instant, and laid before this house by his majesty's command, that the conduct of the French republic towards this country during the whole period which has elapsed since the conclusion of the definitive treaty of peace, is considered by his majesty's ministers as having exhibited one continued series of ag gression, violence, and insult; and as necessarily creating a thorough conviction of a system deliberately adopted by France for the purpose of degrading, vilifying, and insulting his majesty and his government." 2dly. "Resolved, that his majesty's ministers having, throughout the whole period, from the definitive treaty of peace to the breaking out of the present war, neither communicated to parliament any know. ledge of the sense which they now appear to have entertained respecting the conduct and system of France, nor any regular information of the particulars on which the same was founded, or the steps taken by his majesty's government thereupon, have thereby withheld from this house the necessary materials for the due and full discharge of its constitutional functions; and that by encouraging throughout the country an unfounded security and confidence in the permanence of peace, they have embarrassed and perplexed our commerce; have deceived the expectations, and unnecessarily harassed the spirit of the people; and have materially increased and aggravated the difficulties of our actual situation."-Lord Fitzwilliam moved a third resolution for a vote of censure on ministers for their conduct. On the question being put on the first resolution from the woolsack, Lord Limerick rose, and vindicated the whole conduct of minis ters. A great deal had been said about the responsibility under which ministers attempted to shelter their conduct, and it was made the subject of complaint that ministers had not, at a much earlier period, put the house in possession of information relative to the ambitious and insolent views of the French government. The conduct of ministers respecting Switzerland had been condemned. What was the simple state of the case? The ministers of all the great continental powers had been addressed with the view of obtaining their mediation with the first consul to avert the evils with which Switzerland was threatened, and which afterwards it so fully experienced. To these applications no sort of attention had been given, except by the ministers of this country. Was a disposition to listen to the remon strances of a brave and injured people, a ground of censure? Was it a subject of fair complaint, that a hope was held out of a determination to give every degree of support which was likely to be effectual in a contest for usages and for privileges endeared by every consideration that was most cherished by the heart of man? But this general principle of the interference of ministers respecting Switzerland, appeared to be condemned. As to the manner in which the interference had been conducted, he was confident there was as little room for just complaint. Depraved as the powers of the continent had shown themselves to be, ministers had no choice left but to make a separate remonstrance to the French government. Such a remonstrance, their lordships were aware, had been presented by ministers; and if it failed of effect, neither the honour nor the general character of the country P2 country were at all compromised. Under such circumstances, what had ministers done? They sent a confidential agent to Switzerland, not to foment a spirit of rebellion, not to delude them with false hopes and expectations of success-but to ascertain the real dispositions of the people, to find out what was their abilities for effectual resistance, and to see what prospect there was that with such assistance as might have been given by this country, there was any probability that this resistance would promote the end which was so eagerly coveted. On inquiry it was ascertained, that, with all their detestation of French persecution, with all their enthusiastic devotion to the liberties and manners of their fathers, successful resistance was impossible, and therefore ministers found further interference unnecessary. He appealed to their lordships, whether in this conduct there was any thing unworthy of the ministers of a great country? Ministers had been loudly accused for not having sooner declared their opinion that war had become necessary. For this objection he saw no solid ground. The circumstances under which the peace had been concluded were to be considered before such an objection could be fairly started. It would not be contended that ministers were not desirous of the continuance of peace. On this they rested their pretensions to popularity, and it was not at all likely they would do any thing to destroy the good opinion which had been created in their favour, by rashly plunging the country into hostilities. He desired noble lords to look at the conduct of ministers, and then judge of their sincerity for the con tinuance of peace. Malta was the grand point in dispute, and to remove the ground of difference in the dispute, no efforts had been omitted. They had sedulously endeavoured to procure the assent of the guaranteeing powers; they had given every facility for the election of a grand-master; they had pursued this object in a way the most calculated to evince their determination to act in the true spirit of peace. They found, soon after the conclusion of the treaty, that the French