}

soon after the peace of 1783? I believe the intercepted letters which opened to us the history of those gigantic projects are at the board of control. In 1787, did not the court of France exert all its powers of intrigue to drive the stadtholder out of Holland? Has not the greatest republic in the world arisen from the ruins of that ambitious house, the house of Bourbon? But the stadtholder has no interest in restoring that family, and I am sure England has not. We may have an interest in destroying the republic, but we should have the same interest in destroying an overgrown and ambitious monarchy. No, says the war secretary; restore monarchy, and you gain security to yourselves. The speech of the secretary of state (Mr. Dundas) was not so bold. He administered the salvo, "that there are changes besides the restoration, with which his majesty would be satisfied." The chancellor of the exchequer who wraps what he says in more words than any other man, if I understood him at all, is to be satisfied with nothing without the restoration of monarchy.-[Here Mr. Pitt appeared to dissent.] A fair presumption as the real views of ministers arises from the publications of writers in their pay. I shall produce strong evidence of this sort by quoting a pamphlet of Mr. Bowles, intituled "Reflections on the Political State of Society at the Commencement of the year 1800." This writer must be considered in the pay of government, be cause he is a commissioner of Dutch prizes; and he strenuously contends, that the restoration of the Bourbon family is essential to the peace and security of Europe. But, there is the strongest evi dence of all, to prove the truth of all I have asserted I mean our treaties with Russia. The forces of that nation continue in our pay; if so, the object of the cabinet of St. James's is the same as that of Russia, the restoration of the Bourbons. Another reason for considering that to be our object, is the presence of the count d'Artois. There is no other person in this country with whom ministers can advise on the object of the war; and they can only consult with him on the means most likely to prove effectual for the re

get security; and if you fail in the enterprise, what do you do? Why, when you would enter on negotiation with the republic, you cannot begin your work until you have abandoned that declaration. This threat of royalty, for such it really is, is absurd. Will the right hon. gentleman tell us, he wishes to restore the Bourbons, that he may destroy Jacobinism? It was the tyranny of the Bourbons that introduced Jacobinism; and the attempt to restore them will be the means of reviving that now dormant spirit. Jacobinism is remembered in France as a means by which she has gained the great object of all her struggles-an equality of rights; and surely gentlemen do not require to be told, that there are no weapons so formidable against the hereditary rights of princes, as the abstract rights of man. France will coalesce again for her own security. You distract her now; can you expect, even if you do restore royalty, to make a secure peace with a nation divided as she will be in such a crisis? What are we to gain by restoring a weak and feeble monarchy? Do you mean to protect it? You will incur an expense that will prove ruinous. But as an Englishman I do not wish for the restoration of monarchy in France. That unfortunate monarch, the last of her kings, whose death was the cause of this unfortunate war, though a virtuous and amiable prince, did as little for the security of the peace of Europe as the most despotic and restless of her monarchs. In the American war, a speech of his majesty delivered at the opening of the session of 1778, unfolds, in language truly forcible and descriptive, the character and the policy of the house of Bourbon-[The clerk here read the speech from the Journals.*]-I mention that speech to show what was the disposition of the court of Versailles at that time; and are not we told in it, that that court was the disturber of the peace of Europe, bringing every calamity on nations; not our insidious enemy only, but open and declared, avow ing their support of the Americans. Can, then, any form of government be more dangerous than that which violated the rights of sovereigns, stirred up sedition against governors, and armed and clothed traitors, as they were styled, against legi-storation of his family. Now, as to that timate authority. The same spirit actuated the court throughout. Were not their projects against India discovered

* See Vol. 19, p. 1277.

august personage, I have too high an opinion of him to suppose that he would lend himself to consultations that had not that for their object. I cannot see, without disapprobation, our court becoming the

timents of the origin of the war, or to give up their invective against Buonaparté: I ask for a distinct vote, declara tory of a precise object. I move you, Sir, "That it is not just or necessary to carry on War, for the purpose of restoring the Monarchy of France."

