« ПредишнаНапред »
“ right which we possess of believing Austria “ sincere, from our experience that Austria, “ above all, must know the insecurity of peace “ with Jacobins. This, Sir, would be a ground “ of consolation and confident hope ; and though “ we should go farther than the Emperor of “ Germany, and stop short of Russia, still, how“ever, we should all travel in the same road. “ Yet even were less justifiable objects to ani“ mate our ally, were ambition her inspiring “ motive, yet even on that ground I contend that
her arms and victories, would conduce to our “security. If it tend to strip France of terri“tory and influence, the aggrandisement of Aus“ tria is elevated by comparison into a blessing " deyoutly to be wished ! The aggrandisement “ of Austria, founded on the ruins of Jacobinism, “ I contend, Sir, to be a truly British object. “ But, Sir, the honourable gentleman says, he “ thinks the war neither just nor necessary, and “ calls upon me, without the qualifying reserva“ tions and circuitous distinctions of a special “ pleader; in short, without BUTS or IFs, to state “ the real object; and affirms that in spite of “ these buts and ifs, the restoration of monarchy “ in France is the real and sole object of minis“ ters, and thąt all else contained in the official “ notes are unmeaning words and distinctions “ fallacious, and perhaps meant to deceive. Is “it, Sir, to be treated as a fallacious distinction,
“ that the restoration of monarchy is not my “sole or ultimate object; that my ultimate ob“ject is security, that I think no pledge for that
security So unequivocal as the restoration of “monarchy, and no means so natural and so “ effectual ? but if you can present any other “ mode, that mode I will adopt. I am unwilling “ to accept an inadequate security ; but the “ nature of the security which it may be our “ interest to demand, must depend on the relative “ and comparative dangers of continuing the “ war, or concluding a peace. And if the danger “ of the war should be greater than that of a “ peace, and if you can shew to me that there is “ no chance of diminishing Jacobinism by the “ war, and if you can evince that we are ex“ hausting our means more than our enemies “ are exhausting theirs, then I am ready to con“ clude a peace without the restoration of mo“ narchy.
“ These are the ifs and the buts, which I shall " continue to introduce, not the insidious and “ confounding subtleties of special pleading, but “ the just and necessary distinctions of intelli“ gible prudence; I am conscious of sincere and “ honest intentions in the use of them, and I “ desire to be tried by no other than God and “ my country. But are we not weakening our“ selves? Let any man calmly, and with the “ mind of an Englishman, look round on the
“ state of our manufactures, our commerce, on “ all that forms and feeds the sources of national “ wealth, and to that man I can confidently .“ leave the following questions to be answered. “ From the negociations at Lisle to the present “ moment has England or France weakened “ itself in the greater degree? Whether, at the “ end of this campaign, France is not more likely " to suffer the feebleness ensuing on exhausted “ finance than England ?
“ If Jacobinism, enthroned in Buonaparte, “ should resist both the pressure of foreign at“ tack, and its own inherent tendencies to self“ destruction, whether it must not derive such “ power of resistance from the use of such revo“lutionary and convulsive efforts, as involve, and “ almost imply a consequent state of feebleness ? “ And whether therefore, if any unexpected re
verse of fortune should make it expedient or
necessary for us to compromise with Jacobin“ ism, it would not be better for us to compro“mise with it at the end of the campaign, “ than at present? And by parity of reasoning, “ whether it be not true (even on the supposition " that Jacobinism is not to be routed, disarmed, “ and fettered); yet, that even on this supposi“ tion, the longer we defer a peace, the safer " that peace will be!
“Sir, we have been told that Jacobinism is " extinct, or at least dying. We have been
“ asked too, what we mean by Jacobinism ? Sir, “ to employ arguments solely to the purposes of “ popular irritation is a branch of Jacobinism ? “ It is with pain, Sir, that I have heard argu“ ments manifestly of this tendency, and having “ heard them, I hear with redoubled suspicion “ of the assertions, that Jacobinism is extinct. “ By what softer name shall we characterise the “ attempts to connect the war by false facts and “ false reasoning with accidental scarcity? By “ what softer name shall we characterise appeals “ to the people on a subject which touches their “ feelings, and precludes their reasoning? It is “ this, Sir, which makes me say, that those whose “ eyes are now open to the horrors and absurdi“ ties of Jacobinism are nevertheless still influ“ enced by their early partiality to it. A some“ what of the feeling lurks behind, even when “ all the principle has been sincerely abjured. “ If this be the case with mere spectators, who “ have but sympathised in the distance, and “ have caught disease only by looking on, how “ much more must this hold good of the actors? “ And with what increased caution and jealousy “ought we not to listen to the affirmation, that “ Jacobinism is obsolete even in France? The “ honourable gentleman next charges me with “ an unbeseeming haughtiness of tone, in deem“ing that the House had pledged itself to the “ present measure by their late vote for the con
“ tinuance of the war. This is not accurate. I “ did not deem the House pledged : I only as“ signed reasons of probability, that having voted “ for the continuance of war, they would deem “ themselves inconsistent if they refused assent " to those measures by which the objects of the “ war were most likely to be realised. My “ argument was, not that the House had pledged “ itself to this measure directly, but only as far “ as they must perceive it to be a means of “ bringing the war to that conclusion to which “ they have pledged themselves : for unless gen“ tlemen will tell me, that though they cannot “ prevent votes in favour of the war, they will 6 yet endeavour to palsy the arm of the country " in the conduct of it; and though they cannot “stifle the vast majority of suffrages to the plan, " they will yet endeavour to way-lay it in its “ execution ; unless the gentlemen will tell me “ so themselves, I will not impute it to them. “ (Here Mr. Pitt made a short reply to some “ observations of Mr. Bouverie in the early part “ of the debate, and then proceeded.) It was " said of himself and friends (and often said) by “ a gentleman who does not now commonly “honour us with his presence here, · We are the “ minority who represent the opinions of the “ country.' In my opinion a state of universal “ suffrage, formal or virtual, in which, neverthe« less, the few represent the many, is a true