diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/55490-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/55490-0.txt | 6391 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 6391 deletions
diff --git a/old/55490-0.txt b/old/55490-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 2da49cf..0000000 --- a/old/55490-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6391 +0,0 @@ -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) - - - - - - - - - -Uniform with British Orations - - - AMERICAN ORATIONS, to illustrate American Political - History, edited, with introductions, by ALEXANDER - JOHNSTON, Professor of Jurisprudence and Political - Economy in the College of New Jersey. 3 vols., 16 mo, - $3.75. - - PROSE MASTERPIECES FROM MODERN ESSAYISTS, comprising - single specimen essays from IRVING, LEIGH HUNT, - LAMB, DE QUINCEY, LANDOR, SYDNEY SMITH, THACKERAY, - EMERSON, ARNOLD, MORLEY, HELPS, KINGSLEY, - RUSKIN, LOWELL, CARLYLE, MACAULAY, FROUDE, FREEMAN, - GLADSTONE, NEWMAN, LESLIE STEPHEN. 3 vols., 16 mo, - bevelled boards, $3.75 and $4.50. - - G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, NEW YORK AND LONDON - - - - - REPRESENTATIVE - BRITISH ORATIONS - - WITH - INTRODUCTIONS AND EXPLANATORY NOTES - - BY - CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS - - _Videtisne quantum munus sit oratoris historia?_ - —CICERO, _DeOratore_, ii, 15 - - - ✩✩ - - - NEW YORK & LONDON - G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS - The Knickerbocker Press - 1884 - - - - - COPYRIGHT - G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS - 1884. - - - Press of - G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS - New York - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - PAGE - WILLIAM PITT 1 - - WILLIAM PITT 19 - ON HIS REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE WITH NAPOLEON BONAPARTE; HOUSE - OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 3, 1800. - - CHARLES JAMES FOX 99 - - CHARLES JAMES FOX 108 - ON THE REJECTION OF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE’S OVERTURES OF - PEACE; HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 3, 1800. - - SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH 176 - - SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH 185 - IN BEHALF OF FREE SPEECH. ON THE TRIAL OF JEAN PELTIER, - ACCUSED OF LIBELLING NAPOLEON BONAPARTE; COURT OF - KING’S BENCH, FEBRUARY 21, 1803. - - LORD ERSKINE 262 - - LORD ERSKINE 273 - ON THE LIMITATIONS OF FREE SPEECH; DELIVERED IN 1797 - ON THE TRIAL OF WILLIAMS FOR PUBLICATION OF PAINE’S - “AGE OF REASON.” - - - - -WILLIAM PITT. - - -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 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.” - -At the university, where he remained nearly seven years, his course -of study was carried on 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 _the whole of whose works_ 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. 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. - -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 -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. - -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 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. - -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 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 _first_ 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, Fox replied, “He is so already.” This was at the -proudest era of British eloquence, and when Pitt was but twenty-two. - -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 -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 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] 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. - - [A] Fox’s Speeches, II., 39. - -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 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. - -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.” - -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 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. - -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 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. - -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 ministers were dismissed with like -evidences of disfavor. - -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 _permanency_ -of such an administration would be only laughing at and insulting -them”; and he alluded to “the _youth_ 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. 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. - -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 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. - -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 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. - -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.” - - - - -WILLIAM PITT. - -ON HIS REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE WITH NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. HOUSE OF COMMONS, -FEBRUARY 3, 1800. - - - 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; and Lord Grenville - closed the correspondence with a reaffirmation of his Government’s - former position. - - 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. - - -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 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. - -Under this impression, I trust the House will forgive me, if I -endeavor, as far as I am able, to 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, 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. - -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 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.[1] - -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. - -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 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. - -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 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. - -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 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. - -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, 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.” - -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, 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. - -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 _could_ not acknowledge the -minister of that government; but now that the French 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 _principle_ on -which they acted is clear and intelligible, and is a decisive instance -in favor of the proposition which I have maintained. - -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.[2] On the same arbitrary notion they -soon afterward discovered that sacred law of nature which made the -Rhine 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.[3] 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 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.[4] - -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 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. - -What would have been the effect of admitting 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. - -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 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.[5] - -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, 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 -_terms_ this decree is a denunciation of war against all governments; -if in _practice_ 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? - -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 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 _then_ at war; and that proposal was _rejected_ by a great -majority, by that very Convention from whom we were desired to receive -these explanations as satisfactory. - -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 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! - -It was then, after receiving such explanations as these, after -receiving the ultimatum of 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?[6] * * * - -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, 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. - -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. - -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. 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.[7] 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,[8] 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 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 -_dismemberment_ of France.[9] - -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 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. - -War was then declared against Austria, a war which I state to be a war -of aggression on the 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. - -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. - -Here finishes the history of the wars in which France was engaged -antecedent to the war with Great Britain, with Holland, and with -Spain. 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. - -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. - -I have now enumerated all the nations at war 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. - -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; and, finally, in transferring that very republic, -the creature and vassal of France, to the dominion of Austria. * * * - -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.”[10] * * * - -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 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, -“_if indeed she had ever worn it_.” 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 sound of war, and marked out as a land of Goshen, safe and -untouched in the midst of surrounding calamities. - -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. - -Sir, much as I have now stated, I have not finished the catalogue. -America, almost as much as Switzerland, perhaps, contributed to 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.[11] - -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 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 _the sect of the Messiah_.