5-

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Wellcome Library

https://archive.org/details/s25id13211690

T H E

ANNUAL REGISTER

OR A VIEW OE THE

POLITICS,

AND

I, I T E R A T U R E,

.For the YEAR 1802.

LONDON:

PRINTED by R. WILKS, No. 89, CHANCERY-LANE;

FOR W. OTRIDGE AND SON 5 CLARKE AND SON 5 T. HURST ) E. CROSBY J, BELL ) R. FAULDER 5 CUTHELL AND MARTIN) OGILVY AND SON ) R, LEA ) J. NUNN ) J. WALKER) LACKXNGTON., ALLENj AND CO. E. JEFFERY) VERNOR AND HOOD) J. ASPERNE ) AND WYNNE AND SCHOLEY.

1803.

\,a

PREFACE

i

We closed our labours for the last year, with the an¬ nouncement of peace, having been once more esta¬ blished throughout those wide-spread regions, whose fields had been stained with twelve years desolating warfare : whose ancient limits had given way to the innovating spirit of revolution*: and whose inhabitants had been, during that period, successively exposed, either to the insolent ravages of the invader, or the no less exhausting friendship of the protecting power. At that period, peace, in the abstract,, seemed so great a blessing to the nations of the earth, that we were little disposed to damp the enthusiastic joy, with which it was received by all ranks of people in this country ; by too curiously canvassing its terms, or by these

a 2 fore*

[ ir ]

I

forebodings of evil, which our political experience might have entitled us with prophetic solemnity, under all the circumstances attending it, to sound in the ear of the Bri¬ tish nation. Sharers in the general joy, we perhaps equally participated in the delusion ; nor could we conceive, but that if tranquillity was so necessary to Great Britain, whose glorious career, had, during her late arduous struggle, been marked with constant victory and conquest ; that it was not infinitely more so to her opponent, who had not, at its termination, to boast of a single acquisition wrested from us during the whole period ; and who had placed on the throne of her pristine monarchs, a nameless military adventurer, to the establishment of whose power and au* thority, it seemed absolutely essential.

Soon, however, was the veil removed from our eyes ; hardly had the preliminaries become the object of public investigation, when the dangerous precipice on which we were placed, became but too apparent. We hastened to correct our own errors, and those into which we might have inadvertently led om* readers ; we devoted an early portion of the present volume to their consideration, and we en¬ deavoured to point out their inadequacy, to render perma¬ nent and secure, that peace, which derived its only value from the probability of both those qualities having been secured to it, by the immense and otherwise dispropor¬ tionate sacrifices we had made.

As

[ V ]

As we advanced, however, in our progress, all further trouble was spared to us. The restless ambition of the consular sovereign of the French empire, became suffi¬ ciently obvious. Provinces and territories added to his already overgrown dominion ; the assumption of the ab¬ solute sovereignty of a great portion of Europe ; treaties obtained by force or fraud, injurious to the British interests, insolently promulgated, even before the definitive treaty of peace was signed ; left no room in the mind even of the most sanguine supporters of the peace, to doubt as to its conseauences.

x

The forcible imposition of forms of government, upon states whose independence was formally protected or ac¬ knowledged by every power of Europe. The arbitrary interference in regulating the internal Concerns, of that venerable fabric, the Germanic empire ; and the super¬ cilious contempt with which Great Britain was, on every occasion, treated by the Corsican usurper ; sufficiently evinced his hostile views, and left us an easy task to convince our readers of the small hope there remained, of our enjoying those blessings which we had fondly, but too precipitately, flattered them with in our preceding volume.

Under very opposite impressions has the present been conducted. In our domestic history we have gone into length, on the great questions of the preliminary and de¬ finitive treaties \ and endeavoured to point out their de-

b fe-cts

I

C vi ]

fects and palpable tendency to the renewal of war. We have given, in the Parliamentary Debates, the reason¬ ings at considerable length, of our most enlightened statesmen on those momentous subjects. We have traced with an impartial, and, we hope, unerring hand, the shades of difference which have arisen, between those great lead¬ ing characters who have, since the commencement of their public career, acted together ; but who have, under those extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances which form the subject matter of the history of the present year, taken up widely differing lines of conduct ; and who have given new appellations and energies to political combination. Above all, we have endeavoured to point out the danger which must arise to the interests, nay, the very existence of the British empire, from the un¬ checked and uncontrouled spirit of aggrandisement and ambition in the present ruler of France ; and the utter impossibility there exists of our maintaining the usual relations of peace and amity, with his overweening and restless insolence.

