MR. PITT'S SPEECH,

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 3, 1800, ON A MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS TO THE THRONE, APPROVING OF THE ANSWERS RETURNED TO THE COMMUNICATIONS FROM FRANCE, RELATIVE TO A NEGOTIATION FOR PEACE.

As soon as the "wily Corsican" had usurped the throne of his murdered sovereign, it became his policy to conclude at least a temporary peace, that he might the more speedily recruit the exhausted strength of France, and fix those arrangements by which security was to be given to his own "bad eminence" and violently acquired authority. With this design, overtures of peace were made to England in a letter highly conciliatory, which he wrote himself to the king. They were not, however, accepted. The answer to the letter by lord Grenville, then secretary of state, expressed as the ground of the refusal to negotiate, a distrust of the stability of the existing government of France, but at the same time declared, that whenever a prospect of a lasting peace should be afforded, the king would most cheerfully concert with his allies the means of effecting it.

The propositions of the Chief Consul being laid before parliament, the rejection of them was vehemently attacked by the opposition, and as warmly vindicated by the ministry. The two distinguished rivals, Pitt and Fox, never appeared to greater advantage than in that discussion. Their splendid speeches

are admirably reported, and are here inserted in the order of delivery. No where are their talents better contrasted, or the distinctive features of their eloquence more delicately exhibited. These speeches are impor tant in another respect. They present us with a distinct and authentick view of the system of politicks of the opposite parties of England, as delineated by their respective leaders, from the dawn of the French revolution. Who, in this contest won the victory, or deserved the prize, it is not easy to decide. Combatants have rarely been so equally matched.

SIR,

SPEECH, &c.

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 honourable and learned gentleman* 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 honourable 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

* Mr. Erskine.

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 endeavour, as far as I am able, to take a large and comprehensive view of this important question. In doing so, I agree with my honourable friend, 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 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 negotiatc, cannot 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 have returned an answer concurring in the negotiationhe 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 existed, 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.

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 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 Republick, 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.*

* Mr. Erskine here observed that this was not the statement of his argument.