[12] - -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 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, _Citizen_ Tippoo![13] - -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, 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 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. - -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 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 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. - -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? - -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 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. - -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 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: - -“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. - -“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 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. - -“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. - -“Judging, then, only from notorious facts, the French Government must -be considered as exhibiting nothing fixed, neither in respect to men -nor to things.” - -Here, then, is the picture, down to the period of the last revolution, -of the state of France under all its successive governments! - -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? - -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 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 _one man_, 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, 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? - -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 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? - -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 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. - -Such was the second attempt to effect _general pacification_—a proposal -for a _separate_ 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 -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: “_The kingdom of Great Britain and the French Republic -can not exist together._”[14] 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. - -So much for his disposition toward general 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. - -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 -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. - -If we carry our views out of France, and look at the dreadful catalogue -of all the breaches of 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. - -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 proclamation, dated from Milan, 20th of May, -and signed “_Bonaparte_,” 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 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. - -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 two hundred thousand sequins. -After this he was permitted, on the payment of a farther sum, to sign -another treaty, called a _convention de sureté_, which of course was -only the prelude to the repetition of similar exactions. - -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. - -In the proceedings toward Genoa we shall find not only a continuance -of the same system of extortion and plunder, in violation of the -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 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 _they had no share in the insurrection_; 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. 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.” - -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 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. - -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: - - -BONAPARTE TO THE REPUBLIC OF VENICE. - - “It is to deliver the finest country in Europe _from the iron - yoke of the proud house of Austria_, 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 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. - - “BONAPARTE.” - -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 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 “_that iron yoke of the proud -house of Austria_,” to deliver it from which he had represented in his -first proclamation to be the great object of all his operations. - -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, 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 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? - -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 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 _may have been -reserved to some happier period_. - -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? 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? _He appeals to his fortune_; -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 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? - -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, 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? - -Hitherto I have spoken only of the reliance 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? - -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, if -they once prevail, must render the exercise of all the authority under -the Constitution impossible, and leave no appeal but to the sword. - -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 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. - -What, then, is the inference I draw from all that I have now stated? -Is it that we will in _no case_ 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 “_experience and the evidence -of facts_” before we are convinced that such a 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 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. - -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. - -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 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 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? - -In the exhausted and impoverished state of France, it seems for a time -impossible that any system but that of robbery and confiscation, 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 -system cannot long oppose an effectual resistance. - -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 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? - -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. - -Cur igitur pacem nolo? Quia infida est, quia periculosa, quia esse non -potest.[15] - -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. - -As little need I recall the attention of the House to the additional -means of action which we have derived from the great augmentation 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. - -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 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 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 -_unalterable_ 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 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. - - - - -CHARLES JAMES FOX. - - -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 of culture and fashion -allied itself to the cause of its own political party. - -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 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.” - -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. - -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. - -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 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.” - -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 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. - -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 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. - -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.” - -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 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. - - - - -CHARLES JAMES FOX. - -ON THE REJECTION OF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE’S OVERTURES OF PEACE; HOUSE OF -COMMONS, FEBRUARY 3, 1800. - - - The following speech was delivered immediately after that of Pitt on - the same subject, given above, and in answer to it. - - -MR. SPEAKER: - -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. - -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 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 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 _same identical -grounds_? 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 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. - -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, 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. - -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; 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[16] 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 -_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. -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, “_then, and in that case_, 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 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. -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. - -“Oh! but the decree of the 19th of November, 1792.”[17] 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 _explanation_ is the thing which a -magnanimous 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 _say so_ 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 _further_ explanations, -and they were refused, you have no right to urge the decree of the -19th of November as an act of aggression. In all your conferences and -correspondence with M. Chauvelin did you hold out to him _what terms -would satisfy you_? 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 _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_. - -But “France,” it seems, “then declared war against us; and she was the -aggressor, because 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 _dismissal_ of a minister from -either of the two courts should be held and considered as tantamount to -a declaration of war?[18] 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 _throughout_, did not Prussia -call upon us for the stipulated number of troops, according to the -article 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 _at the time_ 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 _they were sensible they -were not authorized to make the demand_. - -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 -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.