On the subject of the French expedition to St. Do¬ mingo ; on the affairs of Switzerland ; and on that of the complicated system of the German indemnities, we trust we shall have been found to have manifested no inconsi¬ derable research and labour.

To Ireland our attention has been particularly directed. That coin, try rising every day in political importance, the

settle-

[ vii ]

settlement of whose domestic affairs was the ostensible cause, of the loss to the British empire of the union of the greatest and most brilliant assemblage of talents, she had ever witnessed, united in one administration ; required more than ordinary attention. To attempt to trace the causes of her present discontents to their true source, ^nd point out the most probable means to remedy them, we hope we have exhibited in our chapter on that subject ; which at least will have the merit (if no other can be found) of novelty to recommend it.

Our colonial establishments, both in the East and W est Indies, claimed a particular share of our attention, and which, to the utmost of our ability and extent of our in¬ formation, we have bestowed upon those important sub¬ jects ; nor will there, generally speaking, be found any matter which our cc History of Europe” usually embraces, which we have not brought before our readers in their progressive and natural order, and with as much minute¬ ness as consisted with the nature of the work.

In our selections, we have been unusually attentive to what we conceived would be the taste and wish of our readers. Our a Chronicle5 5 we have endeavoured to make more than usually interesting by the extent and variety of matter. In our extracts from the best works of the year, we have been particularly anxious to dwell on those which relate to Egypt, that very extraordinary country, which has been, from the remotest antiquity, the subject

of

Ce- ® 9 — |

VIII

of research and inquiry, and which on a late memorable occasion, was the theatre of the gallant exploits of our brave countrymen, and that of the humiliation and total, discomfiture of our implacable enemy.

In our Miscellaneous and Poetical Articles, some ori¬ ginal unpublished pieces, of no ordinary share of merit, are inserted,

W e now dismiss our volume to the perusal and judg¬ ment of our kind, we hope partial, friends, the public. That public whom we have faithfully served for four and forty years ; whose interests we have carefully guarded,, and whose approbation and patronage has been the con¬ stant object of our unceasing and unwearied solicitude.

/

THE

THE

t

*

ANNUAL REGISTER,

For the YEAR 1802.

THE

<&

HISTORY

O F

EURO

CHAR L

Meeting of the Imperial Parliament — meets at an earlier Period than visual. — His Majesty's Speech from the Throne , announcing the Adjust¬ ment, by Convention, of the Differences with the Northern Powers of Europe — and of the Preliminaries of Peace being signed with France , &c. — Addresses of Thanks moved in the Lords avid Commons . — Debates.

— Address carried in both Houses.

THE signature of the prelimi¬ nary articles of peace, which took place on the 1 st day of October, at London, was an event of such importance, that his majesty con¬ vened the parliament at an earlier period than the session has been for many years accustomed to com¬ mence. Although the British con- stitution had been preserved, and this country (alone), of all the powers engaged with France, had Vet. XLIV.

maintained its integrity and its ho¬ nour, yet it had been deemed so impossible to rescue the other states of Europe from the grasp of France, that peace was the universal wish of the nation. The insolence of several of the successive govern¬ ments of France, their poverty even, which from not possessing any thing to lose, naturally ex¬ cited them to try desperate mea¬ sures for bettering their situation, B all

2

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802,

all inclined the people of this coun¬ try to believe that peace was still distant, when suddenly and unex¬ pectedly, the signature of the pre¬ liminaries was announced, and very shortly after his majesty’s procla¬ mation appeared, appointing the parliament to assemble on the 29th of October, for the dispatch of weighty and important business. This weighty and important business was immediately known to be, the offi¬ cial communication to the great council of the nation, of the signa¬ ture of the preliminaries of the peace. The mass of the nation, at first, expressed the most enthusi¬ astic joy at hearing of the reesta¬ blishment of peace, without can¬ vassing the terms of it, or consi¬ dering whether it was such a peace as this country had a right to expect 5 but when the parliament was about to assemble, the atten¬ tion of every one was turned to the opinions which should be delivered there, by those men, whose supe¬ rior abilities and opportunities of forming a correct judgment en¬ abled them to throw the greatest possible light upon the subject.

