.
-They have already forgotten all the
-acts of their drunken fury. If you ask one of
-them, Who destroyed that magnificent monument
-of religion and art? or who perpetrated<span class="pagenum" id="Page_223">223</span>
-that massacre? they stupidly answer, the Jacobins!
-though he who gives the answer was
-probably one of these Jacobins himself; so
-that a traveller, ignorant of French history,
-might suppose the Jacobins to be the name of
-some Tartar horde who, after laying waste
-France for ten years, were at last expelled by
-the native inhabitants. They have passed
-from senseless rage to stupid quiet. Their delirium
-is followed by lethargy.<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">33</a></p>
-
-<p>In a word, gentlemen, the great body of the
-people of France have been severely trained in
-those convulsions and proscriptions which are
-the school of slavery. They are capable of no
-mutinous, and even of no bold and manly political
-sentiments. And if this ode professed to
-paint their opinions, it would be a most unfaithful
-picture. But it is otherwise with those who
-have been the actors and leaders in the scene of
-blood. It is otherwise with the numerous agents
-of the most indefatigable, searching, multiform,
-and omnipresent tyranny that ever existed,
-which pervaded every class of society which
-had ministers and victims in every village in
-France.</p>
-
-<p>Some of them, indeed, the basest of the race,
-the sophists, the rhetors, the poet-laureates of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">224</span>
-murder, who were cruel only from cowardice
-and calculating selfishness, are perfectly willing
-to transfer their venal pens to any government
-that does not disdain their infamous support.
-These men, Republican from servility, who published
-rhetorical panegyrics on massacre, and
-who reduced plunder to a system of ethics, are
-as ready to preach slavery as anarchy. But the
-more daring, I had almost said, the more
-respectable ruffians, can not so easily bend
-their heads under the yoke. These fierce spirits
-have not lost</p>
-
-<div class="poem-container">
-<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
-<span class="i6">“The unconquerable will,<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">And study of revenge, immortal hate.”<br /></span>
-</div></div>
-</div>
-
-<p class="in0">They leave the luxuries of servitude to the mean
-and dastardly hypocrites, to the Belials and
-Mammons of the infernal faction. They pursue
-their old end of tyranny under their old pretext
-of liberty. The recollection of their unbounded
-power renders every inferior condition irksome
-and vapid; and their former atrocities form, if
-I may so speak, a sort of moral destiny which
-irresistibly impels them to the perpetration of
-new crimes. They have no place left for penitence
-on earth. They labor under the most
-awful proscription of opinion that ever was
-pronounced against human beings. They have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">225</span>
-cut down every bridge by which they could retreat
-into the society of men. Awakened from
-their dreams of Democracy, the noise subsided
-that deafened their ears to the voice of humanity;
-the film fallen from their eyes which hid
-from them the blackness of their own deeds;
-haunted by the memory of their inexpiable
-guilt; condemned daily to look on the faces of
-those whom their hands made widows and
-orphans, they are goaded and scourged by
-these <em>real</em> furies, and hurried into the tumult
-of new crimes, which will drown the cries of
-remorse, or, if they be too depraved for remorse,
-will silence the curses of mankind. Tyrannical
-power is their only refuge from the just vengeance
-of their fellow-creatures. Murder is their
-only means of usurping power. They have no
-taste, no occupation, no pursuit but power and
-blood. If their hands are tied, they must at
-least have the luxury of murderous projects.
-They have drunk too deeply of human blood
-ever to relinquish their cannibal appetite.</p>
-
-<p>Such a faction exists in France. It is numerous;
-it is powerful; and it has a principle of
-fidelity stronger than any that ever held together
-a society. <em>They are banded together by
-despair of forgiveness, by the unanimous detestation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_226">226</span>
-of mankind.</em> They are now contained
-by a severe and stern government. But they
-still meditate the renewal of insurrection and
-massacre; and they are prepared to renew the
-worst and most atrocious of their crimes, that
-crime against posterity and against human
-nature itself, that crime of which the latest
-generations of mankind may feel the fatal
-consequences—the crime of degrading and
-prostituting the sacred name of liberty.</p>
-
-<p>I must own that, however paradoxical it may
-appear, I should almost think not worse, but
-more meanly of them if it were otherwise. I
-must then think them destitute of that which I
-will not call courage, because that is the name
-of a virtue; but of that ferocious energy which
-alone rescues ruffians from contempt. If they
-were destitute of that which is the heroism of
-murderers, they would be the lowest as well as
-the most abominable of beings.</p>
-
-<p>It is impossible to conceive any thing more
-despicable than wretches who, after hectoring
-and bullying over their meek and blameless
-sovereign and his defenceless family, whom they
-kept so long in a dungeon trembling for their
-existence—whom they put to death by a slow
-torture of three years, after playing the Republican<span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">227</span>
-and the tyrannicide to women and children,
-become the supple and fawning slaves of the
-first government that knows how to wield the
-scourge with a firm hand.</p>
-
-<p>I have used the word Republican because it
-is the name by which this atrocious faction
-describes itself. The assumption of that name
-is one of their crimes. They are no more Republicans
-than Royalists. They are the common
-enemies of all human society. God forbid
-that by the use of that word I should be supposed
-to reflect on the members of those
-respectable Republican communities which did
-exist in Europe before the French Revolution.
-That Revolution has spared many monarchies,
-but it has spared no republic within the sphere
-of its destructive energy. One republic only
-now exists in the world—a republic of English
-blood, which was originally composed of Republican
-societies, under the protection of a
-monarchy, which had, therefore, no great and
-perilous change in their internal constitution
-to effect; and of which, I speak it with pleasure
-and pride, the inhabitants, even in the convulsions
-of a most deplorable separation, displayed
-the humanity as well as valor which, I trust I
-may say, they inherited from their forefathers.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">228</span>
-Nor do I mean by the use of the word “Republican”
-to confound this execrable faction
-with all those who, in the liberty of private
-speculation, may prefer a Republican form of
-government. I own that, after much reflection,
-I am not able to conceive an error more gross
-than that of those who believe in the possibility
-of erecting a republic in any of the old monarchical
-countries of Europe, who believe that in
-such countries an elective supreme magistracy
-can produce any thing but a succession of stern
-tyrannies and bloody civil wars. It is a supposition
-which is belied by all experience, and
-which betrays the greatest ignorance of the
-first principles of the constitution of society.
-It is an error which has a false appearance of
-superiority over vulgar prejudice; it is, therefore,
-too apt to be attended with the most criminal
-rashness and presumption, and too easy to be
-inflamed into the most immoral and anti-social
-fanaticism. But as long as it remains a mere
-quiescent error, it is not the proper subject of
-moral disapprobation.</p>
-
-<blockquote>
-
-<p>[Mr. Mackintosh then proceeds to a somewhat minute analysis
-of the publications of Peltier for the purpose of showing:
-first, that it was highly probable that the articles complained
-of were not written by Peltier; secondly, that if written by
-him, they purported to be not his own sentiments but those<span class="pagenum" id="Page_229">229</span>
-more or less prevalent at Paris; thirdly, that the publications
-were not untrue representations; fourthly, that there was no
-evidence of any thing more nearly approaching to malice than
-a justifiable indignation; and, fifthly, that the passages complained
-of were aimed not so much at Napoleon as at others.
-This analysis, though very ingenious, is of no interest except
-from its bearing on the verdict, and is therefore here omitted.
-After concluding his discussion of the evidence, the advocate
-proceeded.]</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>Here, gentlemen, I think I might stop, if I
-had only to consider the defence of Mr. Peltier.
-I trust that you are already convinced of his
-innocence. I fear I have exhausted your patience,
-as I am sure I have very nearly exhausted
-my own strength. But so much seems to
-me to depend on your verdict, that I can not
-forbear from laying before you some considerations
-of a more general nature.</p>
-
-<p>Believing, as I do, that we are on the eve of
-a great struggle; that this is only the first battle
-between reason and power; that you have
-now in your hands, committed to your trust,
-the only remains of free discussion in Europe,
-now confined to this kingdom—addressing you,
-therefore, as the guardians of the most important
-interests of mankind; convinced that the
-unfettered exercise of reason depends more on
-your present verdict than on any other that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_230">230</span>
-was ever delivered by a jury, I can not conclude
-without bringing before you the sentiments and
-examples of our ancestors in some of those
-awful and perilous situations by which divine
-Providence has in former ages tried the virtue
-of the English nation. We are fallen upon
-times in which it behooves us to strengthen our
-spirits by the contemplation of great examples
-of constancy. Let us seek for them in the
-annals of our forefathers.</p>
-
-<p>The reign of Queen Elizabeth may be considered
-as the opening of the modern history of
-England, especially in its connection with the
-modern system of Europe, which began about
-that time to assume the form that it preserved
-till the French Revolution. It was a very
-memorable period, of which the maxims ought
-to be engraven on the head and heart of every
-Englishman. Philip II., at the head of the
-greatest empire then in the world, was openly
-aiming at universal domination, and his project
-was so far from being thought chimerical by
-the wisest of his contemporaries that, in the
-opinion of the great Duke of Sully, he must
-have been successful, “if, by a most singular
-combination of circumstances, he had not at the
-same time been resisted by two such strong<span class="pagenum" id="Page_231">231</span>
-heads as those of Henry IV. and Queen Elizabeth.”
-To the most extensive and opulent
-dominions, the most numerous and disciplined
-armies, the most renowned captains, the greatest
-revenue, he added also the most formidable
-power over opinion. He was the chief of
-a religious faction, animated by the most atrocious
-fanaticism, prepared to second his ambition
-by rebellion, anarchy, and regicide in every
-Protestant state. Elizabeth was among the
-first objects of his hostility. That wise and
-magnanimous princess placed herself in the
-front of the battle for the liberties of Europe.
-Though she had to contend at home with his
-fanatical faction, which almost occupied Ireland,
-which divided Scotland, and was not of contemptible
-strength in England, she aided the oppressed
-inhabitants of the Netherlands in their
-just and glorious resistance to his tyranny; she
-aided Henry the Great in suppressing the abominable
-rebellion which anarchical principles had
-excited and Spanish arms had supported in
-France, and after a long reign of various fortune,
-in which she preserved her unconquered
-spirit through great calamities and still greater
-dangers, she at length broke the strength of the
-enemy, and reduced his power within such<span class="pagenum" id="Page_232">232</span>
-limits as to be compatible with the safety of
-England and of all Europe. Her only effectual
-ally was the spirit of her people, and her policy
-flowed from that magnanimous nature which in
-the hour of peril teaches better lessons than
-those of cold reason. Her great heart inspired
-her with a higher and a nobler wisdom—which
-disdained to appeal to the low and sordid passions
-of her people even for the protection of
-their low and sordid interests, because she
-knew, or, rather, she felt, that these are effeminate,
-creeping, cowardly, short-sighted passions,
-which shrink from conflict even in defence of
-their own mean objects. In a righteous cause,
-she roused those generous affections of her people
-which alone teach boldness, constancy, and
-foresight, and which are therefore the only safe
-guardians of the lowest as well as the highest
-interests of a nation. In her memorable address
-to her army, when the invasion of the
-kingdom was threatened by Spain, this woman
-of heroic spirit disdained to speak to them of
-their ease and their commerce, and their wealth
-and their safety. No! She touched another
-chord—she spoke of their national honor, of
-their dignity as Englishmen, of “the foul scorn
-that Parma or Spain <em>should dare</em> to invade the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_233">233</span>
-borders of her realms.” She breathed into
-them those grand and powerful sentiments
-which exalt vulgar men into heroes, which led
-them into the battle of their country, armed
-with holy and irresistible enthusiasm; which
-even cover with their shield all the ignoble interests
-that base calculation and cowardly
-selfishness tremble to hazard, but shrink from
-defending. A sort of prophetic instinct, if I
-may so speak, seems to have revealed to her
-the importance of that great instrument for
-rousing and guiding the minds of men, of the
-effects of which she had no experience, which,
-since her time, has changed the condition of the
-world, but which few modern statesmen have
-thoroughly understood or wisely employed;
-which is, no doubt, connected with many ridiculous
-and degrading details, which has produced,
-and which may again produce, terrible
-mischiefs, but of which the influence must, after
-all, be considered as the most certain effect and
-the most efficacious cause of civilization, and
-which, whether it be a blessing or a curse, is the
-most powerful engine that a politician can
-move—I mean the press. It is a curious fact
-that in the year of the Armada, Queen Elizabeth
-caused to be printed the first gazettes that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_234">234</span>
-ever appeared in England; and I own, when I
-consider that this mode of rousing a national
-spirit was then absolutely unexampled, that she
-could have no assurance of its efficacy from
-the precedents of former times, I am disposed
-to regard her having recourse to it as one of the
-most sagacious experiments, one of the greatest
-discoveries of political genius, one of the most
-striking anticipations of future experience that
-we find in history. I mention it to you to
-justify the opinion that I have ventured to state
-of the close connection of our national spirit with
-our press, even our periodical press. I can not
-quit the reign of Elizabeth without laying before
-you the maxims of her policy, in the language
-of the greatest and wisest of men. Lord
-Bacon, in one part of his discourse on her reign,
-speaks thus of her support of Holland: “But
-let me rest upon the honorable and continual
-aid and relief she hath given to the distressed
-and desolate people of the Low Countries—a
-people recommended unto her by ancient confederacy
-and daily intercourse, by their cause
-so innocent and their fortune so lamentable!”