[19] 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. - -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 -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 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 _respect_. A very just and proper cause for war indeed! - -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 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 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, _that he -never got a good and fair pretence for war_. 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 “_convénances morales et -physiques_.” 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. - -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 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. - -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 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.[20] 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 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 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, _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_. - -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 -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. - -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 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. - -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 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, 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!”[21] 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, 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? - -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 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 _depart from the neutrality_, 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. - -But was it only to Switzerland that this sort of language was held? -What was our language also to Tuscany and Genoa? An honorable -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 _principle_ recalled? was the mission recalled? Did not -ministers persist in the demand which Lord 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 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. - -“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 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 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 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 _quid pro quo_. 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!”[22] 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. - -“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. Between the crimes of France and your money the rage _has_ -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. - -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 -_magnanimous_ Paul taken the field for social order and religion, or on -account of personal aggression?[23] 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 -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 such are the examples -of it with which we coalesce. - -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 _have_ 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. * * * - -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 _sine qua non_; and in your nonsensical language, which I do not -understand, you talk of “limited possibilities,” 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 _sine qua non_ 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 _sine qua non_ 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 _sine -qua non_. - -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 -_war_, behave yourself in a _peaceable_ 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 -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 _beat_ 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. - -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. - -(1) “If Bonaparte shall conduct himself so as to convince him that -he has abandoned the principles which were objectionable in his -predecessors, 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. - -(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, _merely_ 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, 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 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.”[24] Is it not a very -possible case that he may use this language? Is it not within the right -honorable gentleman’s _knowledge of human nature_?[25] 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 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. - -(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, - -(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 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, 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: - - “Potuit quæ plurima virtus - Esse, fuit. Toto certatum est corpore regni.”[26] - -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.” - -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 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 -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? - -Sir, we have heard to-night a great many 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 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 _happily_ -and so _advantageously_ 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. - -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 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, 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! - -“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 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! - -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 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 _ever_ 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 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 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.” - -“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 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. - -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 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 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.[27] I must, like him, beg leave -to dwell a moment on the venerable GEORGE WASHINGTON, 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 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 _they_ would have no -particular objection. 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. * * * - -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 _delivered_; 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 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![28] - -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 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. - -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 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 _pause_!” 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 _pausing_.” “Why is that -man expiring? Why is that other writhing with agony? What means this -implacable fury?” The answer must be: “You are quite wrong, sir; -you deceive yourself—they are not fighting—do not disturb them—they -are merely _pausing_! This man is not expiring with agony—that man -is not dead—he is only _pausing_! 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 _pause_. 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 _political pause_! 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 -_pause_, 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. - -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 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 the -inclination of their minds, that ministers will be brought, if ever, to -give us peace. - -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. - - - 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. - - - - -SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH. - - -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 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.” - -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 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 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. - -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 genius as decided as the bust of Theseus bears to -Grecian art among the Elgin marbles.” - -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. - -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, 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. 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: - - “DEAR SIR:—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: ‘_O terram illam beatam quæ - hunc virum acciperit, hanc ingratam si ejicerit, miseram si - amiserit._’ 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. - - “Yours ever, T. ERSKINE.” - -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.” - -A few months after the defence of Peltier, 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. - -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 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 _Edinburgh Review_. - - - - -SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH. - -IN BEHALF OF FREE SPEECH, ON THE TRIAL OF JEAN PELTIER, ACCUSED OF -LIBELLING NAPOLEON BONAPARTE; COURT OF KING’S BENCH, FEBRUARY 21, 1803. - - -GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: - -The time is now come for me to address you in behalf of the unfortunate -gentleman who is the defendant on this record. - -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 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. - -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 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 -_shall_ 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. - -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 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. - -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. - -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 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. - -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 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. - -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 _here_ equally -bound, by his Majesty’s recognition, to protect it against 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. - -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 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. - -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. - -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, 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 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. - -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 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. - -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 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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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. 