On the 29th of October, his ma¬ jesty opened the sessions, by a speech from the throne : he an¬ nounced to his parliament that the differences with the Northern Pow¬ ers had been adjusted by a conven¬ tion with the emppror of Russia,, to which the kings of Denmark and Sweden had expressed their readiness to accede. He stated, that, in this convention, the essen¬ tial rights for which this country contended, were secured, and pro¬ vision made that the exercise of them should be attended with as little molestation as possible, to the subjects of the contracting parties.

He next informed them that preli¬ minaries of peace had been signed between him and the French re¬ public, in which he trusted that this important arrangement would be found to be conducive to the substantial interests of this country, and honourable to the British cha¬ racter. He also expressed his gra¬ titude to Divine Providence for the bounty afforded to his people in' the abundant produce of the last har¬ vest, and his acknowledgments to the distinguished valour and eminent services of his forces both by sea and land, the unprecedented exer¬ tions of the militia and fencibles, and the zeal and perseverance of the yeomanry and volunteer corps 3 and was persuaded that parliament would join with him in reflecting with peculiar satisfaction on the naval and military operations of the last campaign, and on the successful and glorious issue of the expedition to Egypt, which had been marked throughout by achievements, tend¬ ing in their consequences and by their example to produce lasting advantages and honour to this coun¬ try. He concluded by expressing his most fervent prayer, ^ that his people might experience the re¬ ward they had so much merited* in a full enjoyment of the blessings of peace, in a progressive increase of their commerce, credit and re¬ sources, and above all, in the un¬ disturbed possession of their reli¬ gion, laws and liberties, and in the safeguard and protection of that constitution, which it had been the great object of all their efforts to preserve, and which it was. their most sacred duty to transmit un¬ impaired to their descendants.” An address of thanks to his majesty, for his most gracious speech, was

moved

Moved, in the House of Lords,

by

Lord Bolton, who said he should not enter into any detail of the

J

preliminaries, as the papers were not then before the house j but he could not avoid pointing their lord- chip's attention to the sentiments of paternal affection expressed by his majesty, in announcing the adjust¬ ment of the differences with the Northern Powers, and the signing of the preliminaries. As for peace itself, it had been so strongly left to be desirable, that men did not allow themsel-ve§ time to doubt of its being advantageous, but gave free and unbounded indulgence to their joy : the leading articles of the peace were universally known and approved of, but no circum¬ stance attending it appeared to him more worthy of consideration than the fitness of the time at which his majesty’s ministers had concluded the preliminaries of the peace. They had not done it at a time when a deficiency of supplies was felt ; No, he saw with pride and satisfaction that ministers had chosen a time for making peace when our re¬ sources were in full vigour, and when the nation had displayed its ancient character, by the manly and determined posture of defence into which it had voluntarily put itself when threatened by invasion. He admired also the fitness of the time for concluding peace, because it was not at a time when we had any fifing to fear for oar security, when our arms had been unsuccessful, our strength exhausted, or our spirits broken. On the contrary, the peace was concluded at the mo¬ ment the most auspicious to the British character, when our re¬ sources were unimpaired, and our

armies triumphant. It was a grand and magnificent triumph for Eng¬ land to make a peace, when her. navies and armies were every where conquerors from the frozen seas of the North to the pillars of Her- cules ; and from Africa to the re¬ motest shores of Asia and America. Wheri the unexampled achieve¬ ments of that band of heroes, who % / had rescued Egypt from its in¬ vaders, were made only to restore it to its rightful owner, and the triumphs of our armies were only accessary to that spirit of modera¬ tion, which dictated our appeal to arms. His lordship, after paying the highest tribute of praise to our commanders in Egypt, observed, that when the peace was made it was evident that the integrity of Europe could not be preserved -7 had it been possible to preserve it, it would have been effected by the power of Great Britain,

Si Pergama dextra

Defendi possint, e tiara’ hac defensa fuissent.

His lordship concluded by moving an address which, as usual, .was an echo of thevspeech.