Mr. Jones could not but approve of the motion. No man more condemned the French revolution, nor bore greater enmity to Jacobinical principles, than he did. He could not, however, approve of the continuance of war for the purpose of reinstat ing the Bourbon family; a family, by whose misconduct all the horrors of the revolution had been produced. After eight years of expensive war, the propositions of the first consul for peace had been contumaciously rejected; in preference to which, minis

sure of this country on the precarious hope of reinstating the expatriated people of France in all their ancient rights and privileges. He did not speak this out of any disrespect to the emigrants; he had known and respected many, and, as far as he was able, some he had relieved. While Jacobinical principles remained, no man supported the war more strenuously than he did; and if they should again revive, he would again be an advocate for the like expedient to prevent their growth; but at present he believed them to be pretty

focus of the cabals of the emigrants. The I do not ask ministers to change their senpeople of England are naturally jealous of France, but especially of such cabals. Putting together, then, all the arguments I have used, does any man suppose the object of ministers is not the restoration of the Bourbons? But does any man believe it practicable? Do you expect all at once to change the nature and property, and to suppress the spirit of equality in France? I do not talk of equality for England. We have a perfect constitution, and with a wise administration might perhaps enjoy all the liberty we are fitted to possess. The equality I talk of is that which in France has succeeded the oppressive inequality that existed under the old government, when if a man, though truly respectable otherwise, acquired his property in trade, it was deemed an insult if he proposed mar-ters chose to lavish the blood and treariage with a woman of a noble family. Do you suppose that, having destroyed that inequality, France will return to the toils and humiliations of the monarchy? And if you should succeed, will it be lieved that the old monarchy, with all its appendages and trappings, would not be restored? Will it be believed, that that abominable tyranny will not be restored? -But, it will be said that we are to subdue France by force. The force of Russia? Russia cannot bring force sufficient. We cannot now send such large armies into the field as we did in the be-nearly extinct. Ministers had held out as ginning of the contest. We in vain expect to succeed by distracting France in the interior. Against all attempts of this sort we have experience and the evidence of facts, accumulated in a fruitless seven years war. We have seen all kinds of revolutions in the republic, but not one of them has brought back the monarchy. Suppose we fail? The emperor of Russia will go home; we can have no reliance on Germany; we shall be at the mercy of a people we have irritated. With what temper will they treat? To please you, perhaps, they would have removed the "Corsican Adventurer," as you call him, for the sake of peace. And here, I must observe, that it was not worthy of the prime minister of a great nation to descend to personal invective against the first consul. I do not say, that the final object of ministers may not justly be the resto-benefited his country. Cromwell had ration of royalty; my only desire is, that we should this night record it, as the determination of this House, not to carry on the war with that for its immediate object.

their favorite object the restoration of the ancient monarchy in France; 200 millions had already been spent to accomplish that purpose, and 200 millions more were understood as ready still to be thrown away on that fruitless endeavour. To oppose and depress the Bourbon family, 150 millions had been added to the national debt; and to re-establish them in their lost honours, we have already added to it 150 millions more. Should ministers at last succeed, there would be no better pledge of the good faith or friendship of that House than existed in the days of its prosperity and power. He did not pretend to be the advocate of Buonaparte; he hoped he might prove a saviour of his country, and become a second Washington. Though an usurper, Buonaparté was not the first; nor the first who had

been an usurper; yet he advanced the glory of this country, and managed all its concerns, foreign and domestic, in a manner that would have done honour to any

head that ever legitimately wore a crown. France made peace with this usurper, without once mentioning the line of the Stuarts: so did Holland. He did not see, therefore, why so much should be said about the Bourbons. It had been often repeated, that there was no security in treating with so recent a usurper as the first consul, who was liable daily to be displaced. The protector of England, at the time when he formed treaties with foreign nations, was so insecure in his new eminence, that he always wore a coat of mail; and there was even a book published against him, called, Killing no Murder. This, however, threw no impediment in the way of national negotiation. The House should pause, therefore, be fore they wasted any more the resources of this country in consequence of any such punctilio as this. Grant, that Buo naparte was an usurper, and had waded thro' slaughter to a throne;" yet it was not the duty of ministers therefore "to shut the gates of mercy on mankind." The country at large were weary of the war; and its chief advocates were only to be found among contractors and place

men. m

but if they read the very next paragraph, they would be convinced that neither ministers nor the House had stated the return of peace to depend on thes restoration of the Bourbons. Ito was contrary to the practice of the House to come to any resolution founded entirely upon abstract principles; and no necessity had been urged to induce them to depart from their accustomed rule of conduct, on that ground. He would therefore move, "That the other orders of the day be now read."