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. - -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. - -To protect political discussion from the danger to which it would be -exposed by these wide 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 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. 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. - -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 _security_. 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, 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. - -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 _maintenance of -peace_, as far as the paramount interest of security will allow.[29] - -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 -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. - -Under these circumstances, gentlemen, it became the obvious policy of -the kingdom, a policy in unison with the maxims of a free government, -to consider with great indulgence even the boldest animadversions of -our political writers on the ambitious projects of foreign states. - -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.[30] 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 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. - -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 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.[31] 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. - -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 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, 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. - -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. - -IV. On these principles I am now to call your attention to the libel -with which this unfortunate gentleman is charged. I heartily 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 _historical -narrative_. He has told you that he does not mean to attack _political -discussion_. 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. - -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 _republishing_, -_historically_, 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. 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. - -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 it is for my friend to pluck off the mask, -and expose the libeller, before he calls upon you for a verdict of -guilty. - -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, -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 -_Moniteur_ 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 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. - -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 -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. - -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 _satirizing_ a French Jacobinical faction, -you 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. - -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. - -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 Bonaparte; but that he personates a Jacobin, and -adopts his language for the sake of satirizing his principles. - -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. - -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. - -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.[32] - -All this was in the order of nature. When every principle of authority -and civil discipline, when every principle which enables some men -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 these terrible extremities, is the cement that preserves it from -total destruction. - -Under such circumstances, Bonaparte usurped the supreme power in -France. I say _usurped_, 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. - -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. - -It is, I know, not the spirit of the quiet and 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. - -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 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.[33] - -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. - -Some of them, indeed, the basest of the race, the sophists, the -rhetors, the poet-laureates of 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 - - “The unconquerable will, - And study of revenge, immortal hate.” - -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 -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 _real_ 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. - -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. _They are banded together by despair of forgiveness, by -the unanimous detestation of mankind._ 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. - -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. - -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 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. - -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. - -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. - - [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 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.] - -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. - -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 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. - -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 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 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 _should dare_ to invade the 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 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 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!” - -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 -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[34]; 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 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. - -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 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! - -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,” 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, 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. - -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 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. - -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, 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 has the most democratical -government that ever existed in any country; if the most _substantial_ -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. - -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 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. - -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 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 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. - -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 _a -mediation_ 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. - -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. - -I hasten to the final dismemberment of that unhappy kingdom, which -seems to me the most 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 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 of -guilt in a lukewarm language, falsely called moderate. - -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 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 ALOYS REDING, 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 _Landmann Reding_, 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 _Reubell_ or _Rapinat_! that he -must smother the sorrow and the anger with which his heart was loaded; -that he must breathe his 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 -_thus_ 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 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. _We_ 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!”[35] - -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 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 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? - -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 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 “_decorum and moderation_?” 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? - -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? - -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 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? - -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! _would my friend_—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 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! - -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, to be shaken by such circumstances as these. - -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? _The honesty and -courage of a jury._ 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 truth of a monster. They would have -despised the threats of a foreign tyrant, as their ancestors braved the -power of oppression at home. - -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 _his_ 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, indeed, abroad, but enslaved at home, had no prospect -but that of a long succession of tyrants wading through slaughter to -a throne—_even then, I say, when all seemed lost, the unconquerable -spirit of English liberty survived in the hearts of English jurors_. -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. -_Contempsi Catilinæ gladios—non pertimescam tuos!