-In another passage of the same discourse, he
-thus speaks of the general system of her foreign
-policy as the protector of Europe, in words<span class="pagenum" id="Page_235">235</span>
-too remarkable to require any commentary.
-“Then it is her government, and her government
-alone, that hath been the sconce and fort
-of all Europe, which hath let this proud nation
-from overrunning all. If any state be yet free
-from his factions erected in the bowels thereof;
-if there be any state wherein this faction is
-erected that is not yet fired with civil troubles;
-if there be any state under his protection that
-enjoyeth moderate liberty, upon whom he
-tyrannizeth not, it is the mercy of this renowned
-Queen that standeth between them and their
-misfortunes!”</p>
-
-<p>The next great conspirator against the rights
-of men and of nations, against the security and
-independence of all European states, against
-every kind and degree of civil and religious
-liberty, was Louis XIV. In his time the character
-of the English nation was the more remarkably
-displayed, because it was counteracted
-by an apostate and perfidious government.
-During great part of his reign, you know that
-the throne of England was filled by princes
-who deserted the cause of their country and of
-Europe, who were the accomplices and the
-tools of the oppressor of the world, who were
-even so unmanly, so unprincely, so base, as to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_236">236</span>
-have sold themselves to his ambition; who
-were content that he should enslave the continent,
-if he enabled them to enslave Great
-Britain. These princes, traitors to their own
-royal dignity and to the feelings of the generous
-people whom they ruled, preferred the condition
-of the first slave of Louis XIV. to the dignity
-of the first freemen of England<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">34</a>; yet
-even under these princes, the feelings of the
-people of this kingdom were displayed, on a
-most memorable occasion, toward foreign sufferers
-and foreign oppressors. The revocation
-of the Edict of Nantes threw fifty thousand
-French Protestants on our shores. They were
-received as I trust the victims of tyranny ever
-will be in this land, which seems chosen by
-Providence to be the home of the exile, the
-refuge of the oppressed. They were welcomed
-by a people high-spirited as well as humane,
-who did not insult them by clandestine charity;
-who did not give alms in secret lest their charity
-should be detected by the neighboring tyrants!
-No! They were publicly and nationally welcomed
-and relieved. They were bid to raise
-their voice against their oppressor, and to proclaim
-their wrongs to all mankind. They did
-so. They were joined in the cry of just indignation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_237">237</span>
-by every Englishman worthy of the
-name. It was a fruitful indignation, which soon
-produced the successful resistance of Europe
-to the common enemy. Even then, when
-Jeffreys disgraced the bench which his Lordship
-[Lord Ellenborough] now adorns, no
-refugee was deterred by prosecution for libel
-from giving vent to his feelings, from arraigning
-the oppressor in the face of all Europe.</p>
-
-<p>During this ignominious period of our history,
-a war arose on the continent, which can not
-but present itself to the mind on such an occasion
-as this; the only war that was ever made
-on the avowed ground of attacking a free press.
-I speak of the invasion of Holland by Louis
-XIV. The liberties which the Dutch gazettes
-had taken in discussing his conduct were the
-sole cause of this very extraordinary and memorable
-war, which was of short duration, unprecedented
-in its avowed principle, and most
-glorious in its event for the liberties of mankind.
-That republic, at all times so interesting
-to Englishmen—in the worst times of both
-countries our brave enemies; in their best times
-our most faithful and valuable friends—was
-then charged with the defence of a free press
-against the oppressor of Europe, as a sacred<span class="pagenum" id="Page_238">238</span>
-trust for the benefit of all generations. They
-felt the sacredness of the deposit, they felt the
-dignity of the station in which they were
-placed, and though deserted by the un-English
-government of England, they asserted their
-own ancient character, and drove out the great
-armies and great captains of the oppressor with
-defeat and disgrace. Such was the result of the
-only war hitherto avowedly undertaken to oppress
-a free country because she allowed the
-free and public exercise of reason. And may
-the God of justice and liberty grant that such
-may ever be the result of wars made by tyrants
-against the rights of mankind, especially against
-that right which is the guardian of every other!</p>
-
-<p>This war, gentlemen, had the effect of raising
-up from obscurity the great Prince of Orange,
-afterward King William III., the deliverer of
-Holland, the deliverer of England, the deliverer
-of Europe; the only hero who was distinguished
-by such a happy union of fortune
-and virtue that the objects of his ambition
-were always the same with the interests of humanity;
-perhaps the only man who devoted
-the whole of his life exclusively to the service
-of mankind. This most illustrious benefactor
-of Europe, this “hero without vanity or passion,”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_239">239</span>
-as he has been justly and beautifully
-called by a venerable prelate [Dr. Shipley,
-Bishop of St. Asaph], who never made a step
-toward greatness without securing or advancing
-liberty, who had been made Stadtholder of
-Holland for the salvation of his own country,
-was soon after made King of England for the
-deliverance of ours. When the people of
-Great Britain had once more a government
-worthy of them, they returned to the feelings
-and principles of their ancestors, and resumed
-their former station and their former duties as
-protectors of the independence of nations.
-The people of England, delivered from a government
-which disgraced, oppressed, and betrayed
-them, fought under William as their
-forefathers had fought under Elizabeth, and
-after an almost uninterrupted struggle of more
-than twenty years, in which they were often
-abandoned by fortune, but never by their own
-constancy and magnanimity, they at length
-once more defeated those projects of guilty
-ambition, boundless aggrandizement, and universal
-domination, which had a second time
-threatened to overwhelm the whole civilized
-world. They rescued Europe from being swallowed
-up in the gulf of extensive empire,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_240">240</span>
-which the experience of all times points out as
-the grave of civilization; where men are driven
-by violent conquest and military oppression
-into lethargy and slavishness of heart; where,
-after their arts have perished with the mental
-vigor from which they spring, they are plunged
-by the combined power of effeminacy and ferocity
-into irreclaimable and hopeless barbarism.
-Our ancestors established the safety of
-their own country by providing for that of
-others, and rebuilt the European system upon
-such firm foundations that nothing less than the
-tempest of the French Revolution could have
-shaken it.</p>
-
-<p>The arduous struggle was suspended for a
-short time by the peace of Ryswick. The interval
-between that treaty and the war of the
-succession enables us to judge how our ancestors
-acted in a very peculiar situation, which
-requires maxims of policy very different from
-those which usually govern states. The treaty
-which they had concluded was in truth and
-substance only a truce. The ambition and the
-power of the enemy were such as to render
-real peace impossible. And it was perfectly
-obvious that the disputed succession of the
-Spanish monarch would soon render it no<span class="pagenum" id="Page_241">241</span>
-longer practicable to preserve even the appearance
-of amity. It was desirable, however, not
-to provoke the enemy by unseasonable hostility;
-but it was still more desirable, it was absolutely
-necessary, to keep up the national
-jealousy and indignation against him who was
-soon to be their open enemy. It might naturally
-have been apprehended that the press
-might have driven into premature war a prince
-who, not long before, had been violently exasperated
-by the press of another free country.
-I have looked over the political publications of
-that time with some care, and I can venture to
-say that at no period were the system and projects
-of Louis XIV. animadverted on with
-more freedom and boldness than during that
-interval. Our ancestors and the heroic prince
-who governed them, did not deem it wise policy
-to disarm the national mind for the sake of prolonging
-a truce. They were both too proud
-and too wise to pay so great a price for so small
-a benefit.</p>
-
-<p>In the course of the eighteenth century, a
-great change took place in the state of political
-discussion in this country. I speak of the
-multiplication of newspapers. I know that
-newspapers are not very popular in this place,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_242">242</span>
-which is, indeed, not very surprising, because
-they are known here only by their faults. Their
-publishers come here only to receive the chastisement
-due to their offences. With all their
-faults, I own I can not help feeling some respect
-for whatever is a proof of the increased curiosity
-and increased knowledge of mankind; and
-I can not help thinking that if somewhat more
-indulgence and consideration were shown for
-the difficulties of their situation, it might prove
-one of the best correctives of their faults, by
-teaching them that self-respect which is the
-best security for liberal conduct toward others.
-But however that may be, it is very certain that
-the multiplication of these channels of popular
-information has produced a great change in the
-state of our domestic and foreign politics. At
-home, it has, in truth, produced a gradual revolution
-in our government. By increasing the
-number of those who exercise some sort of
-judgment on public affairs, it has created a substantial
-democracy, infinitely more important
-than those democratical forms which have been
-the subject of so much contest. So that I may
-venture to say, England has not only in its
-forms the most democratical government that
-ever existed in a great country, but in substance<span class="pagenum" id="Page_243">243</span>
-has the most democratical government that ever
-existed in any country; if the most <em>substantial</em>
-democracy be that state in which the greatest
-number of men feel an interest and express an
-opinion upon political questions, and in which
-the greatest number of judgments and wills
-concur in influencing public measures.</p>
-
-<p>The same circumstances gave great additional
-importance to our discussion of continental politics.
-That discussion was no longer, as in the
-preceding century, confined to a few pamphlets,
-written and read only by men of education and
-rank, which reached the multitude very slowly
-and rarely. In newspapers an almost daily appeal
-was made, directly or indirectly, to the
-judgment and passions of almost every individual
-in the kingdom, upon the measures and
-principles not only of his own country, but of
-every state in Europe. Under such circumstances,
-the tone of these publications, in speaking
-of foreign governments, became a matter of
-importance. You will excuse me, therefore, if,
-before I conclude, I remind you of the general
-nature of their language on one or two very
-remarkable occasions, and of the boldness with
-which they arraigned the crimes of powerful
-sovereigns, without any check from the laws<span class="pagenum" id="Page_244">244</span>
-and magistrates of their own country. This
-toleration, or rather this protection, was too
-long and uniform to be accidental. I am, indeed,
-very much mistaken if it be not founded
-upon a policy which this country can not abandon
-without sacrificing her liberty and endangering
-her national existence.</p>
-
-<p>The first remarkable instance which I shall
-choose to state of the unpunished and protected
-boldness of the English press, of the freedom
-with which they animadverted on the policy of
-powerful sovereigns, is the partition of Poland
-in 1772; an act not, perhaps, so horrible in its
-means, nor so deplorable in its immediate effects,
-as some other atrocious invasions of national
-independence which have followed it; but the
-most abominable in its general tendency and
-ultimate consequences of any political crime
-recorded in history, because it was the first
-practical breach in the system of Europe,
-the first example of atrocious robbery perpetrated
-on unoffending countries which have
-been since so liberally followed, and which has
-broken down all the barriers of habit and principle
-which guarded defenceless states. The perpetrators
-of this atrocious crime were the most
-powerful sovereigns of the continent, whose<span class="pagenum" id="Page_245">245</span>
-hostility it certainly was not the interest of
-Great Britain wantonly to incur. They were
-the most illustrious princes of their age, and
-some of them were, doubtless, entitled to the
-highest praise for their domestic administration,
-as well as for the brilliant qualities which
-distinguished their characters. But none of
-these circumstances, no dread of their resentment,
-no admiration of their talents, no consideration
-for their rank, silenced the animadversion
-of the English press. Some of you
-remember, all of you know, that a loud and
-unanimous cry of reprobation and execration
-broke out against them from every part of this
-kingdom. It was perfectly uninfluenced by any
-considerations of our own mere national interest,
-which might perhaps be supposed to be rather
-favorably affected by that partition. It was
-not, as in some other countries, the indignation
-of rival robbers, who were excluded from their
-share of the prey. It was the moral anger of
-disinterested spectators against atrocious crimes,
-the gravest and the most dignified moral principle
-which the God of justice has implanted in
-the human heart; that of which the dread is
-the only restraint on the actions of powerful
-criminals, and of which the promulgation is the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_246">246</span>
-only punishment that can be inflicted on them.
-It is a restraint which ought not to be weakened.
-It is a punishment which no good man
-can desire to mitigate.</p>
-
-<p>That great crime was spoken of as it deserved
-in England. Robbery was not described by any
-courtly circumlocutions. Rapine was not called
-policy; nor was the oppression of an innocent
-people termed <em>a mediation</em> in their domestic differences.
-No prosecutions, no criminal informations
-followed the liberty and the boldness of
-the language then employed. No complaints
-even appear to have been made from abroad,
-much less any insolent menaces against the free
-constitution which protected the English press.
-The people of England were too long known
-throughout Europe for the proudest potentate
-to expect to silence our press by such means.</p>
-
-<p>I pass over the second partition of Poland in
-1792. You all remember what passed on that
-occasion, the universal abhorrence expressed by
-every man and every writer of every party, the
-succors that were publicly preparing by large
-bodies of individuals of all parties for the
-oppressed Poles.</p>
-
-<p>I hasten to the final dismemberment of that
-unhappy kingdom, which seems to me the most<span class="pagenum" id="Page_247">247</span>
-striking example in our history of the habitual,
-principled, and deeply rooted forbearance of
-those who administer the law toward political
-writers. We were engaged in the most extensive,
-bloody, and dangerous war that this
-country ever knew; and the parties to the dismemberment
-of Poland were our allies, and
-our only powerful and effective allies. We had
-every motive of policy to court their friendship.