Lord Hawkesbury said, it gave him: great pleasure to follow his hon. friend, of whose motion he most heartily ap proved. The House unquestionably had the right of active control over the con duct of ministers; and if they saw any thing which they considered to be wrong in their conduct, they had the right of petitioning the crown to remove them. The hon. mover had set out by assuming that we were at war, for the express pur pose of restoring the Bourbons to the throne of France and that ministers would not come to any definitive confession upon the subject. In answer, he need only refer to lord Grenville's letter

he need only refer to the many debates which had already taken place on this question, in every one of which the hon. gentleman might have heard the most! distinct avowals, that we were not warring for the restoration of monarchy in France, but that we were contending for our own security. However desirable that object might be, it was not the one for which alone we were carrying on the war! When he said this, he was not making any new declaration of the professions of their faith. In the autumn of 1793, the same principles were avowed. In the declaration issued by his majesty at that time, he calls upon the people of France to en deavour to re-establish their monarchy, as the best pledge they could give of se curity for surrounding nations; yet at the same time he declares, that he did not re quire this as the exclusive means; bat fi they adopted any other form of government which should be capable of preserving the

Mr. John Eliot said, that the question for the House to decide was not, whether it was just or necessary to carry on the war, for the restoration of the house of Bourbon. If that were the true view of it, he would have no hesitation to declare, that an attempt to impose a government on an independent country was both unjust and unnecessary and this principle he would extend even to France herself, though her conduct, ever since the revolution, had been hostile to the government of every other nation. But the real question was, whether it was necessary to come to any parliamentary declaration of this principle under all the circumstances of the moment? What proof was there, that the people were filled with alarm at the recent proceedings of government, or that they had ceased to confide in that House for the direction of their interests? Where were the petitions which expressed such disquietude and distrust? The House had clearly and distinctly defined its ob-relations of peace and amity, he should ject, on our part, to be security; and to that object they still adhered. If the people of England were, indeed, to read only the passage of the note in reply to the French overtures, which the hon. gentleman had quoted, they might be induced to misconstrue the views of government;

be ever ready to enter into treaty with them. This was the language also which had been held during every period of the war-that we were not fighting for the restoration of the monarchy, but for

*See Vol. 30, p, 1057 opklą

L

our own safety and security. The hon.lected. We were, however, told, that the gentleman next said, that this was the restoration would not be desirable for this only distinct object which ministers stated country; and, to support that assertion, as the means of peace. Was not this the the hon. gentleman had adverted to the only object that could be stated with pre- former conduct of the house of Bourbon, cision? For, although there might arise He had been led to look into the history many combinations of circumstances and of the wars between this country and situations in France, which would also France from our Revolution down to the enable them to preserve the above rela- revolution in France. In the space of 100 tions with other nations, the effect of these years we had been at war 38 years with combinations and their durability could France; in which wars justice was invaonly be known, to use the language of riably on our side. Every man must wish lord Grenville's note, " by experience and that the succeeding century should not the evidence of facts." Let the House at- produce so many years of discord; but, tend to what had already passed in France: taking into consideration the unforeseen let them consider the various changes contingency of human affairs, he could which had already taken place; there they not hope that we should pass happier would see that ten revolutions had set up years. When he considered the improve. as many different governments; not one ments of that century--when he reflected of which was capable of maintaining the upon the increase of wealth within the relations of peace and amity with other same period-the mildness of governments nations. Let them view the successive even those of despotic structure and the scenic changes in their farce of govern- humanity with which even wars were conment, and remark, that not one treaty had ducted he could not find in an equal peever been observed by any of the ephe- riod so much of human happiness, and so meral powers holding a momentary rule. little of human misery, in any age of the Let them look at their conduct to the rest world. If we looked to former periods of of Europe; let them look still farther, and the world, did we there find no calamity ? see the same principles in all their native In the century preceding the last, we had energy extended to other quarters of little war with France; but we then had the globe, then let them ask themselves, equal apprehensions from Spain. "Yes, whether it would be wise or prudent to but the hon, gentleman would say, these trust to the inclination or capability of were kings, and such was their ambition? such a government to maintain the accus- Had, then, republics no ambition? Let tomed relations of peace and amity, with- us look back to the ancient republics; out the solid test of experience and the what did we there find but ambition and a unerring evidence of facts? Whenever lust of power? If he were directed to look such a form of government should arise, at the conduct of the republics of Switthere would be no obstacle on our part to zerland, Genoa, Venice, he would in rethe restoration of peace. If, therefore, ply say, look at the elector of Brandenthere was no occasion for coming to this burgh; look at Bohemia and other moresolution, the next question was, how far narchies. The true reason in both the such an event as the restoration of monar- latter cases, why they were not am. chy in France would be a desirable event? bitious was, because they were not powHe could not conceive how gentlemen, erful. All powerful states were ampossessing correct ideas of justice and bitious, whether they were republics or momoral action, when applied to other narchies; therefore this was no argument cases, could possibly so far vary from against the restoration of the French mothemselves as not to feel that a desirable narchy. We were, perhaps, the only exevent. When they reflected upon a no- ception of a great and powerful state, bility plundered and degraded-a clergy which did not seek to aggrandize itself at not only plundered, but famished and the expense of justice and morality. The murdered why did they not also think only difference between the ambition of that they ought to have their property princes and republics was, that in the first restored, and the criminals punished, case it was personal, and in the latter a equally as in the case of crimes on a popular, and therefore a more dangerous smaller scale? Not only humanity re- principle. This being so, he wished the quired this, but justice exacted it. If House to reflect whether the restoration the thing was practicable, he knew no of the Bourbons could be attended with principle upon which it should be neg. so much danger to this country! did they