_” - -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 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! - -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. - - - 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.” - - The jury found Peltier guilty; but as war was almost immediately - declared, he was not brought up for sentence, but was set free. - - - - -LORD ERSKINE. - - -“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 at the same time with a warmth and a -brilliancy of genius which throw a peculiar charm over the whole of the -subjects presented. - -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 at the -university, to have acquired something of that freedom and nobleness of -manner which so much distinguished him in after-life. - -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, 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.” - -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 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. - -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 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 from his profession -amounted to 12,000 pounds a year. - -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 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. - -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 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. - -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 -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 the end, but “burst out into irrepressible -acclamations which spread through the vast multitude outside and were -repeated to a great distance around.” - -It need scarcely be added that for students of English law, Erskine is -the most important of all the English orators. - - - - -LORD ERSKINE. - -ON THE LIMITATIONS OF FREE SPEECH, DELIVERED IN 1797 ON THE TRIAL OF -WILLIAMS FOR THE PUBLICATION OF PAINE’S “AGE OF REASON.” - - - 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. - - 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 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. - - -GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: - -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. - -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 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. - -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 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. - -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. - -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 -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. - -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 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. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -Although every community must establish supreme authorities, founded -upon fixed principles, 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. - -By such free, well-intentioned, modest, and dignified communication of -sentiments and 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. - -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 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, 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. - -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 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 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:] - -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 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. 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. - -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 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 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. - -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 -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: - - “He pass’d the flaming bounds of place and time: - The living throne, the sapphire blaze, - Where angels tremble while they gaze, - He saw, but blasted with excess of light, - Closed his eyes in endless night.” - -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, 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. - - “A virgin is his mother, but his sire, - The power of the Most High; he shall ascend - The throne hereditary, and bound his reign - With earth’s wide bounds, his glory with the heavens.” - -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: - - “This having learn’d, thou hast attain’d the sum - Of wisdom; hope no higher, though all the stars - Thou knew’st by name, and all th’ ethereal powers, - All secrets of the deep, all nature’s works, - Or works of God in heaven, air, earth, or sea, - And all the riches of this world enjoy’dst, - And all the rule, one empire; only add - Deeds to thy knowledge answerable, add faith, - Add virtue, patience, temperance, add love, - By name to come call’d charity, the soul - Of all the rest; then wilt thou not be loth - To leave this paradise, but shalt possess - A paradise within thee, happier far.” - -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. - -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! - -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 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 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. - -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 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. - -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 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.[36] - - - - -ILLUSTRATIVE NOTES. - - -NOTE 1, p. 24.—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. - -NOTE 2, p. 30.—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. - -NOTE 3, p. 31.—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. - -NOTE 4, p. 32.—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. - -NOTE 5, p. 35.—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 _Ann. -Reg._, xxxiv., 155. - -NOTE 6, p. 39.—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. - -NOTE 7, p. 41.—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. - -NOTE 8, p. 41.—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. - -NOTE 9, p. 42.—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, _with the free consent -of the states of the kingdom_;” 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, _equally suitable to the rights of sovereigns_ -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. - -NOTE 10, p. 47.—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. - -NOTE 11, p. 50.—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. Y. 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.” - -NOTE 12, p. 51.—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 -_after having destroyed the enemies of Islamism, and destroyed the -cross_, I should come, etc.” This proclamation was published in the -_Annual Register_, (xi., 265,) and not unnaturally made considerable -sensation in England and in Europe. - -NOTE 13, p. 52.—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. - -NOTE 14, p. 65.—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. - -NOTE 15, p. 94.—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. - -NOTE 16, p. 113.—For an explanation of what was done at Mantua, see -Note 3, p. 31. On the Declaration of Pilnitz, see Note 9, p. 42. - -NOTE 17, p. 116.—See notes 4 and 5 above. - -NOTE 18, p. 119.—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. - -NOTE 19, p. 121.—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. - -NOTE 20, p. 128.—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. - -NOTE 21, p. 134.—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 -_seq._ For his far more remarkable campaign in Italy, see vol. v., 45 -_seq._ - -NOTE 22, p. 142.—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, _in case you may wish to obtain five or six millions -from Venice_.” See Lanfrey’s “History of Napoleon,” 1, 100; and Adams’ -“Democracy and Monarchy in France,” 162. - -NOTE 23, p. 143.—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. - -NOTE 24, p. 151.—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. - -NOTE 25, p. 151.—In a speech some months before, Pitt had defended -his action in regard to Holland by saying that “_from his knowledge -of human nature_” he knew that it must be successful. It proved a -lamentable failure, hence the irony of Fox’s emphasis. - -NOTE 26, p. 154.—Virgil (Æneid, xi., 313): “Valor has done its utmost; -we have fought with the embodied force of all the realm.” - -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. - -NOTE 27, p. 167. 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. - -NOTE 28, p. 170.—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. - -NOTE 29, p. 253.—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. - -NOTE 30, p. 205.—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?” - -NOTE 31, p. 207.—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. - -NOTE 32, p. 219.—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. - -NOTE 33, p. 223.—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 _morceau_ 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—_it came from a land of liberty_.” - -NOTE 34, p. 236.—Allusion is made to the fact, humiliating to every -Englishman, that Charles II. and James II. both received pensions from -Louis XIV. - -NOTE 35, p. 252.—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. - -NOTE 36, p. 296.—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. - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes - - -Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant -preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed. - -Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced -quotation marks corrected. - -Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained; occurrences of -inconsistent hyphenation have not been changed. - - - - - -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 55490-0.txt or 55490-0.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. - |