-Every reason of state seemed to require that we
-should not permit them to be abused and
-vilified by English writers. What was the fact?
-Did any Englishman consider himself at liberty,
-on account of temporary interests, however
-urgent, to silence those feelings of humanity
-and justice which guard the certain and permanent
-interests of all countries? You all
-remember that every voice, and every pen, and
-every press in England were unceasingly employed
-to brand that abominable robbery. You
-remember that this was not confined to private
-writers, but that the same abhorrence was expressed
-by every member of both Houses of
-Parliament who was not under the restraints of
-ministerial reserve. No minister dared even to
-blame the language of honest indignation which
-might be very inconvenient to his most important<span class="pagenum" id="Page_248">248</span>
-political projects; and I hope I may venture
-to say that no English assembly would
-have endured such a sacrifice of eternal justice
-to any miserable interest of an hour. Did the
-law-officers of the crown venture to come into
-a court of justice to complain of the boldest of
-the publications of that time? They did not.
-I do not say that they felt any disposition to
-do so. I believe that they could not. But I do
-say that if they had; if they had spoken of the
-necessity of confining our political writers to
-cold narrative and unfeeling argument; if they
-had informed the jury that they did not prosecute
-history, but invective; that if private
-writers be at all to blame great princes, it must
-be with moderation and decorum, the sound
-heads and honest hearts of an English jury
-would have confounded such sophistry, and
-declared by their verdict that moderation of
-language is a relative term, which varies with
-the subject to which it is applied; that atrocious
-crimes are not to be related as calmly and coolly
-as indifferent or trifling events; that if there be
-a decorum due to exalted rank and authority,
-there is also a much more sacred decorum due
-to virtue and to human nature, which would be
-outraged and trampled under foot by speaking<span class="pagenum" id="Page_249">249</span>
-of guilt in a lukewarm language, falsely
-called moderate.</p>
-
-<p>Soon after, gentlemen, there followed an act,
-in comparison with which all the deeds of rapine
-and blood perpetrated in the world are
-innocence itself—the invasion and destruction
-of Switzerland, that unparalleled scene of guilt
-and enormity; that unprovoked aggression
-against an innocent country, which had been
-the sanctuary of peace and liberty for three centuries;
-respected as a sort of sacred territory
-by the fiercest ambition; raised, like its own
-mountains, beyond the region of the storms
-which raged around on every side; the only
-warlike people that never sent forth armies to
-disturb their neighbors; the only government
-that ever accumulated treasures without imposing
-taxes, an innocent treasure, unstained by
-the tears of the poor, the inviolate patrimony
-of the commonwealth, which attested the virtue
-of a long series of magistrates, but which
-at length caught the eye of the spoiler, and
-became the fatal occasion of their ruin! Gentlemen,
-the destruction of such a country, “its
-cause so innocent, and its fortune so lamentable!”
-made a deep impression on the people of
-England. I will ask my learned friend, if we had<span class="pagenum" id="Page_250">250</span>
-then been at peace with the French Republic,
-whether we must have been silent spectators of
-the foulest crimes that ever blotted the name
-of humanity! whether we must, like cowards
-and slaves, have repressed the compassion and
-indignation with which that horrible scene of
-tyranny had filled our hearts? Let me suppose,
-gentlemen, that <span class="smcap">Aloys Reding</span>, who has
-displayed in our times the simplicity, magnanimity,
-and piety of ancient heroes, had, after
-his glorious struggle, honored this kingdom by
-choosing it as his refuge; that after performing
-prodigies of valor at the head of his handful of
-heroic peasants on the field of Morgarten,
-where his ancestor, the <em>Landmann Reding</em>, had,
-five hundred years before, defeated the first oppressors
-of Switzerland, he had selected this
-country to be his residence, as the chosen
-abode of liberty, as the ancient and inviolable
-asylum of the oppressed; would my learned
-friend have had the boldness to have said to
-this hero, “that he must hide his tears” (the
-tears shed by a hero over the ruins of his
-country!) “lest they might provoke the resentment
-of <em>Reubell</em> or <em>Rapinat</em>! that he must
-smother the sorrow and the anger with which
-his heart was loaded; that he must breathe his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_251">251</span>
-murmurs low, lest they might be overheard by
-the oppressor!” Would this have been the
-language of my learned friend? I know that it
-would not. I know that by such a supposition
-I have done wrong to his honorable feelings, to
-his honest English heart. I am sure that he
-knows as well as I do, that a nation which
-should <em>thus</em> receive the oppressed of other
-countries would be preparing its own neck for
-the yoke. He knows the slavery which such a
-nation would deserve, and must speedily incur.
-He knows that sympathy with the unmerited
-sufferings of others, and disinterested anger
-against their oppressors, are, if I may so speak,
-the masters which are appointed by Providence
-to teach us fortitude in the defence of our own
-rights; that selfishness is a dastardly principle,
-which betrays its charge and flies from its post;
-and that those only can defend themselves with
-valor who are animated by the moral approbation
-with which they can survey their sentiments
-toward others, who are ennobled in their own
-eyes by a consciousness that they are fighting
-for justice as well as interest; a consciousness
-which none can feel but those who have felt for
-the wrongs of their brethren. These are the
-sentiments which my learned friend would have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_252">252</span>
-felt. He would have told the hero: “Your
-confidence is not deceived; this is still that England,
-of which the history may, perhaps, have
-contributed to fill your heart with the heroism
-of liberty. Every other country of Europe is
-crouching under the bloody tyrants who destroyed
-your country. <em>We</em> are unchanged; we
-are still the same people which received with
-open arms the victims of the tyranny of Philip
-II. and Louis XIV. We shall not exercise a
-cowardly and clandestine humanity! Here we
-are not so dastardly as to rob you of your greatest
-consolation. Here, protected by a free,
-brave, and high-minded people, you may give
-vent to your indignation; you may proclaim
-the crimes of your tyrants; you may devote
-them to the execration of mankind; there is
-still one spot upon earth in which they are abhorred,
-without being dreaded!”<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">35</a></p>
-
-<p>I am aware, gentlemen, that I have already
-abused your indulgence, but I must entreat you
-to bear with me for a short time longer, to
-allow me to suppose a case which might have
-occurred, in which you will see the horrible consequences
-of enforcing rigorously principles of
-law, which I can not counteract, against political
-writers. We might have been at peace with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_253">253</span>
-France during the whole of that terrible period
-which elapsed between August, 1792 and 1794,
-which has been usually called the reign of
-Robespierre!—the only series of crimes, perhaps,
-in history which, in spite of the common
-disposition to exaggerate extraordinary facts,
-has been beyond measure underrated in public
-opinion. I say this, gentlemen, after an investigation
-which, I think, entitles me to affirm
-it with confidence. Men’s minds were oppressed
-by atrocity and the multitude of crimes; their
-humanity and their indolence took refuge in
-skepticism from such an overwhelming mass of
-guilt; and the consequence was, that all these
-unparalleled enormities, though proved not
-only with the fullest historical but with the
-strictest judicial evidence, were at the time only
-half believed, and are now scarcely half remembered.
-When these atrocities were daily perpetrating,
-of which the greatest part are as little
-known to the public in general as the campaigns
-of Genghis Khan, but are still protected from
-the scrutiny of men by the immensity of those
-voluminous records of guilt in which they are
-related, and under the mass of which they will
-be buried till some historian be found with patience
-and courage enough to drag them forth<span class="pagenum" id="Page_254">254</span>
-into light, for the shame, indeed, but for the instruction
-of mankind—when these crimes were
-perpetrating, which had the peculiar malignity,
-from the pretexts with which they were covered,
-of making the noblest objects of human
-pursuit seem odious and detestable; which have
-almost made the names of liberty, reformation,
-and humanity synonymous with anarchy, robbery,
-and murder; which thus threatened not only
-to extinguish every principle of improvement,
-to arrest the progress of civilized society, and
-to disinherit future generations of that rich
-succession which they were entitled to expect
-from the knowledge and wisdom of the present,
-but to destroy the civilization of Europe, which
-never gave such a proof of its vigor and robustness
-as in being able to resist their destructive
-power—when all these horrors were acting in
-the greatest empire of the continent, I will ask
-my learned friend, if we had then been at peace
-with France, how English writers were to
-relate them so as to escape the charge of libelling
-a friendly government?</p>
-
-<p>When Robespierre, in the debates in the
-National Convention on the mode of murdering
-their blameless sovereign, objected to the
-formal and tedious mode of murder called<span class="pagenum" id="Page_255">255</span>
-a trial, and proposed to put him immediately to
-death, “on the principles of insurrection,” because,
-to doubt the guilt of the king would be
-to doubt the innocence of the Convention; and
-if the king were not a traitor, the Convention
-must be rebels; would my learned friend have
-had an English writer state all this with
-“<em>decorum and moderation</em>?” Would he have
-had an English writer state that though this
-reasoning was not perfectly agreeable to our
-national laws, or perhaps to our national prejudices,
-yet it was not for him to make any observations
-on the judicial proceedings of foreign
-states?</p>
-
-<p>When Marat, in the same Convention, called
-for two hundred and seventy thousand heads
-must our English writers have said that the
-remedy did, indeed, seem to their weak judgment
-rather severe; but that it was not for
-them to judge the conduct of so illustrious an
-assembly as the National Convention, or the
-suggestions of so enlightened a statesman as
-M. Marat?</p>
-
-<p>When that Convention resounded with applause
-at the news of several hundred aged
-priests being thrown into the Loire, and particularly
-at the exclamation of Carrier, who<span class="pagenum" id="Page_256">256</span>
-communicated the intelligence, “What a revolutionary
-torrent is the Loire”—when these
-suggestions and narrations of murder, which
-have hitherto been only hinted and whispered
-in the most secret cabals, in the darkest caverns
-of banditti, were triumphantly uttered,
-patiently endured, and even loudly applauded
-by an assembly of seven hundred men, acting
-in the sight of all Europe, would my learned
-friend have wished that there had been found
-in England a single writer so base as to deliberate
-upon the most safe, decorous, and polite
-manner of relating all these things to his countrymen?</p>
-
-<p>When Carrier ordered five hundred children
-under fourteen years of age to be shot, the
-greater part of whom escaped the fire from their
-size, when the poor victims ran for protection
-to the soldiers, and were bayoneted clinging
-round their knees! <em>would my friend</em>—but I can
-not pursue the strain of interrogation. It is
-too much. It would be a violence which I can
-not practise on my own feelings. It would be
-an outrage to my friend. It would be an insult
-to humanity. No! Better, ten thousand
-times better, would it be that every press in
-the world were burned; that the very use of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_257">257</span>
-letters were abolished; that we were returned
-to the honest ignorance of the rudest times,
-than that the results of civilization should be
-made subservient to the purposes of barbarism,
-than that literature should be employed to
-teach a toleration for cruelty, to weaken moral
-hatred for guilt, to deprave and brutalize the
-human mind. I know that I speak my friend’s
-feelings as well as my own when I say God
-forbid that the dread of any punishment should
-ever make any Englishman an accomplice in
-so corrupting his countrymen, a public teacher
-of depravity and barbarity!</p>
-
-<p>Mortifying and horrible as the idea is, I must
-remind you, gentlemen, that even at that time,
-even under the reign of Robespierre, my learned
-friend, if he had then been attorney-general,
-might have been compelled by some most deplorable
-necessity to have come into this court
-to ask your verdict against the libellers of Barrère
-and Collot d’Herbois. Mr. Peltier then
-employed his talents against the enemies of the
-human race, as he has uniformly and bravely
-done. I do not believe that any peace, any
-political considerations, any fear of punishment
-would have silenced him. He has shown
-too much honor, and constancy, and intrepidity,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_258">258</span>
-to be shaken by such circumstances as
-these.</p>
-
-<p>My learned friend might then have been
-compelled to have filed a criminal information
-against Mr. Peltier, for “wickedly and maliciously
-intending to vilify and degrade Maximilian
-Robespierre, President of the Committee
-of Public Safety of the French Republic!” He
-might have been reduced to the sad necessity
-of appearing before you to belie his own better
-feelings, to prosecute Mr. Peltier for publishing
-those sentiments which my friend himself had
-a thousand times felt, and a thousand times expressed.
-He might have been obliged even to
-call for punishment upon Mr. Peltier for language
-which he and all mankind would forever
-despise Mr. Peltier if he were not to employ.
-Then, indeed, gentlemen, we should have seen
-the last humiliation fall on England; the tribunals,
-the spotless and venerable tribunals, of
-this free country reduced to be the ministers of
-the vengeance of Robespierre! What could
-have rescued us from this last disgrace? <em>The
-honesty and courage of a jury.</em> They would
-have delivered the judges of this country from
-the dire necessity of inflicting punishment on a
-brave and virtuous man, because he spoke<span class="pagenum" id="Page_259">259</span>
-truth of a monster. They would have despised
-the threats of a foreign tyrant, as their ancestors
-braved the power of oppression at home.</p>
-
-<p>In the court where we are now met, Cromwell
-twice sent a satirist on his tyranny to be
-convicted and punished as a libeller, and in this
-court, almost in sight of the scaffold streaming
-with the blood of his sovereign, within hearing
-of the clash of his bayonets which drove out
-Parliament with contumely, two successive juries
-rescued the intrepid satirist [Lilburne]
-from his fangs, and sent out with defeat and
-disgrace the usurper’s attorney-general from
-what he had the insolence to call <em>his</em> court!