government, instead of discovering a spirit of conciliation, evinced a disposition rancorous and hostile. They received a proposal infamous and outrageous in the highest degree, a proposition to curtail or suppress the most valuable privilege and the firmest support of the British constitutionthe freedom of full and fair discussion. To such a proposal ministers of course refused, in the most explicit terms, to accede; but even here their language was characterised by mildness and moderation. To a most detestable and cruel demand-for detestable and cruel he must call any demand to drive from our land the representatives of a family once eminent for wealth and power, but now eminent only in misfortune-the answer of ministers was at once firm and dignified. It was hardly necessary for him to remind their lordships of the circumstances in which such demands were advanced by the French government. While our ministers were called upon to banish the remains of an ancient nobility, and the wreck of a venerable priesthood, men exiled from their country as traitors-men who were anxious to spread among their countrymen the flame of civil war, and and to plunge the dagger into the hearts of their brethren, were cherished, protected, and honoured, at the consular court. It had been objected to ministers that their orders and counterorders respecting the Cape betrayed want of firmness and consistency of character. When, however, the plain fact was considered, the objection would instantly vanish. Ministers had reason to believe that a plan was in contemplation, by which Holland was to be incorporated with France. Under such an expectation,it was clear that theCape would necessarily fall into the hands of France the moment it was surrendered. It was on this principle that the order for retaining the Cape was founded; and it was not till an explanation on the subject was obtained, that a second order for its evacuation was dispatched. After this explanation had been obtained, ministers had no pretence for refusing to comply with the terms of the treaty. The noble lord from this passed to the consideration of Sebastiani's report. He condemned it in very energetic terms. It appeared to him to express such clear evidence of the insidious designs of the first consul, both with respect to Egypt and the Ionian isles, that if ministers had not laid hold of it in establishing a just claim to further security on the part of this country, they would have forfeited all claims to public confidence. He touched on the article which appeared in the Hamburg paper, which had excited so much attention, and called forth such just indignation. It was one of the foulest and most malignant libels that ever was published against the government of an independent country. He threw out Some important strictures on the character of M. Rheinard, by whose influence it was inserted.-This was no tyro in politics, no pupil in the study of diplomatic address: he was bred up in the school of the most outrageous times of the revolution, and he had received various proofs of the confidence of his consular master. The act of insertion was, therefore, to all intents and purposes, an act agreeable to the first consul. Under all these considerations, ministers had called for additional security, and what had been the conduct of the French government? Had any offer of security been obtained? On the contrary, had not that arch-master in intrigue, Talleyrand, declared that the question between the two countries lay within a very narrow compass. It was simply Malta, or war. Retain Malta, and war would be considered to be declared. Such was the language of the French government. His lordship, after a few remarks, sat down by declaring his approbation of the conduct of ministers, and his consequent disapprobation of the proposition. Lord Darnley remarked, that it was not only in the conduct of government since the signature of the peace of Amiens, but on a general view of their whole conduct both before and since, that an adequate and impartial judgement could be formed. In his opinion, the origi nal sin was the spirit of concession to the encroachments of France, which they had manifested soon after the signature of the preliminaries. If they had pursued a contrary line of conduct, if they had at once given Bonaparte to un derstand, that in the low and almost humiliating terms of peace to which they had consented, they had gone the utmost length of concession, P3 several subjects of Malta, Switzerland, and the Cape, lord Darnley said, he should assent to the propositions moved that night by the no ble earl, because he thought they could not be controverted. cession, and that they were determined to make their stand against any further extension of the power of France, in all probability he would have given way, when he found them really in earnest, and prepared if necessary to renew the Lord Mulgrave observed, that war. On the other hand, if he the objects of the French governhad not yielded, and had forced us ment were three, and that these again to have recourse to arms, we formed the leading points in Boshould have taken them up under naparte's views. The first object every advantage, which we had now was to destroy the resources and given up,by disarming our forces and wealth of this country in India, relinquishing our conquests. What by getting possession of Egypt; had happened since the peace, as the second was to exclude from proved by the