Lord Lifford seconded the address, and compared the situation in which the country then stood, with that alarming situation in which it was at the time parliament was con¬ vened in' the preceding year : when the war assumed a new terror from the menaced interference of the Northern Powers ) -while we had the gigantic force of France to con¬ tend with nearer home, and the fate of Egypt still hung in sus¬ pense. Such was then our situa¬ tion with respect to foreign powers. Our domestic situation was still more melancholy : the sovereign

i ANNUAL REGISTER, 18 02.

was afTi ic led by a severe indispo¬ sition, our jadniinistration divided among themselves, government for a time inefficient, and the people threatened with the horrors of an immediate famine, and the country also menaced with invasion, and this invasion calculating as means of success on the disloyalty of num¬ bers of Iris majesty’s subjects. At present all that alarm had disap¬ peared, and we had the pleasure to behold our beloved sovereign in the full enjoyment of his health, exer¬ cising the best and most amiable of his privileges, announcing the return of peace, and all its bless¬ ings, to the people. The blessing of God had dissipated, by the last abundant harvest, all danger of famine $ and the nation, after a long and glorious struggle, might prepare to taste the blessings of peace.

The duke of Bedford, in a short speech, expressed his concurrence with the address. He, however, differed from the noble mover in one sentiment ; he could not agree that this was precisely the fittest time to make peace, he thought it could have been more fitly made at a more early period.

The address was then agreed to, neminedissentietite.

In the Commons, the same day, the address was moved by

Lord Lovain, who hoped, that as the event which his majesty’s speech had announced had been approved of by the great majority of the nation, so the address which he should have the honour of pro¬ posing, would be generally, if not universally, approved of in that house. His lordship recapitulated the various subjects of national ex¬ ultation, A peace, gained by vic-

3

tories never surpassed in the annals of this country, and secured by moderation 5 a plentiful harvest dis¬ pelling every fear of famine and an event no less glorious than the peace with France, no less advan¬ tageous to the interests of this country, the arrangement of the disputes with the Northern Powers. After expatiating at considerable length on those topics, his lordship concluded, by moving an address similar to that which was proposed in the other house.

Colonel Wocdhouse seconded this address.

Mr. Fox then rose to express his most sincere and cordial concur¬ rence in the address, and his ap¬ probation of the peace which had been at length obtained. This was an event on which he could not suppress his joy and exultation : an event in which the people of Eng¬ land had the greatest cause to re¬ joice and exult. At present he should not trespass further upon the attention of the house, than to offer this short but sincere expres¬ sion of his sentiment on the event, and to declare his assent to the address.

Mr. Pitt rose also to express his satisfaction on the event which had been announced in his majesty’s speech ; for the present, he should forbear any observations upon the subject of the preliminaries, but when he came to express his mo¬ tives for rejoicing in the attainment of peace, possibly they would be found} very different from those of the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Fox) who spoke last. What¬ ever opinion he might entertain as to certain of the preliminary arti¬ cles, he approved generally of the outline. We owed this event to

the

H IS TO R Y

OF EUROPE.

the gallantry of our fleets and ar¬ mies, and that good conduct in the people of England, which he had ever considered as our best security; and events had proved, that as long as the people of England were true to themselves, and their represen¬ tatives true to their interests, they had nothing to fear from external foes.

Mr. Windham said, that if this address was (o pledge the house to approve of the preliminaries speci¬ fically, he could not support it ; but as it gave no such pledge, he should support the address, but at the same time give a general outline of the reasons for which he differed from the sentiments which other gentlemen had expressed about the peace. • He could not avoid differ¬ ing, on this occasion, from his right honourable friend (Mr. Pitt), from whom to differ he always con¬ sidered a misfortune. He was aware, that to stand as a solitary mourner in the midst of general exultation, to wear a countenance clouded with sadness, while all others are lighted up with joy, was at once unfortunate and un¬ gracious. He could not avoid, upon this occasion, differing from those gentlemen (Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox), who had so often heretofore differed on every subject of the war, though now they coincided in approbation of the peace. It struck him, however, in a different point of view, and he must ask. Were the circumstances of the peace the subject of joy and exul¬ tation ? When he was called upon to put on his wedding suit he must inquire whether it was a .marriage or a funeral he was called to cele¬ brate ? When he was desired to illuminate, he must learn whether

it was to light him to a feast or a sepulchre ? He must most so- , lemnly pronounce, that it was his firm persuasion, that ministers, in signing this peace, had signed the death-warrant of the country. The only thing which France wanted to enable her to divide with this country the empire of the seas was, such a participation of commerce as to enable her to extend her navy; this participation they had now ob¬ tained. He should not, however, find fault with ministers, if they could show that such a peace was a safe one, if they could show that there was an absolute necessity for it. Such a necessity, however, he did not perceive. These topics would, however, be more fully dis¬ cussed at a future day.