-Even then, gentlemen, when all law and liberty
-were trampled under the feet of a military banditti;
-when those great crimes were perpetrated
-on a high place and with a high hand against
-those who were the objects of public veneration,
-which, more than any thing else, break
-their spirits and confound their moral sentiments,
-obliterate the distinctions between right
-and wrong in their understanding, and teach
-the multitude to feel no longer any reverence for
-that justice which they thus see triumphantly
-dragged at the chariot-wheels of a tyrant; even
-then, when this unhappy country, triumphant,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_260">260</span>
-indeed, abroad, but enslaved at home, had
-no prospect but that of a long succession of
-tyrants wading through slaughter to a throne—<em>even
-then, I say, when all seemed lost, the unconquerable
-spirit of English liberty survived in the
-hearts of English jurors</em>. That spirit is, I trust
-in God, not extinct; and if any modern tyrant
-were, in the drunkenness of his insolence, to
-hope to overawe an English jury, I trust and I
-believe that they would tell him: “Our ancestors
-braved the bayonets of Cromwell; we bid
-defiance to yours. <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">Contempsi Catilinæ gladios—non
-pertimescam tuos!</i>”</p>
-
-<p>What could be such a tyrant’s means of overawing
-a jury? As long as their country exists,
-they are girt round with impenetrable armor.
-Till the destruction of their country, no danger
-can fall upon them for the performance of their
-duty, and I do trust that there is no Englishman
-so unworthy of life as to desire to outlive
-England. But if any of us are condemned to
-the cruel punishment of surviving our country—if,
-in the inscrutable counsels of Providence,
-this favored seat of justice and liberty, this
-noblest work of human wisdom and virtue, be
-destined to destruction, which I shall not be
-charged with national prejudice for saying<span class="pagenum" id="Page_261">261</span>
-would be the most dangerous wound ever inflicted
-on civilization; at least let us carry with
-us into our sad exile the consolation that we
-ourselves have not violated the rights of hospitality
-to exiles—that we have not torn from
-the altar the suppliant who claimed protection
-as the voluntary victim of loyalty and conscience!</p>
-
-<p>Gentlemen, I now leave this unfortunate gentleman
-in your hands. His character and his
-situation might interest your humanity; but,
-on his behalf, I only ask justice from you. I
-only ask a favorable construction of what can
-not be said to be more than ambiguous language,
-and this you will soon be told, from the
-highest authority, is a part of justice.</p>
-
-<blockquote class="end">
-
-<p>Notwithstanding the great impression made by his speech,
-the charge of Lord Ellenborough made it necessary that the
-jury should render a verdict of guilty. In his instructions his
-Lordship said that under the law of England “any publication
-which tended to degrade, revile, and defame persons in
-considerable situations of power and dignity, in foreign countries,
-may be taken and treated as a libel, and particularly
-where it has a tendency to interrupt the pacific relations of the
-two countries.”</p>
-
-<p>The jury found Peltier guilty; but as war was almost immediately
-declared, he was not brought up for sentence, but
-was set free.</p></blockquote>
-
-<hr />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_262">262</span></p>
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="LORD_ERSKINE">LORD ERSKINE.</h2>
-</div>
-
-<p>“As an advocate in the forum, I hold him to
-be without an equal in ancient or modern
-times.” This is the judgment of the author of
-“The Lives of the Lord Chancellors,” in regard
-to Thomas, Lord Erskine. But for the
-modern student, Erskine was not merely the
-most powerful advocate that ever appealed to
-a court or a jury, but what is more important,
-he was, in a very definite sense, so closely identified
-with the establishment of certain great
-principles that lie at the foundation of modern
-social life, that a knowledge, at least, of some
-of his speeches is of no little importance. The
-rights of juries, the liberty of the press, and
-the law of treason were discussed by him not
-only with a depth of learning and a power of
-reasoning which were absolutely conclusive, but<span class="pagenum" id="Page_263">263</span>
-at the same time with a warmth and a brilliancy
-of genius which throw a peculiar charm over
-the whole of the subjects presented.</p>
-
-<p>Thomas Erskine was the youngest son of the
-Earl of Buchan, the representative of an old
-Scotch house, whose ample fortune had wasted
-away until the family was reduced to actual
-poverty. Just before the birth of the future
-Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Buchan abandoned
-his ancient seat, and with wife and children
-took up his abode in an upper flat of a
-lofty house in the old town of Edinburgh.
-Here Erskine was born on the 10th of January,
-1750. The poverty of the family made it impossible
-for him to acquire the early education
-he craved. Some years at the schools in Edinburgh,
-and a few months in the University of
-St. Andrews, completed his academic days.
-He gained a very superficial knowledge of
-Latin, and, if we may believe Lord Campbell,
-“little of Greek beyond the alphabet.” In the
-rudiments of English literature, however, he
-was well instructed; and he seems, even while<span class="pagenum" id="Page_264">264</span>
-at the university, to have acquired something
-of that freedom and nobleness of manner which
-so much distinguished him in after-life.</p>
-
-<p>The condition of the family, however, made
-it impossible for him to complete the course of
-studies at the University; and accordingly, at
-fourteen, he was placed as a midshipman in the
-navy. Here he remained four years, during
-which time he visited different parts of the
-globe, including the Indies and the English
-colonies in North America. At the end of his
-term he determined, like the elder Pitt, to enter
-the army; and, taking the whole of his small
-patrimony for the purpose, he bought an ensign’s
-commission in the Royals or First Regiment
-of Foot. Here he remained from the
-time he was eighteen till he was twenty-five.
-At twenty he was married to a lady of respectability,
-though without fortune. But this step,
-which, with most persons, would have been the
-sure precursor of poverty and obscurity, turned
-out in the case of Erskine to be a means of inspiration
-and assistance. His mind was balanced,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_265">265</span>
-and his vivacity was reduced to earnestness.
-As the regiment was in garrison, he had
-abundant leisure, and he applied himself in the
-society of his wife to the systematic study of
-the masterpieces of English literature. The
-best parts of Milton and Shakespeare he acquired
-such mastery of that he continued to know
-them by heart throughout life. It is evident
-that his attainments were beginning to attract
-attention; for, in April of 1772, Boswell speaks
-of him as dining with Johnson, and characterizes
-him as “a young officer in the regimentals
-of the Scotch Royals, who talked with a vivacity,
-fluency, and precision which attracted particular
-attention.”</p>
-
-<p>It was not until two years after this time
-that we find Erskine interested in the proceedings
-of the courts. He subsequently declared
-that, while a witness of judicial proceedings, it
-often occurred to him in the course of the argument
-on both sides how much more clearly
-and forcibly he could have presented the points
-and urged them on the minds of the jury. It<span class="pagenum" id="Page_266">266</span>
-was this consciousness that led him one day,
-while dining with Lord Mansfield, to ask: “Is
-it impossible for me to become a lawyer?”
-The answer of the Lord Chancellor did not
-utterly discourage him; and he became a student
-of Lincoln’s Inn at the age of twenty-five.
-In order to abridge his term of study, he determined
-to take a degree at one of the universities,
-as, being a nobleman’s son, he was entitled
-to do on examination and without residence. In
-fulfilment of this design, he became a member
-of Trinity College, at Cambridge, in 1776, while
-he was prosecuting his legal studies in London,
-and still holding his commission in the army as
-a means of support. In July of 1778, when in
-his twenty-ninth year, he was called to the bar.</p>
-
-<p>A singular combination of circumstances almost
-immediately brought him forward into
-great prominence. He had been retained as
-junior counsel with four eminent advocates for
-the defence of one Captain Bailie, who had disclosed
-certain important corruptions of the
-government officials in charge of Greenwich<span class="pagenum" id="Page_267">267</span>
-Hospital. Bailie was prosecuted for libel, and
-the influence of the government was so great,
-that the four older counsellors advised him to
-accept of a compromise by withdrawing the
-charges and paying the costs. From this opinion
-Erskine alone dissented. Bailie accepted
-the advice of the young advocate with enthusiasm,
-and thus threw upon him the chief responsibility
-of conducting the cause. The result
-was one of the most extraordinary triumphs
-in the history of forensic advocacy. Erskine’s
-power revealed itself, not only in the remarkable
-learning and skill which he showed in the
-general management of the cause, but in the
-clearness with which he stated the difficult
-points at issue, and the overpowering eloquence
-with which he urged his positions on the court
-and the jury. It was his first cause. He entered
-Westminster Hall in extreme poverty;
-before he left it he had received thirty retainers
-from attorneys who had been present at the
-trial. Demand for his services continued rapidly
-to increase, till within a few years his income<span class="pagenum" id="Page_268">268</span>
-from his profession amounted to 12,000
-pounds a year.</p>
-
-<p>It was but natural that so great success at
-the bar should carry Erskine, at an early day,
-into the House of Commons. In 1783 we find
-him on the benches of the House as a supporter
-of the newly formed Coalition of North
-and Fox. His fame as an orator had become
-so great, that the Coalition hoped and the Opposition
-feared much from his eloquence. But
-he disappointed his friends, and showed as soon
-as he took the floor, that his manner was
-suited to the courts and not to the legislature.
-Croly, in his “Life of George IV.,” relates that
-great expectations were raised when it was
-announced that Erskine was to make his maiden
-speech. Pitt evidently intended to reply,
-and sat, pen in hand to take notes of his
-formidable opponent’s arguments. He wrote,
-however, but a few words. As Erskine proceeded,
-his attention relaxed; and finally, with
-a contemptuous expression, he stabbed his pen
-through the paper and threw them both on the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_269">269</span>
-floor. “Erskine,” says Croly, “never recovered
-from this expression of disdain; his voice faltered,
-he struggled through the remainder of
-his speech and sank into his seat dispirited, and
-shorn of his fame.” It was not until late in
-life, that he was able to recover the equanimity
-lost on that night in the House of Commons.
-But, although after some years, he
-made several eloquent parliamentary speeches,
-all his legislative efforts were far surpassed by
-the brilliancy of his speeches in Westminster
-Hall.</p>
-
-<p>From 1783 till 1806 Erskine adhered to the
-liberal political doctrines advocated by Fox.
-His influence in Parliament, however, was not
-great, and his principal energies were expended
-in the courts; when, in 1806, Grenville and Fox
-came into power, Erskine received the highest
-award to which an English attorney can aspire.
-But, he had not long to enjoy his new honors as
-Lord Chancellor, for Pitt soon came once more
-into power. The usages of the legal profession
-in England did not allow Erskine to return to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_270">270</span>
-the bar, and therefore the remaining years of
-his life were unimportant, and not without
-disappointment. The great advocate died
-November 17, 1823, in the seventy-fourth year
-of his age.</p>
-
-<p>Erskine was not only the greatest of English
-advocates, but he is entitled to the still higher
-distinction of having given so clear an exposition
-of some of the most subtle principles at
-the basis of human liberty, as to cause them to
-be generally recognized and accepted. It was
-his lot to be much more frequently employed
-in defence, than in prosecution, and many of
-his arguments in behalf of his clients are marvels
-of clear and enlightened exposition of
-those fundamental rights on which English liberty
-is established. His speeches in behalf of
-Gordon, Hadfield, Hardy, and Tooke, constitute,
-as a whole, the clearest exposition ever
-made of the law of treason. Of the speech in
-defence of Gordon, Lord Campbell goes so far
-as to say: “Here I find not only great acuteness,
-powerful reasoning, enthusiastic zeal, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_271">271</span>
-burning eloquence, but the most masterly view
-ever given of the English law of high treason,
-the foundation of all our liberties.” The plea in
-behalf of Stockdale, commonly considered the
-finest of Erskine’s speeches, is perhaps a still
-more felicitous exposition of the principles involved
-in the law of libel. Of his speech on
-the rights of juries, Campbell says that it displayed
-“beyond all comparison the most perfect
-union of argument and eloquence ever
-exhibited in Westminster Hall.” His address
-in behalf of Paine, if somewhat less successful
-than the great efforts just alluded to, was still
-a remarkable presentation of the principles of
-free speech. But the most noteworthy characteristic
-of Erskine was that notwithstanding
-the depth and ingenuity and learning of his
-arguments, his whole presentation was so illumined
-by the glow of his genius, that his
-address was always listened to with the greatest
-popular interest. His speech in behalf of
-Hardy was seven hours in length, but the
-crowd of eager auditors not only heard him to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_272">272</span>
-the end, but “burst out into irrepressible acclamations
-which spread through the vast multitude
-outside and were repeated to a great distance
-around.”</p>
-
-<p>It need scarcely be added that for students
-of English law, Erskine is the most important
-of all the English orators.</p>
-
-<hr />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_273">273</span></p>
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<h2 id="LORD_ERSKINE2">LORD ERSKINE.<br />
-
-<span class="subhead">ON THE LIMITATIONS OF FREE SPEECH, DELIVERED<br />
-IN 1797 ON THE TRIAL OF WILLIAMS FOR<br />
-THE PUBLICATION OF PAINE’S<br />
-“AGE OF REASON.”</span></h2>
-</div>
-
-<blockquote class="end">
-
-<p>Nearly all of Erskine’s speeches were several hours in
-length and so logically constructed as not to admit of abridgment
-or excision. The more elaborate of them, therefore, are
-not adapted to the purposes of this collection. It happens,
-however, that one of the briefest of his forensic addresses was
-the one on which he himself looked with most satisfaction.