papers on the table, the continent and from France was the necessary consequence of every article of British merchanthat system of concession and hu- dise; and the third object was to miliation thus early adopted; since overturn and destroy the indepenit was the invariable consequence of dence of this country. Ministers submission under insult and oppres- had, undoubtedly, an awful duty sion, to provoke a repetition of to discharge. He trusted, how them, and at length to be driven ever, that measures would be into resistance under every disadvan- stantly taken to renovate and retage, as was the case in the present store those forces which had been instance. He would go through disbanded. When these measures the whole detail of those acts of should be brought forward, it insult and aggression, so justly would then be as much the duty complained of in his majesty's de- of every noble lord to enter fully claration; but first of all, he would into their spirit, as it was at prebeg leave to advert to one, which sent the duty of the house to abappeared first in the papers, but on stain from all retrospective que which, in his mind, sufficient stress stions or debate whatever. If the had not been laid-he meant the measures which would then be detention and confiscation of the submitted by ministers should be vessels. He asked, what could deemed ineffectual, then the house be more flagrant than the case of would employ its wisdom in corthe vessel which was forced into a recting and improving those meaport of France by stress of wea- sures. Above all, his lordship dether, or of that which was con- precated any discussions which fiscated, because the captain had a could turn aside for an instant few knives and plates for his own that proud and angry spirit maniuse, of English manufacture?-fested by the country against the Were not these acts of injustice and hostility? and yet, as far we know, said he, no notice was taken of them, except in the presenting a few whining remonstrances at Paris, which were treated with silent contempt. After adverting to the conduct of France. It would tend to unhinge the unanimity so conspicuously demonstrated, and might add a doubt to the anxiety of Europe, which viewed Great Britain as the only champion of civil liberty remaining. He could not not, on these grounds, be induced to support the original motion, as he could not vote for the previous question, conceiving that no question could be previous to that which concerned the dearest interests of the country. He lamented the debate which had occurred, and, in order that there might be no more of it, he moved that the house should then adjourn. To this lord Hobart strongly objected, and pointed out the great injustice the house would manifest in supporting the motion of adjournment, No such motions as those moved that day by the noble earl were entertained, or brought into discussion; but there was something of higher consequence to be taken into consideration than the personal feelings of himself, or any other of his majesty's servants-the character of the government existing as it did at present. If the ministers were to be censured and disgraced under the present circumstances, it would naturally follow that they ought to be dismissed, or the measures necessary to be pursued for the defence of the country would be enfeebled and rendered inefficient, and of little utility. Considering the arduous and difficult task that ministers had to perform ever since they came into office, undoubtedly many of their acts might be highly questionable; but he was conscious that the more their conduct was examined, the more it would be found that every step they had taken had been taken with great anxiety, with great caution, and with a most earnest endeavour to avoid the depriving the country of the continuance of the blessings of peace. Lord Grenville observed, that the charge in general against ministers was, that, not by accident, but by a deliberate systematic conduct, they precluded parliament from that knowledge of public events which was indisputably ne cessary to the performance of its duty. As to this point, the charge of not communicating essential information to parliament, one noble and learned lord (lord Ellenborough) had said, of all the charges this was the most trivial and unfounded. He challenged opposition to point out when ministers should have come down, and what they should have communicated; which challenge his lordship accepted, in spite of the danger of including himself in the charge of consummate ignorance. He would undertake to say distinctly, when they should have come down to parliament, what they should have communicated, and the mischief arising from their not having done so. He might refer, he said, in investigating this subject, to the ministerial defence of the preliminary articles; in supporting which ministers declared there was nothing in the person who ruled over France, or in the circumstances of the times, that should render the peace less likely to continue than any that ever was made. He would, however, commence his observations where ministers were inclined to make their stand, viz. at the definitive treaty. The abolition of the Spanish priories, and subsequent destruction of the Spanish langue at Malta, he had reason to believe took place before the signing of the definitive treaty. He believed this event took place in March 1802; whereas, in May following, ministers contended P 4 |