The chancellor of the exchequer (Mr. Addington), declined going into the discussion of the prelimi¬ naries, as they were not now be¬ fore the house ; his right honour¬ able friend (Mr. Windham), who professed also to feel the impro¬ priety of entering into such dis¬ cussion at present, had, however, advanced opinions and suggestions, which he could not permit to pass uncontradicted. He must answer, that it was not by the extension of our territories by conquest, but by preserving our constitution, and defending our own possessions, that we would possess the best securities for our rights, and for the exten¬ sion of our commerce. He had conceived that his fight honourable friend would be the last t.o depre¬ ciate the finances of the country audits resources; he was therefore surprised to hear him suggest that the accedence to the treaty on the part of England, was the effect of necessity, and from v. ant of means # 6 to

0

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

to continue the contest ; he dis¬ claimed the motive so assigned j he disclaimed being party to any such plea. He must publicly declare, that had it been found necessary to continue the contest, no deficiency whatever would have been found in the finances and resources of the country. He concluded by antici¬ pating the unanimity of the' house on the motion for the address.

Mr. Sheridan admitted the pro¬ priety of abstaining from discussion of the merits of the treaty, and as he saw no great objection to the address as it now stand's, he felt no wish to disturb the unanimity of the house. He approved of the address the more for not being an exact echo pf the speech, as the speech con¬ tained distinctions and characters of the peace which he could by no means admit that it deserved. As to the unanimity, however, with which this address was likely to pass, he believed, if the time was come for gentlemen to speak their' real sentiments, there never was a period of less unanimity. The right honourable gentleman has spoken of the peape in terms in which he

could by no means agree. He dif¬ fered from him when he charac¬ terized the peace as glorious and honourable. He differed still more from those who conceived it. to be inexpedient to make peace at all. He considered this as a peace in¬ volving a degradation of the na¬ tional dignity, which no truly Eng¬ lish heart could behold with indif¬ ference j such a peace as the war had a necessary tendency to lead to. Tile war, he considered as one cf the worst wars in which the country had been engaged ; and the peace as good a’ one’ as any man could make in the circum¬ stances in which the country was placed.

Earl Temple agreed in the ge¬ neral sentiment of waving for the present the discussion of the peace, and supporting the address. In' giving his support to the address he by no means pledged himself to support the peace, which, consider¬ ing its terms, he could not approve of.

After a few words from Mr, James Martin, the address was put and carried unanimously. \

CHAP,

7

H ISTORY OF

E UROP

■

CHAP. II,

(Copies of the Convention with Russia laid before the House of Lords — and Commons . — Motion by Mr. Grey for Papers — by Mr. Whitbread on the second Article of the Preliminaries. — Inquiry by Lord Grenville on the Subject of Portugal — Address to the King moved for in the Lords on the Peace. — Debate . — Speeches of Lords Romney — Limericks- Spencer — Duke of Clarence — Pelhajn — Grenville— -Chancellor — Moira— Mut grave — Duke of Bedford — FitzwilUani — St. Vincent— Nelson — The Marquis of Buckingham — Carnarvon — Hobart * Division. —Address carried.

ON Friday the 30th of October, copies of the convention with the emperor of Russia, and of the preliminary articles of peace with France, were presented to the house of lords by lord Pelham 5 and to the house of commons by lord Hawkes- bury.

In the house of lords, lord Gren¬ ville rose to move for copies of all treaties and conventions made within the last year by France with gny of the powers which were allies of his majesty : the object for which he moved those papers was to ex¬ plain that article of the preliminaries which respected the integrity of Portugal, inasmuch as by one treaty Portugal had ceded a province to Spain, and by another a still greater proportion of its territory to France : he wished then much to know what was this integrity of Portugal which was guarantied by the preliminaries, or what claim the government had to the praise of fidelity in securing the possessions of our allies. For his part, he was of opinion that there never was a transaction of any kind in the history of our country, at any period, or under any circum¬

stances, in which so much had been given up without any equivalent, such unlimited concession made, so much disgrace incurred, and the na¬ tion placed in such awful circum¬ stances of impending peril. Fie hoped, however, that his noble friend would, by an express declaration, render the motion unnecessary. -

Lord Pelham regretted extremely that the noble lord should think it necessary to oppose the measures of his majesty’s ministers on so impor¬ tant a point. With respest to the production of these papers, he ob¬ served, that while matters stood in negotiation between this country and France, such papers could not be laid upon the table, without con¬ siderably embarrassing bis majesty’s servants, and endangering the pub¬ lic interests.