-Of the speech delivered on the prosecution of Williams he is
-reported to have said: “I would rather that all my other
-speeches were committed to the flames, or in any manner
-buried in oblivion, than that a single page of it should be
-lost.” Erskine’s “Speeches,” Am. ed., vol. i., p. 571.</p>
-
-<p>It is an interesting fact that the same great advocate who
-gave all his powers to the defence of Paine for publishing the
-“Rights of Man,” was equally earnest in the prosecution of
-Williams for the publication of the same author’s “Age of
-Reason.” But the explanation is easy. In the former work
-the author criticised, in what Erskine regarded as a legitimate
-way, the character and methods of the English Government; in
-the latter he assailed what the advocate regarded as the very
-foundations of all government and all justice. The difference<span class="pagenum" id="Page_274">274</span>
-between the two is pointed out in the following speech with a
-skill that will give the reader a good example of the orator’s
-method.</p></blockquote>
-
-<p class="sal"><span class="smcap">Gentlemen of the Jury</span>:</p>
-
-<p>The charge of blasphemy, which is put upon
-the record against the publisher of this publication,
-is not an accusation of the servants of the
-crown, but comes before you sanctioned by the
-oaths of a grand jury of the country. It stood for
-trial upon a former day; but it happening, as it
-frequently does, without any imputation upon
-the gentlemen named in the panel, that a sufficient
-number did not appear to constitute a full
-special jury, I thought it my duty to withdraw
-the cause from trial, till I could have the opportunity
-of addressing myself to you who were
-originally appointed to try it.</p>
-
-<p>I pursued this course from no jealousy of the
-common juries appointed by the laws for the
-ordinary service of the court, since my whole
-life has been one continued experience of their
-virtues; but because I thought it of great importance
-that those who were to decide upon a
-cause so very momentous to the public, should
-have the highest possible qualifications for the
-decision; that they should not only be men
-capable from their educations of forming an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_275">275</span>
-enlightened judgment, but that their situations
-should be such as to bring them within the full
-view of their country, to which, in character
-and in estimation, they were in their own
-turns to be responsible.</p>
-
-<p>Not having the honor, gentlemen, to be
-sworn for the king as one of his counsel, it has
-fallen much oftener to my lot to defend indictments
-for libels than to assist in the prosecution
-of them; but I feel no embarrassment from
-that recollection. I shall not be bound to-day
-to express a sentiment or to utter an expression
-inconsistent with those invaluable principles
-for which I have uniformly contended in
-the defence of others. Nothing that I have
-ever said, either professionally or personally,
-for the liberty of the press, do I mean to-day
-to contradict or counteract. On the contrary,
-I desire to preface the very short discourse I
-have to make to you, with reminding you that
-it is your most solemn duty to take care that it
-suffers no injury in your hands. A free and
-unlicensed press, in the just and legal sense
-of the expression, has led to all the blessings,
-both of religion and government, which Great
-Britain or any part of the world at this moment
-enjoys, and it is calculated to advance<span class="pagenum" id="Page_276">276</span>
-mankind to still higher degrees of civilization
-and happiness. But this freedom, like every
-other, must be limited to be enjoyed, and, like
-every human advantage, may be defeated by
-its abuse.</p>
-
-<p>Gentlemen, the defendant stands indicted for
-having published this book, which I have only
-read from the obligations of professional duty,
-and which I rose from the reading of with
-astonishment and disgust. Standing here with
-all the privileges belonging to the highest counsel
-for the crown, I shall be entitled to reply to
-any defence that shall be made for the publication.
-I shall wait with patience till I hear it.</p>
-
-<p>Indeed, if I were to anticipate the defence
-which I hear and read of, it would be defaming
-by anticipation the learned counsel who is to
-make it; since, if I am to collect it from a
-formal notice given to the prosecutors in the
-course of the proceedings, I have to expect that,
-instead of a defence conducted according to the
-rules and principles of English law, the foundation
-of all our laws, and the sanctions of all
-justice, are to be struck at and insulted. What
-gives the court its jurisdiction? What but the
-oath which his lordship, as well as yourselves,
-has sworn upon the gospel to fulfil? Yet in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_277">277</span>
-King’s Court, where his Majesty is himself also
-sworn to administer the justice of England—in
-the King’s Court—who receives his high authority
-under a solemn oath to maintain the
-Christian religion, as it is promulgated by God
-in the Holy Scriptures, I am nevertheless called
-upon as counsel for the prosecution to “produce
-a certain book described in the indictment to
-be the Holy Bible.” No man deserves to be
-upon the rolls, who has dared as an attorney to
-put his name to such a notice. It is an insult
-to the authority and dignity of the court of
-which he is an officer; since it calls in question
-the very foundations of its jurisdiction. If this
-is to be the spirit and temper of the defence;
-if, as I collect from that array of books which
-are spread upon the benches behind me, this
-publication is to be vindicated by an attack of
-all the truths which the Christian religion promulgates
-to mankind, let it be remembered that
-such an argument was neither suggested nor
-justified by any thing said by me on the part of
-the prosecution.</p>
-
-<p>In this stage of the proceedings, I shall call
-for reverence to the Sacred Scriptures, not from
-their merits, unbounded as they are, but from
-their authority in a Christian country; not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_278">278</span>
-from the obligations of conscience, but from the
-rules of law. For my own part, gentlemen, I
-have been ever deeply devoted to the truths of
-Christianity; and my firm belief in the Holy
-Gospel is by no means owing to the prejudices
-of education, though I was religiously educated
-by the best of parents, but has arisen from the
-fullest and most continued reflections of my
-riper years and understanding. It forms at
-this moment the great consolation of a life,
-which, as a shadow passeth away; and without
-it, I should consider my long course of health
-and prosperity, too long perhaps and too uninterrupted
-to be good for any man, only as the
-dust which the wind scatters, and rather as a
-snare than as a blessing.</p>
-
-<p>Much, however, as I wish to support the
-authority of Scripture from a reasonable consideration
-of it, I shall repress that subject for
-the present. But if the defence, as I have
-suspected, shall bring them at all into argument
-or question, I must then fulfil a duty which I
-owe not only to the court, as counsel for the
-prosecution, but to the public, and to the world,
-to state what I feel and know concerning the
-evidences of that religion, which is denied
-without being examined, and reviled without
-being understood.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_279">279</span>
-I am well aware that by the communications
-of a free press, all the errors of mankind, from
-age to age, have been dissipated and dispelled;
-and I recollect that the world, under the banners
-of reformed Christianity, has struggled through
-persecution to the noble eminence on which it
-stands at this moment, shedding the blessings
-of humanity and science upon the nations of
-the earth.</p>
-
-<p>It may be asked, then, by what means the
-reformation would have been effected, if the
-books of the reformers had been suppressed, and
-the errors of now exploded superstitions had been
-supported by the terrors of an unreformed state?
-or how, upon such principles, any reformation,
-civil or religious, can in future be effected? The
-solution is easy: let us examine what are the
-genuine principles of the liberty of the press, as
-they regard writings upon general subjects,
-unconnected with the personal reputations of
-private men, which are wholly foreign to the
-present inquiry. They are full of simplicity,
-and are brought as near perfection, by the law
-of England, as perhaps is attainable by any of
-the frail institutions of mankind.</p>
-
-<p>Although every community must establish
-supreme authorities, founded upon fixed principles,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_280">280</span>
-and must give high powers to magistrates
-to administer laws for the preservation of
-government, and for the security of those who
-are to be protected by it; yet as infallibility
-and perfection belong neither to human individuals
-nor to human establishments, it ought
-to be the policy of all free nations, as it is most
-peculiarly the principle of our own, to permit
-the most unbounded freedom of discussion,
-even to the detection of errors in the constitution
-of the very government itself; so as that
-common decorum is observed, which every state
-must exact from its subjects and which imposes
-no restraint upon any intellectual composition,
-fairly, honestly, and decently addressed to the
-consciences and understandings of men. Upon
-this principle I have an unquestionable right, a
-right which the best subjects have exercised, to
-examine the principles and structure of the
-constitution, and by fair, manly reasoning, to
-question the practice of its administrators. I
-have a right to consider and to point out errors
-in the one or in the other; and not merely to
-reason upon their existence, but to consider the
-means of their reformation.</p>
-
-<p>By such free, well-intentioned, modest, and
-dignified communication of sentiments and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_281">281</span>
-opinions, all nations have been gradually improved,
-and milder laws and purer religions
-have been established. The same principles
-which vindicate civil controversies, honestly
-directed, extend their protection to the sharpest
-contentions on the subject of religious
-faiths. This rational and legal course of improvement
-was recognized and ratified by Lord
-Kenyon as the law of England, in the late
-trial at Guildhall, where he looked back with
-gratitude to the labors of the reformers, as the
-fountains of our religious emancipation, and of
-the civil blessings that followed in their train.
-The English constitution, indeed, does not
-stop short in the toleration of religious opinions,
-but liberally extends it to practice. It
-permits every man, even publicly, to worship
-God according to his own conscience, though
-in marked dissent from the national establishment,
-so as he professes the general faith, which
-is the sanction of all our moral duties, and the
-only pledge of our submission to the system
-which constitutes the state.</p>
-
-<p>Is not this freedom of controversy and
-freedom of worship sufficient for all the purposes
-of human happiness and improvement?
-Can it be necessary for either, that the law<span class="pagenum" id="Page_282">282</span>
-should hold out indemnity to those who wholly
-abjure and revile the government of their
-country, or the religion on which it rests for its
-foundation? I expect to hear in answer to what
-I am now saying, much that will offend me.
-My learned friend, from the difficulties of his
-situation, which I know from experience how
-to feel for very sincerely, may be driven to advance
-propositions which it may be my duty
-with much freedom to reply to; and the law
-will sanction that freedom. But will not the
-ends of justice be completely answered by my
-exercise of that right, in terms that are decent,
-and calculated to expose its defects? Or will
-my argument suffer, or will public justice be
-impeded, because neither private honor and
-justice nor public decorum would endure my
-telling my very learned friend, because I differ
-from him in opinion, that he is a fool, a liar, and
-a scoundrel, in the face of the court? This is
-just the distinction between a book of free
-legal controversy, and the book which I am
-arraigning before you. Every man has a right
-to investigate, with decency, controversial
-points of the Christian religion; but no man
-consistently with a law which only exists under
-its sanctions has a right to deny its very existence,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_283">283</span>
-and to pour forth such shocking and insulting
-invectives as the lowest establishments
-in the gradation of civil authority ought not to
-be subjected to, and which soon would be borne
-down by insolence and disobedience, if they
-were.</p>
-
-<p>The same principle pervades the whole system
-of the law, not merely in its abstract
-theory, but in its daily and most applauded
-practice. The intercourse between the sexes,
-which, properly regulated, not only continues,
-but humanizes and adorns our natures, is the
-foundation of all the thousand romances, plays,
-and novels, which are in the hands of everybody.
-Some of them lead to the confirmation of every
-virtuous principle; others, though with the
-same profession, address the imagination in a
-manner to lead the passions into dangerous excesses;
-but though the law does not nicely
-discriminate the various shades which distinguish
-such works from one another, so as to
-suffer many to pass, through its liberal spirit,
-that upon principle ought to be suppressed,
-would it or does it tolerate, or does any decent
-man contend that it ought to pass by unpunished,
-libels of the most shameless obscenity,
-manifestly pointed to debauch innocence and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_284">284</span>
-to blast and poison the morals of the rising
-generation? This is only another illustration
-to demonstrate the obvious distinction between
-the work of an author who fairly exercises the
-powers of his mind in investigating the religion
-or government of any country, and him who attacks
-the rational existence of every religion or
-government, and brands with absurdity and
-folly the state which sanctions, and the obedient
-tools who cherish, the delusion. But this
-publication appears to me to be as cruel and mischievous
-in its effects, as it is manifestly illegal
-in its principles; because it strikes at the best—sometimes,
-alas!—the only refuge and consolation
-amidst the distresses and afflictions of
-the world. The poor and humble, whom it
-affects to pity, may be stabbed to the heart by
-it. They have more occasion for firm hopes
-beyond the grave than the rich and prosperous
-who have other comforts to render life delightful.