think that any other order of things could that no great state could exist without a

religious establishment. Modern days had produced philosophers pronouncing other and contrary doctrines. The expe riment had been tried in France; and what had it produced? Scenes of horror and dismay. While he was urging this, he might be told, that we had seen the conduct of christian princes such as to evince that they little regarded the dictates of religion. True, we had; yet re ligion had some influence upon them, not only in making them veil their conduct, when bad, from others; but it also sometimes induced them to palliate their con duct to themselves. Religion had that influence upon them, that they were ashamed to contemplate even their own bad deeds in their native deformity. Un der these circumstances, he felt it was a heavy curse to find a great nation without any religion, but delivered up as the French were, to the horrors of impiety and atheism. He did not state this as an argument, that without religion we could not hold any intercourse with them; but we must at least have the evidence of facts and the test of experience, before we could with safety trust them. Now, with respect to the practicability of the measure: upon that subject no man could speak with positiveness; but from one circumstance he augured well. The present government of France stood upon no principles. The former governments, bad and dangerous as they were, were yet founded upon republican principles; but the present had nothing to support it. There was not a man in France, whether royalist or republican, that could possibly be attached to it; and the French nation must see, with regret and indignation, their rulers deposed by an artful and daring Corsican adventurer. If that government was destroyed, whatever form might succeed it, if it were once capable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity, he believed the administration of this country would most readily enter into treaty with it. But his opinion most clearly pointed out to him, that the best ground of hope for permanent se curity would be in the restoration of mo

give more security to this country?-least of all could they think that the present order of things in France promised either secure or permanent peace to this country. Some gentlemen had said, that their principles were changed. A change had taken place, it was true: but what sort of a change?a military usurpation, carried by the point of the bayonet, and establishing a government, whose only existence depended upon military exploits. Was this an order of things to look to for permanent and secure peace ?-The hon. gentleman had also alluded to the interference of the court of France in the contest with America. He felt upon that occasion as every man in the country, not excepting the French royalists did. He never heard one who did not consider that conduct as unjust and impolitic; and they all agreed in asserting, that thence originated the seeds of their own revolution. The hon. gentleman had stated this to have happened during the reign of one of the mildest princes of the Bourbon race: and he (lord H.) knew from good authority, that that prince, in hismisfortunes, consoled himself, not only that he did not approve of that conduct in his minister, but that he had opposed it with all his personal influence. All ideas of danger from the monarchy were preposterous and absurd, compared with what we had been suffering during the last ten years from the fury and madness of the republicans. No person who contemplated the course of events in the world, but must wish to see the situation of Europe placed upon its old foundations. Gentlemen must know, that the system that had prevailed for a century and a half could not be deranged without great and various dangers and evils to the people concerned; and that the necessary consequence of new modelling so extensive a system must lead to many wars, in which we most probably must be led, from a consideration of our interests to take a part. The house of Bourbon must desire to see the old system of Europe re-established; the modern government of France, on the contrary, must have different interests and inclinations. Another principle also in-narchy. duced him to wish for the restoration of Mr. W.Bouverie confessed himselfalarmmonarchy he meant the re-established at what had fallen from the noble lord. ment of religion. He was not one of He did not think that we were at war for those who thought that religious opinions the restoration of religion in France; at should be severely restricted or persecuted. least he could not see that the restoration It was the opinion of ancient philosophers of the Bourbons was sure to bring with