Lord Grenville said he did not mean to. embarrass his majesty’s ministers, nor oppose their measures, unless in matters of such import as left him no option. On the con¬ trary, he was ready to give them all the assistance and support he could, provided they would act with more firmness and vigour in maintaining 114 ' the

8

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

the peace, than they had shown in negotiating it. After again touching on the vast importance of the cession which Portugal has made to France in Guyana, he concluded by waving his intended motion for the present, as his noble friend (lord Pelham) had expressed an objection to it.

On the same day, in the house of commons, Mr. Grey demanded explanations from ministers on nearly the same grounds as lord Grenville had wished for the production of papers in the house of lords. He wished particularly to be informed what was the nature of the integrity that was stipulated for the dominions of the queen of Portugal ? Was it the integrity of what remained of it when it had ceded a province to Spain, or was it its absolute inte¬ grity ? He also expressed the surprise he had felt in reading the treaty be¬ tween France and Portugal, to hud that the goods and merchandise of France were to be admitted into the ports of Portugal with every advan¬ tage and privilege formerly given to the most favoured nation : this would be-, in fact, an abrogation of all the treaties which had subsisted between this country and Portugal for the last century. It was on these two points that he wished for explanation from ministers.

Lord Hawkesbury considered these questions as unusual and irregular, and therefore declined, for the pre¬ sent, to enter into any explanation, and more particularly as the subject would soon come before the house in a regular way of discussion.

The thanks of both houses wrere given to general Hutchinson, lord Keith, and sir James Suamarez.

On the 2d of November, in the house of commons, Mr. Whitbread asked lord Hawkesbury whether

Spain apd Holland had appointed any representative authorised to con¬ sent to those cessions of territory mentioned in the second article of the preliminaries.

Lord Hawkesbury replied, that they had not ; but that it was con¬ sidered that France was fully com¬ petent to act for her allies : he add¬ ed, that he was now prepared to an¬ swer a question which had been put to him by an honourable member (Mr. Grey) the other evening : the sixth article of the treaty meant only to secure to Portugal her territories as settled by the treaty of Badajos, that she had concluded with Spain.

Mr. Grey observed, that that was not the only question he had put to the noble lord on a former evening ; he had also inquired about the treaty between Portugal and France, by which French manufactures were to be received in Portugal on terms equally favourable with those of this country.

Lord Hawkesbury replied, that the preference given by each coum try was reciprocal j and if Portugal admitted the woollens of other na¬ tions to be imported upon the terms heretofore exclusively enjoyed by this country, we should also be at liberty to place all other wines upon a footing with those of Portugal.

On the next day a most important debate took place in both houses, on the motion for an address to his ma¬ jesty : this debate naturally drew forth the sentiments of every distin¬ guished member of either house, as to the general merits or demerits of the preliminary articles : previous however to the order of the day for reading his majesty’s speech, a de¬ bate, or rather an animated conver¬ sation, took place in both houses re¬ specting some further information

which

9

HISTORY O

which was demanded from ministers, and which they were not disposed to grant.

Lord Grenville, in the house of peers, asked his majesty’s ministers whether Portugal was now at liberty to maintain her accustomed relations with this country, as by the treaty of Madrid she had been bound not to give any exclusive privileges to the detriment of the contracting parties.

Lord Pelham answered, that she was still at liberty to treat with this country.

Lord Grenville replied, that this question was, whether Portugal re¬ mained at liberty to maintain her former connection with us, under which we enjoyed exclusive advan¬ tages, for which we gave reciprocal privileges.

[No answer was made by minis¬ ters.]

Lord Thurlow complained of the irregularity of this conversation.

Lord Grenville said, it was by no means unusual to call for important information previous to discussing the order of the day 5 however, for the sake of regularity, he should move an humble address to his ma¬ jesty, praying for a copy of the treaty of Madrid, signed on the 2Qth of September.

Lord Hobart said, that the preli¬ minaries only respected the integrity of the territories of Portugal ; com¬ mercial regulations must remain for future arrangement.

After several observations from the lord Chancellor, lord Thurlow, and other lords* the house proceeded to the order of the day.

In the house of commons, the honourable Mr. Grenville made a similar demand of information re¬ specting the treaty of Madrid, which

F EUROPE.

he observed was more peculiarly necessary, as Portugal had signed two treaties with Spain, one at Ba- dajos, the other at Madrid, and the house ought to know which of them was guarantied.