-I can conceive a distressed but virtuous
-man, surrounded by his children looking up to
-him for bread when he has none to give them;
-sinking under the last day’s labor, and unequal
-to the next, yet still, supported by confidence
-in the hour when all tears shall be wiped from
-the eyes of affliction, bearing the burden laid<span class="pagenum" id="Page_285">285</span>
-upon him by a mysterious Providence which he
-adores, and anticipating with exultation the revealed
-promises of his Creator, when he shall
-be greater than the greatest, and happier than
-the happiest of mankind. What a change in
-such a mind might be wrought by such a merciless
-publication? Gentlemen, whether these
-remarks are the overcharged declamations of
-an accusing counsel, or the just reflections of a
-man anxious for the public happiness, which is
-best secured by the morals of a nation, will be
-soon settled by an appeal to the passages in the
-work, that are selected by the indictment for
-your consideration and judgment. You are at
-liberty to connect them with every context and
-sequel, and to bestow upon them the mildest
-interpretations. [Here Mr. Erskine read and
-commented upon several of the selected passages,
-and then proceeded as follows:]</p>
-
-<p>Gentlemen, it would be useless and disgusting
-to enumerate the other passages within the
-scope of the indictment. How any man can
-rationally vindicate the publication of such a
-book, in a country where the Christian religion
-is the very foundation of the law of the land, I
-am totally at a loss to conceive, and have no
-ideas for the discussion of. How is a tribunal<span class="pagenum" id="Page_286">286</span>
-whose whole jurisdiction is founded upon the
-solemn belief and practice of what is here denied
-as falsehood, and reprobated as impiety,
-to deal with such an anomalous defence? Upon
-what principle is it even offered to the court,
-whose authority is contemned and mocked at?
-If the religion proposed to be called in question,
-is not previously adopted in belief and solemnly
-acted upon, what authority has the court to
-pass any judgment at all of acquittal or condemnation?
-Why am I now or upon any other
-occasion to submit to his lordship’s authority?
-Why am I now or at any time to address
-twelve of my equals, as I am now addressing
-you, with reverence and submission? Under
-what sanction are the witnesses to give their
-evidence, without which there can be no trial?
-Under what obligations can I call upon you, the
-jury representing your country, to administer
-justice? Surely upon no other than that you
-are sworn to administer it, under the oaths you
-have taken. The whole judicial fabric, from
-the king’s sovereign authority to the lowest
-office of magistracy, has no other foundation.
-The whole is built, both in form and substance,
-upon the same oath of every one of its ministers
-to do justice, as God shall help them hereafter.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_287">287</span>
-What God? And what hereafter? That God,
-undoubtedly, who has commanded kings to
-rule, and judges to decree justice; who has
-said to witnesses, not only by the voice of nature
-but in revealed commandments, “Thou
-shalt not bear false testimony against thy neighbor”;
-and who has enforced obedience to them
-by the revelation of the unutterable blessings
-which shall attend their observance, and the
-awful punishments which shall await upon their
-transgression.</p>
-
-<p>But it seems this is an age of reason, and the
-time and the person are at last arrived that are
-to dissipate the errors which have overspread
-the past generations of ignorance. The believers
-in Christianity are many, but it belongs
-to the few that are wise to correct their credulity.
-Belief is an act of reason, and superior
-reason may, therefore, dictate to the weak. In
-running the mind over the long list of sincere
-and devout Christians, I can not help lamenting
-that Newton had not lived to this day, to have
-had his shallowness filled up with this new flood
-of light. But the subject is too awful for irony,
-I will speak plainly and directly. Newton was
-a Christian; Newton, whose mind burst forth
-from the fetters fastened by nature upon our<span class="pagenum" id="Page_288">288</span>
-finite conceptions; Newton, whose science was
-truth, and the foundations of whose knowledge
-of it was philosophy; not those visionary and
-arrogant presumptions which too often usurp
-its name, but philosophy resting upon the basis
-of mathematics, which, like figures, can not lie;
-Newton, who carried the line and rule to the
-uttermost barriers of creation, and explored the
-principles by which all created matter exists
-and is held together. But this extraordinary
-man, in the mighty reach of his mind, overlooked,
-perhaps, the errors which a minuter investigation
-of the created things on this earth
-might have taught him. What shall then be
-said of Mr. Boyle, who looked into the organic
-structure of all matter, even to the inanimate
-substances which the foot treads upon? Such
-a man may be supposed to have been equally
-qualified with Mr. Paine to look up through
-nature to nature’s God; yet the result of all
-his contemplations was the most confirmed and
-devout belief in all which the other holds in
-contempt, as despicable and drivelling superstition.
-But this error might, perhaps, arise from
-a want of due attention to the foundations of
-human judgment, and the structure of that understanding
-which God has given us for the investigation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_289">289</span>
-of truth. Let that question be
-answered by Mr. Locke, who to the highest
-pitch of devotion and adoration was a Christian;
-Mr. Locke, whose office was to detect the
-errors of thinking, by going up to the very
-fountains of thought, and to direct into the
-proper track of reasoning the devious mind of
-man, by showing him its whole process, from
-the first perceptions of sense to the last conclusions
-of ratiocination; putting a rein upon
-false opinion, by practical rules for the conduct
-of human judgment.</p>
-
-<p>But these men, it may be said, were only
-deep thinkers, and lived in their closets, unaccustomed
-to the traffic of the world, and to the
-laws which practically regulate mankind.
-Gentlemen, in the place where we now sit to
-administer the justice of this great country, the
-never-to-be-forgotten Sir Mathew Hale presided;
-whose faith in Christianity is an exalted
-commentary upon its truth and reason, and
-whose life was a glorious example of its fruits;
-whose justice, drawn, from the pure fountain
-of the Christian dispensation, will be, in all
-ages, a subject of the highest reverence and admiration.
-But it is said by the author, that
-the Christian fable is but the tale of the more<span class="pagenum" id="Page_290">290</span>
-ancient superstitions of the world, and may be
-easily detected by a proper understanding of
-the mythologies of the heathens. Did Milton
-understand those mythologies? Was he less
-versed than Mr. Paine in the superstitions
-of the world? No; they were the subject of
-his immortal song; and, though shut out from
-all recurrence to them, he poured them forth
-from the stores of a memory rich with all that
-man ever knew, and laid them in their order as
-the illustration of real and exalted faith, the
-unquestionable source of that fervid genius
-which has cast a kind of shade upon most of
-the other works of man:</p>
-
-<div class="poem-container">
-<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
-<span class="iq">“He pass’d the flaming bounds of place and time:<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">The living throne, the sapphire blaze,<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">Where angels tremble while they gaze,<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">He saw, but blasted with excess of light,<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">Closed his eyes in endless night.”<br /></span>
-</div></div>
-</div>
-
-<p class="in0">But it was the light of the body only that was
-extinguished: “The celestial light shone inward,
-and enabled him to justify the ways of
-God to man.” The result of his thinking was,
-nevertheless, not quite the same as the author’s
-before us. The mysterious incarnation of our
-blessed Saviour, which this work blasphemes in
-words so wholly unfit for the mouth of a Christian,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_291">291</span>
-or for the ear of a court of justice, that I
-dare not, and will not, give them utterance.
-Milton made the grand conclusion of his “Paradise
-Lost,” the rest from his finished labors, and
-the ultimate hope, expectation, and glory of
-the world.</p>
-
-<div class="poem-container">
-<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
-<span class="iq">“A virgin is his mother, but his sire,<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">The power of the Most High; he shall ascend<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">The throne hereditary, and bound his reign<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">With earth’s wide bounds, his glory with the heavens.”<br /></span>
-</div></div>
-</div>
-
-<p class="in0">The immortal poet having thus put into the
-mouth of the angel the prophecy of man’s redemption,
-follows it with that solemn and beautiful
-admonition, addressed in the poem to our
-great first parent, but intended as an address to
-his posterity through all generations:</p>
-
-<div class="poem-container">
-<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
-<span class="iq">“This having learn’d, thou hast attain’d the sum<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">Of wisdom; hope no higher, though all the stars<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">Thou knew’st by name, and all th’ ethereal powers,<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">All secrets of the deep, all nature’s works,<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">Or works of God in heaven, air, earth, or sea,<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">And all the riches of this world enjoy’dst,<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">And all the rule, one empire; only add<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">Deeds to thy knowledge answerable, add faith,<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">Add virtue, patience, temperance, add love,<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">By name to come call’d charity, the soul<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">Of all the rest; then wilt thou not be loth<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">To leave this paradise, but shalt possess<br /></span>
-<span class="i0">A paradise within thee, happier far.”<br /></span>
-</div></div>
-</div>
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_292">292</span>
-Thus, you find all that is great, or wise, or
-splendid, or illustrious, amongst created things;
-all the minds gifted beyond ordinary nature, if
-not inspired by its universal Author for the advancement
-and dignity of the world, though
-divided by distant ages, and by clashing
-opinions, yet joining as it were in one sublime
-chorus, to celebrate the truths of Christianity;
-laying upon its holy altars the never-fading
-offerings of their immortal wisdom.</p>
-
-<p>Against all this concurring testimony, we find
-suddenly, from the author of this book, that
-the Bible teaches nothing but “lies, obscenity,
-cruelty, and injustice.” Had he ever read our
-Saviour’s sermon on the mount, in which the
-great principles of our faith and duty are
-summed up? Let us all but read and practise
-it, and lies, obscenity, cruelty, and injustice,
-and all human wickedness, will be banished
-from the world!</p>
-
-<p>Gentlemen, there is but one consideration
-more, which I cannot possibly omit, because I
-confess it affects me very deeply. The author
-of this book has written largely on public
-liberty and government; and this last performance,
-which I am now prosecuting, has, on that
-account, been more widely circulated, and principally<span class="pagenum" id="Page_293">293</span>
-among those who attached themselves
-from principle to his former works. This circumstance
-renders a public attack upon all
-revealed religion from such a writer infinitely
-more dangerous. The religious and moral sense
-of the people of Great Britain is the great
-anchor which alone can hold the vessel of the
-state amidst the storms which agitate the
-world; and if the mass of the people were debauched
-from the principles of religion, the
-true basis of that humanity, charity, and benevolence,
-which have been so long the national
-characteristic, instead of mixing myself, as I
-sometimes have done, in political reformations,
-I would retire to the uttermost corners of the
-earth, to avoid their agitation; and would bear,
-not only the imperfections and abuses complained
-of in our own wise establishment, but
-even the worst government that ever existed in
-the world, rather than go to the work of reformation
-with a multitude set free from all the
-charities of Christianity, who had no other
-sense of God’s existence, than was to be collected
-from Mr. Paine’s observations of nature,
-which the mass of mankind have no leisure to
-contemplate, which promises no future rewards
-to animate the good in the glorious pursuit of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_294">294</span>
-human happiness, nor punishments to deter the
-wicked from destroying it even in its birth.
-The people of England are a religious people,
-and, with the blessing of God, so far as it is in
-my power, I will lend my aid to keep them so.</p>
-
-<p>I have no objections to the most extended
-and free discussions upon doctrinal points of the
-Christian religion; and though the law of
-England does not permit it, I do not dread the
-reasonings of deists against the existence of
-Christianity itself, because, as was said by its
-divine author, if it be of God, it will stand. An
-intellectual book, however erroneous, addressed
-to the intellectual world upon so profound and
-complicated a subject, can never work the mischief
-which this indictment is calculated to repress.
-Such works will only incite the minds of
-men enlightened by study, to a closer investigation
-of a subject well worthy of their deepest
-and continued contemplation. The powers of
-the mind are given for human improvement in
-the progress of human existence. The changes
-produced by such reciprocations of lights and
-intelligencies are certain in their progression,
-and make their way imperceptibly, by the final
-and irresistible power of truth. If Christianity
-be founded in falsehood, let us become deists<span class="pagenum" id="Page_295">295</span>
-in this manner, and I am contented. But this
-book has no such object, and no such capacity;
-it presents no arguments to the wise and enlightened;
-on the contrary, it treats the faith
-and opinions of the wisest with the most shocking
-contempt, and stirs up men, without the
-advantages of learning, or sober thinking, to a
-total disbelief of every thing hitherto held
-sacred; and consequently to a rejection of all
-the laws and ordinances of the state, which
-stand only upon the assumption of their truth.</p>
-
-<p>Gentlemen, I can not conclude without expressing
-the deepest regret at all attacks upon
-the Christian religion by authors who profess to
-promote the civil liberties of the world. For
-under what other auspices than Christianity
-have the lost and subverted liberties of mankind
-in former ages been reasserted? By what
-zeal, but the warm zeal of devout Christians,
-have English liberties been redeemed and consecrated?
-Under what other sanctions, even in
-our own days, have liberty and happiness been
-spreading to the uttermost corners of the earth?
-What work of civilization, what Commonwealth
-of greatness, has this bald religion of nature ever
-established? We see, on the contrary, the nations
-that have no other light than that of nature<span class="pagenum" id="Page_296">296</span>
-to direct them, sunk in barbarism, or slaves
-to arbitrary governments; whilst under the
-Christian dispensation, the great career of the
-world has been slowly but clearly advancing,
-lighter at every step from the encouraging
-prophecies of the gospel, and leading, I trust, in
-the end to universal and eternal happiness.
-Each generation of mankind can see but a few
-revolving links of this mighty and mysterious
-chain; but by doing our several duties in our
-allotted stations, we are sure that we are fulfilling
-the purposes of our existence. You, I trust,
-will fulfil yours this day.<a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">36</a></p>
-
-<hr />
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_297">297</span></p>
-
-<div class="chapter"><div class="footnotes">
-<h2 id="ILLUSTRATIVE_NOTES" class="nobreak p1">ILLUSTRATIVE NOTES.</h2>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 1</span></a>, <a href="#Page_24">p. 24</a>.—This is not quite a correct representation
-of Mr. Erskine’s declaration. He had not said that all discussion
-was rendered “impossible,” but that the treatment of
-the French minister by the English Government was “so
-harsh and irritating as to defeat all the objects of negotiation.”
-As a matter of fact, informal communications continued to
-pass between the two governments. But the agents of France
-were not accredited, and this fact threw upon England, in the
-judgment of the French, the responsibilities of the war. See
-“Parliamentary History,” xxxiv., 1289.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 2</span></a>, <a href="#Page_30">p. 30</a>.—By the Treaty of Westphalia, which in
-1648 established the international relations of modern Europe,
-the river Scheldt was closed to general commerce out of consideration
-for Holland. It remained thus closed till 1792,
-when after the battle of Jemappes, in which the French defeated
-the Austrians and Prussians, a passage was forced by
-the French down to the sea. As England was the especial
-protector of Holland it was but natural that Pitt should protest
-against the act, not only as a national affront, but also as an
-expression of willingness on the part of France to set aside at
-her convenience the provisions of the great Treaty of Westphalia.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 3</span></a>, <a href="#Page_31">p. 31</a>.—The cause of this incorporating of Savoy
-was the famous meeting at Mantua in May of 1791. The
-Count d’Artois, brother of Louis XVI., the Emperor of Austria,
-the King of Spain, and the King of Sardinia, had secured
-an agreement from those monarchs to send 100,000 men to the
-borders of France in the hope that the French, terrified by the
-alliance and by such an army, would seek peace by submitting
-to the Bourbon king, and asking for mediation. Though the
-plan was rejected by Louis, it none the less showed the animus
-of the allies. The details may be seen in Mignet, 101, and in
-Alison, tenth ed., ii., 412. On the 27th of November, 1792,
-the National Convention annexed Savoy and erected it into a
-department of France in direct opposition to the Constitution
-of the Republic, which declared that there should be no extension
-of the territory.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_298">298</span></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 4</span></a>, <a href="#Page_32">p. 32</a>.—By the decree alluded to, the National
-Convention declared that they would “grant fraternity and
-assistance to all those peoples who wish to procure liberty.”
-They also charged their generals to give assistance to such
-peoples, and to defend all citizens that have suffered or
-are now suffering in the cause of liberty. Within ten days
-after the passage of this decree an English society sent
-delegates to Paris, who presented at the bar of the Convention
-a congratulatory address on “the glorious triumph
-of liberty on the 10th of August.” The President of the
-Convention replied in a grandiloquent speech, in which
-among other things he said: “The shades of Hampden and
-Sydney hover over your heads, and the moment without doubt
-approaches when the French will bring congratulations to the
-National Convention of Great Britain. Generous Republicans!
-your appearance among us prepares a subject for
-history!” By nonsense of this kind the French were constantly
-deceived in regard to the attitude of England.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 5</span></a>, <a href="#Page_35">p. 35</a>.—This was not the language of exaggeration.
-The decree of December 15, 1792, required the French generals
-wherever they marched, to proclaim “the abolition of all
-existing feudal and manorial rights, together with all imposts,
-contributions, and tithes”; to declare “the sovereignty of the
-people and the suppression of all existing authorities”; to convoke
-the people “for the establishment of a provisional government”;
-to place “all property of the prince and his adherents,
-and the property of all public bodies, both civil and
-religious, under the guardianship of the French Republic”; to
-provide, as soon as possible, “for the organization of a free
-and popular form of government.” This was literally a declaration
-of war against all governments then existing in Europe.
-The decree is given in the <cite>Ann. Reg.</cite>, xxxiv., 155.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_299">299</span></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 6</span></a>, <a href="#Page_39">p. 39</a>.—The orator then proceeds to explain certain
-causes of misunderstanding which are of no general interest,
-and therefore are omitted. To this explanation he also attaches
-further proofs of the hostile purpose of France, and of
-the fact that England had no connection with Austria and
-Prussia at the time of their first attack. The passage seems to
-be an unnecessary elaboration of what has gone before, and
-therefore is also omitted.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 7</span></a>, <a href="#Page_41">p. 41</a>.—This province, which, from 1305 to 1377,
-was the residence of the popes, continued till the French
-Revolution to belong to the papal government. It was seized
-in 1790, and the next year was incorporated into France, where
-it has since remained.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 8</span></a>, <a href="#Page_41">p. 41</a>.—This is not quite accurate. The meeting at
-Mantua had been held, and the monarchs of Austria, Spain,
-and Sardinia had made the agreement already described above.
-That the army of 100,000 did not march against France, was
-not from any lack of purpose on their part, but from the irresolution
-of Louis XVI.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 9</span></a>, <a href="#Page_42">p. 42</a>.—In this statement, too, Pitt was not correct.
-The Declaration of Pilnitz did not leave “the internal state
-of France to be decided by the king restored to his liberty,
-<em>with the free consent of the states of the kingdom</em>;” but asked
-that the other powers would not refuse to employ jointly with
-their Majesties the most efficacious means, in proportion to
-their forces, to place the King of France “in a state to settle in
-the most perfect liberty the foundations of a monarchical government,
-<em>equally suitable to the rights of sovereigns</em> and the
-welfare of the French.” They made no allusion to the “states
-of the kingdom”; but did indicate a purpose to settle the
-foundations of the government in accordance with the rights of
-sovereigns—that is to say, their own rights. Fox’s statement,
-given in the speech that follows, was far better. He said:
-“It was a declaration of an intention on the part of the great
-powers of Germany to interfere in the internal affairs of France,
-for the purpose of regulating the government against the opinion
-of the people.” The Declaration of Pilnitz was made by
-the Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia, in consequence
-of their belief that “the situation of the King of
-France was a matter of common interest to all the European
-sovereigns.” The Declaration is given at length in Alison,
-10th ed., ii., 415.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_300">300</span></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 10</span></a>, <a href="#Page_47">p. 47</a>.—Mr. Pitt then entered into a criticism of
-some expressions uttered by Erskine, not only in his speech,
-but also in a pamphlet on the subject of the war. The criticism
-brought out a reply and a rejoinder which are of little
-interest and are therefore omitted.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 11</span></a>, <a href="#Page_50">p. 50</a>.—Reference is here made to the fact that
-when in 1797 America demanded redress from France for her
-wanton attacks on American commerce, the officers of the
-French Government hinted that the payment of £50,000 by
-the Americans to the French officials would, perhaps, secure
-immunity. The letters proposing the payment of bribes,
-known as the “X.&nbsp;Y.&nbsp;Z. Correspondence,” were ordered published
-by Congress, in April of 1798. The English sent them
-everywhere throughout Europe to excite feeling against
-France. In America the indignation aroused by the suggestion
-of bribes gave rise to the cry: “Millions for defence, not
-a cent for tribute.”</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_301">301</span></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 12</span></a>, <a href="#Page_51">p. 51</a>.—When Bonaparte landed in Egypt in
-December, 1798, he issued a proclamation in which, among
-other things, he exhorted the teachers in the mosques to assure
-the people he had come in fulfilment of prophecy: “Since
-the world has existed it has been written, that <em>after having
-destroyed the enemies of Islamism, and destroyed the cross</em>, I
-should come, etc.” This proclamation was published in the
-<cite>Annual Register</cite>, (xi., 265,) and not unnaturally made considerable
-sensation in England and in Europe.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 13</span></a>, <a href="#Page_52">p. 52</a>.—The French in Pondicherry sent emissaries
-throughout India to organize societies for the propagation of
-their doctrines. The members were bound by a series of oaths
-to do what they could for the destruction of all kings and sovereigns.
-Hyder Ali and his son, Tippoo Saib, were the agents
-and allies of the French in accomplishing this work. These
-designs of the French in India were brought to an end by the
-victories of Lord Cornwallis.—Green’s “English People,”
-Eng. ed., iv., 332.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 14</span></a>, <a href="#Page_65">p. 65</a>.—The treaty of Campo Formio was not
-negotiated by the accredited ministers of the Directory, but
-by Napoleon on his own responsibility. In explaining his
-haste, he gave as one of his reasons the necessity of being free
-to act directly against England. In one of his confidential
-letters he said: “It is indispensable for our government to
-destroy the English monarchy”; and again: “Let us concentrate
-all our activity on the marine and destroy England;
-that done, Europe is at our feet.”—Confidential letter to the
-Directory, Oct. 18, 1797. Alison, 10th ed., iv., 347.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 15</span></a>, <a href="#Page_94">p. 94</a>.—The orator in this connection then proceeds
-to give at some length his reasons for attempting negotiations
-in 1796–97. These, as having no direct bearing on the
-subject discussed, are omitted.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 16</span></a>, <a href="#Page_113">p. 113</a>.—For an explanation of what was done at
-Mantua, see <a href="#Footnote_3">Note 3</a>, <a href="#Page_31">p. 31</a>. On the Declaration of Pilnitz,
-see <a href="#Footnote_9">Note 9</a>, <a href="#Page_42">p. 42</a>.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_302">302</span></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 17</span></a>, <a href="#Page_116">p. 116</a>.—See notes <a href="#Footnote_4">4</a> and <a href="#Footnote_5">5</a> above.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 18</span></a>, <a href="#Page_119">p. 119</a>.—Reference is here made to the Treaty of
-September 26, 1786. Mr. Fox argued this question at greater
-length in a letter to his Westminster constituents. Pitt maintained
-that England in 1800 was not bound by that treaty inasmuch
-as the French Government which had made the treaty
-had been destroyed by the Revolution. In reply Fox declared
-that if the Revolution had swept away the obligation to obey
-that treaty, it must have also swept away the obligation to
-obey all others. But Pitt had often acknowledged the binding
-force of obligations entered into before the Revolution.
-Hence the treaty of 1786 was still in force; and according to
-it the dismissal of M. Chauvelin was equivalent to a declaration
-of war.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 19</span></a>, <a href="#Page_121">p. 121</a>.—When the Duke of Brunswick invaded
-France in July of 1792 at the head of the Austrian and Prussian
-forces he published a manifesto which did every thing possible
-to put his masters in the wrong. The burden of the proclamation
-was that the French had usurped the reins of administration
-in France, had disturbed order, and had overturned the
-legitimate government. He declared that the allied armies
-were advancing “to put an end to anarchy in France, to arrest
-the attacks made on the altar and the throne, and to restore to
-the king the security and liberty he was deprived of.” The
-manifesto furthermore said that the “inhabitants of towns who
-dared to stand on the defensive would instantly be punished
-as rebels with the rigors of war, and their houses demolished
-and burned.” This proclamation not only showed that the
-principal object of the war was an interference with the
-domestic policy of France, but it greatly inflamed the animosities
-of the French against the foreign powers. See Mignet,
-“Fr. Rev.,” 143; v. Sybel, ii., 29.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 20</span></a>, <a href="#Page_128">p. 128</a>.—It is an interesting fact that in the early
-part of 1792 Louis XVI. sent to the King of England, through
-Chauvelin and Talleyrand, asking the English Government to
-intercede to prevent military action on the part of Austria and
-Prussia. Louis appears to have seen that war on the part of
-the German powers, though intended to restore Louis himself
-to his former influence and authority, could only result in evil.
-Louis said: “I consider the success of the alliance, in which I
-wish you to concur with as much zeal as I do, as of the highest
-importance; I consider it as necessary to the stability of the
-respective constitutions of our two kingdoms; and I will add
-that our union ought to command peace to Europe.” The proposal
-was rejected, and a few weeks later Louis made a second
-attempt. He now asked the King to interpose, and by his
-wisdom and influence, “avert, while there is yet time, the progress
-of the confederacy formed against France, and which
-threatens the peace, the liberties, and the happiness of
-Europe.” This proposition, too, was rejected July 8, 1792,
-and before the end of the month France was invaded by the
-allied armies under Brunswick.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_303">303</span></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 21</span></a>, <a href="#Page_134">p. 134</a>.—General Suwarroff, one of the most extraordinary
-men of his time, had begun his career in the days of
-Frederick the Great, and had contributed much to the fame of
-the Russians for bravery at the terrible battle of Kunnersdorf.
-Though now nearly seventy years of age he showed an energy
-that made his name a terror wherever he went. The campaign
-against Praga is described in Alison, 10th ed., iii., 517 <i>seq.</i>
-For his far more remarkable campaign in Italy, see vol. v.,
-45 <i>seq.</i></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 22</span></a>, <a href="#Page_142">p. 142</a>.—The allusion here is to the Treaty of
-Campo Formio, signed Oct. 17, 1797, by which a large part
-of the Venetian territory was turned over to Austria in consideration
-of the annexation of Belgium and Lombardy to
-France. The machinations by which this transaction was
-brought about were among the most perfidious in the whole
-career of Napoleon. In regard to the alleged reason of giving
-up Venice Napoleon wrote to the Directory: “I have purposely
-devised this sort of rupture, <em>in case you may wish to
-obtain five or six millions from Venice</em>.” See Lanfrey’s
-“History of Napoleon,” 1, 100; and Adams’ “Democracy
-and Monarchy in France,” 162.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_304">304</span></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 23</span></a>, <a href="#Page_143">p. 143</a>.—The Emperor Paul I., father of Alexander
-I. and of Nicholas, was probably already insane at the time Fox
-was speaking. He had long shown a meddlesome disposition,
-and had interfered with the internal concerns of nearly all
-the countries on the Baltic as well as with those of Spain. Pitt
-on a former occasion had said of him: “There is no reason,
-no ground, to fear that this magnanimous prince will ever desert
-a cause in which he is so sincerely engaged.” But in spite of
-this prediction he did desert the allies and make peace with
-France. In view of these facts Fox’s ironical use of the word
-“magnanimous” was a peculiarly forcible hit.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 24</span></a>, <a href="#Page_151">p. 151</a>.—In this conjecture Fox was not far from
-the language subsequently used by Napoleon. He said: “I
-then had need of war; a treaty of peace which should have
-derogated from that of Campo Formio, and annulled the creations
-of Italy, would have withered every imagination.” He
-then went on to say that Pitt’s answer was what he desired, that
-“it could not have been more favorable,” and that “with such
-impassioned antagonists he would have no difficulty in reaching
-the highest destinies.”—“Memoirs,” i., 33.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 25</span></a>, <a href="#Page_151">p. 151</a>.—In a speech some months before, Pitt had
-defended his action in regard to Holland by saying that “<em>from
-his knowledge of human nature</em>” he knew that it must be successful.
-It proved a lamentable failure, hence the irony of
-Fox’s emphasis.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 26</span></a>, <a href="#Page_154">p. 154</a>.—Virgil (Æneid, xi., 313): “Valor has
-done its utmost; we have fought with the embodied force of
-all the realm.”
-</p>
-<p>
-Pitt on a former occasion had said that the contest ought
-never to be abandoned till the people of England could adopt
-those words as their own.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_305">305</span></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 27</span></a>, <a href="#Page_167">p. 167</a>. References to Washington were made
-from the fact that news of his death, which occurred December
-14, 1799, had just been received in England. In the passage
-that follows, Fox alludes to the time Dundas was a
-member of North’s Government, and when it was the fashion
-of his party to denounce Washington.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 28</span></a>, <a href="#Page_170">p. 170</a>.—The facts as stated by Fox were only too
-true, and the British officer alluded to was none other than
-Lord Nelson. The insurgents had capitulated, on condition
-that persons and property should be guaranteed, and the articles
-had been signed by the Cardinal, the Russian commander,
-and even by Captain Foote, the commander of the British
-force. Nelson arrived with his fleet about thirty-six hours
-afterward, and at once ordered that the terms of the treaty be
-annulled. The garrison were taken out under the pretence of
-carrying the treaty into effect, and then were turned over as
-rebels to the vengeance of the Sicilian Court. Southey in his
-“Life of Nelson” (vi., 177) calls this deplorable event “A
-stain upon the memory of Nelson and the honor of England.
-To palliate it would be in vain; to justify it would be wicked;
-there is no alternative for one who will not make himself a
-participator in guilt, but to record the disgraceful story with
-sorrow and with shame.” Lady Hamilton, with whom Nelson
-was infatuated and who was the favorite of the Queen of
-Naples, was the one who led Nelson into committing the outrage.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 29</span></a>, <a href="#Page_253">p. 253</a>.—The following portion of Mackintosh’s
-argument has been universally admired. It was the common
-impression in England that if the prosecution of Peltier was
-not energetically carried on by the government, Napoleon
-would make the fact a pretext for declaring war. The advocate
-probably supposed that the jury shared that belief. He
-did not deem it wise to allude to it directly, but he proceeds
-with great ingenuity and force to dwell on the advantages of
-peace, and then having established a coincidence of feeling between
-himself and the jury, he leads them to see that peace can
-in no way be so effectually promoted as by sustaining the cause
-of justice throughout Europe, and that in no way can justice
-be so surely maintained as by substantial freedom of the
-press.</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_306">306</span></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 30</span></a>, <a href="#Page_205">p. 205</a>.—Reference is made to the boastful question
-of Cicero, in the second oration against Anthony: “How
-has it happened, Conscript Fathers, that no one has come out
-as an enemy of the Republic, for these last twenty years, who
-did not at the same time declare war against me?”</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 31</span></a>, <a href="#Page_207">p. 207</a>.—Mackintosh was wise enough to see that
-war was inevitable. It came sooner, perhaps, than he anticipated.
-Only a few days after the conclusion of the trial, the King
-sent a message to Parliament that war could not be avoided,
-and hostilities broke out May 18, 1803. Under the circumstances
-the impressive passage that follows on “the public
-spirit of a people” was peculiarly suggestive.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 32</span></a>, <a href="#Page_219">p. 219</a>.—The passage on the inherent characteristics
-of the French Revolution is peculiarly interesting, as showing
-how completely Mackintosh had changed his opinion since he
-wrote the Reply to Burke. Probably he is the more explicit,
-because his pamphlet was so universally known.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 33</span></a>, <a href="#Page_223">p. 223</a>.—This passage and what follows on the
-rule of the Jacobins is the one of which Madame de Staël
-wrote in her “Ten Years of Exile”: “It was during this
-stormy period of my existence that I received the speech of
-Mr. Mackintosh; and there read his description of a Jacobin,
-who had made himself an object of terror during the Revolution
-to children, women, and old men, and who was now
-bending himself double under the rod of the Corsican, who
-tears from him, even to the last atom, that liberty for which he
-pretended to have taken arms. This <i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">morceau</i> of the finest
-eloquence touched me to my very soul; it is the privilege of
-superior writers sometimes unwittingly to solace the unfortunate
-in all countries and at all times. France was in a state
-of such complete silence around me, that this voice, which
-suddenly responded to my soul, seemed to me to come down
-from heaven—<em>it came from a land of liberty</em>.”</p>
-
-<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_307">307</span></p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 34</span></a>, <a href="#Page_236">p. 236</a>.—Allusion is made to the fact, humiliating
-to every Englishman, that Charles II. and James II. both
-received pensions from Louis XIV.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 35</span></a>, <a href="#Page_252">p. 252</a>.—Aloys Reding, the Burgomaster of
-Schweitz, in 1798, put himself at the head of a few followers
-and attacked the invading French with so much energy that
-he broke their ranks and repelled them. Afterward, however,
-he was overpowered and taken prisoner. After being
-held in prison for a time he was driven into exile.</p></div>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="fnanchor"><span class="smcap">Note 36</span></a>, <a href="#Page_296">p. 296</a>.—At the conclusion of the trial, the jury
-without hesitation found a verdict of “guilty.” But the subsequent
-history of the case is one of peculiar interest. The
-judges decided that the defendant Williams should suffer one
-year’s imprisonment at hard labor. But before sentence was to
-be pronounced, Erskine declined to go forward with the case
-and returned his retainer. The reason was never made public
-till Erskine himself explained the matter in a letter written in
-February of 1819 to the editor of Howell’s “State Trials.”
-He was one day walking in a narrow lane in London when he
-felt something pulling him by the coat, and, turning around, he
-saw a woman in tears and emaciated with disease and sorrow.
-The woman pulled him forward into a miserable hovel where in
-a room not more than ten or twelve feet square were two children
-with confluent small-pox and the wretched man whom he
-had just convicted. The man was engaged in sewing up little,
-religious tracts, which had been his principal employment in his
-trade. Erskine was convinced that Williams had been urged
-to the publication of Paine by his extreme poverty and not by
-his will. The advocate was so deeply affected by what he saw
-and heard that he believed the cause for which he had pleaded
-would best be subserved by the policy of mercy. He wrote to
-the Society in whose behalf he had been retained by the crown
-urging such a course. His advice, after due consideration,
-was rejected, whereupon Erskine abandoned the case and
-returned the fees he had received. The incident is an admirable
-illustration of the great advocate’s high ideal of professional
-ethics. Erskine’s letter is given in Howell’s “State
-Trials,” xxvi., 714; and, in part, in Erskine’s “Works,” i.,
-592.</p>
-</div>
-</div></div>
-
-<div class="chapter"><div class="transnote">
-<h2 id="Transcribers_Notes" class="nobreak p1">Transcriber’s Notes</h2>
-
-<p>Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant
-preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.</p>
-
-<p>Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced
-quotation marks corrected.</p>
-
-<p>Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained; occurrences
-of inconsistent hyphenation have not been changed.</p>
-</div></div>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-<pre>
-
-
-
-
-
-End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Representative British Orations with
-Introductions and Explanatory Notes,, by Charles Kendall Adams
-
-*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK REPRESENTATIVE BRITISH ORATIONS, VOL 2 ***
-
-***** This file should be named 55490-h.htm or 55490-h.zip *****
-This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
-        http://www.gutenberg.org/5/5/4/9/55490/
-
-Produced by Larry B. Harrison, Charlie Howard, and the
-Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
-(This file was produced from images generously made
-available by The Internet Archive)
-
-Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
-be renamed.
-
-Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
-law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
-so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
-States without permission and without paying copyright
-royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
-of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
-concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
-and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
-specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
-eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook
-for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,
-performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given
-away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks
-not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the
-trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
-
-START: FULL LICENSE
-
-THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
-PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
-
-To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
-distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
-(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
-Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
-www.gutenberg.org/license.
-
-Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-
-1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
-and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
-(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
-the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
-destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
-possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
-Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
-by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
-person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
-1.E.8.
-
-1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
-used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
-agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
-things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
-paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
-agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
-
-1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
-Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
-of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
-works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
-States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
-United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
-claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
-displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
-all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
-that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
-free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
-works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
-Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
-comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
-same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
-you share it without charge with others.
-
-1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
-what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
-in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
-check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
-agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
-distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
-other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
-representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
-country outside the United States.
-
-1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
-
-1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
-immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
-prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
-on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
-phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
-performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
-
-  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
-  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
-  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
-  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
-  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
-  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
-  are located before using this ebook.
-
-1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
-derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
-contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
-copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
-the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
-redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
-either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
-obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
-trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
-with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
-must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
-additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
-will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
-posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
-beginning of this work.
-
-1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
-work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
-
-1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
-electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
-prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
-active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm License.
-
-1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
-compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
-any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
-to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
-other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
-version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site
-(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
-to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
-of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
-Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
-full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
-
-1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
-performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
-unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
-access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-provided that
-
-* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
-  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
-  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
-  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
-  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
-  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
-  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
-  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
-  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
-  Literary Archive Foundation."
-
-* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
-  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
-  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
-  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
-  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
-  works.
-
-* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
-  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
-  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
-  receipt of the work.
-
-* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
-  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
-
-1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
-are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
-from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The
-Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
-trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
-
-1.F.
-
-1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
-effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
-works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
-Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
-contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
-or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
-intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
-other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
-cannot be read by your equipment.
-
-1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
-of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
-liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
-fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
-LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
-PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
-TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
-LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
-INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
-DAMAGE.
-
-1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
-defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
-receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
-written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
-received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
-with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
-with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
-lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
-or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
-opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
-the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
-without further opportunities to fix the problem.
-
-1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
-in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
-OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
-LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
-
-1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
-warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
-damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
-violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
-agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
-limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
-unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
-remaining provisions.
-
-1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
-trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
-providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
-accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
-production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
-including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
-the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
-or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
-additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
-Defect you cause.
-
-Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
-electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
-computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
-exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
-from people in all walks of life.
-
-Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
-assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
-goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
-remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
-and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
-generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
-Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
-www.gutenberg.org
-
-
-
-Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
-
-The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
-501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
-state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
-Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
-number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
-U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
-
-The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
-mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its
-volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
-locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
-Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
-date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
-official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
-
-For additional contact information:
-
-    Dr. Gregory B. Newby
-    Chief Executive and Director
-    gbnewby@pglaf.org
-
-Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
-spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
-increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
-freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
-array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
-($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
-status with the IRS.
-
-The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
-charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
-States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
-considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
-with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
-where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
-DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
-state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
-have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
-against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
-approach us with offers to donate.
-
-International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
-any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
-outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
-
-Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
-methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
-ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
-donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.
-
-Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
-freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
-distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
-volunteer support.
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
-editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
-the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
-necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
-edition.
-
-Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
-facility: www.gutenberg.org
-
-This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
-including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
-subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
-
-
-
-</pre>
-
-</body>
-</html>
diff --git a/old/55490-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/55490-h/images/cover.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index 2502b49..0000000
--- a/old/55490-h/images/cover.jpg
+++ /dev/null
author	nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org>	2025-02-07 15:22:59 -0800
committer	nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org>	2025-02-07 15:22:59 -0800
commit	71f22c4a9b2a91311333a178955615031e444067 (patch)
tree	d835d90dd2ce20ca67552581245860bc22d59cb0 /old/55490-h
parent	4e0460feb49023757a13e7176c703b336be54f81 (diff)