Lord Hawkesbury said, govern¬ ment was not then possessed of offi¬ cial information on the subject, but he was ready to say, that he under¬ stood that by the treaty of Badajos, Portugal only ceded the town of Oil- venza to Spain, and that by the treaty between France and Portugal there was so far an alteration of the frontier in Guyana, that for the fu¬ ture the river Arewara was to be the boundary.

The preliminary conversation be¬ ing thus disposed of in both houses, that part of his majesty’s speech re¬ lating to the preliminary Articles was read.

Lord Romney moved the address in the house of lords : he began by stating, that we had now terminated the greatest and most momentous war which this country had ever been engaged in ; a war. Which though productive of the heaviest burdens, had been on our side a war of necessity, not only for the de¬ fence of our allies, but the preserva¬ tion of our religion, laws, property, and constitution. And as it was on our side nesessary, so it was, as far as we were concerned, attended by the most brilliant successes. Glo¬ rious as that war was, in which the immortal Chatham presided at the helm of affairs, this was no less splendid. Our Beets had been vic¬ torious in a still higher degree; they had crushed the navy, and annihi¬ lated the commerce of the enemy. Th<? whole of maritime Europe, jealous of the power of our navy, had conspired its humiliation ; they

found

10

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

found their vain endeavours recoil upon themselves. He had himself been taught, by the glory that our troops had obtained in Egypt, the truth of one observation made to him formerly by a noble lord, him¬ self an ornament to the military pro¬ fession (lord Moira), who told him that he might rely upon it, that British soldiers, when they had an equal opportunity of distinguishing themselves, would not fall short of British sailors. Egypt had lately- witnessed such glorious exertions of British troops, as the annals of his¬ tory'- could not surpass. We had then to contend with a completely disciplined army, more numerous than our own, inured to the climate, and commanded by a most skilful and experienced general. The chosen troops of France, who had gained so many brilliant victories against the Austrians, and deemed them¬ selves “ invincible,” found, for the first time, that they were not invin¬ cible when they came to close quar¬ ters with British soldiers. Success however was the best season for concluding peace. In no former war has the victorious party insisted on retaining all its acquisitions. In the war which lord Chatham had so gloriously conducted, the object was to secure our American colonies : that being effected, we restored, at the peace, Martinico, Guadaloupe, the Havannah, and Pondicherry. In the American war, when France had succeeded in detaching from us these colonies, she did not hesitate to re¬ store several islands and settlements she had taken from us during the war. We now have secured the great object of the war, our religion, laws, constitution, property, and in¬ dependence. We had displayed greater resources, both military and '

pecuniary, than this country was sup¬ posed to possess, and so far the impor¬ tant objects of the war had been se¬ cured. His lordship then dwelt on the importance of the islands of Ceylon and Trinidada (both from their si¬ tuation and capability of improve¬ ment), as also on the vast conquests which had been made in India, from Tippoo Sultan, the old ally of France, and the deliverance of Egypt from the French dominion. He concluded by giving his opinion that we had done all that could have been done for our allies, and that we had laid a foundation for British security, which held out a promise of permanent peace. He then read his motion for the ad- address.

Lord Limerick seconded the ad¬ dress. He thought it augured well of the peace, that almost ajl ranks and descriptions of men in the country approved of it. He was sorry, however, to find that many, of the highest characters in point of abilities and integrity thought dif¬ ferently upon ihat subject. The situation of this country \yas, as he thought, decidedly better than at the late peace. At the last peace we lost our finest colonies, and several most important islands and fortresses had been taken from us in the war which preceded it; but in this the character of the country as well as its territories were preserved inviolate : Britain had also successfully interfered for its allies, Turkey and Portugal. His lordship, then expatiated on the glorious achievements of our troops in Egypt, and regretted the loss of that hero, who led on those, troops to victory and immortal ho¬ nour. His spirit, however, did not die 5 it fell, upon those gallant offi¬ cer^

HISTORY O

i * 5\ ! '

c-?rs who succeeded him, and whose conduct best spoke their eulogium. He hoped the house would pardon his national vanity in mentioning, that many of them came from the same part of the united kingdom >vith himself, and were his par¬ ticular friends. He spoke this with particular pleasure, from the recol¬ lection of the disaffected and dan¬ gerous spirit which prevailed too much amongst the inferior orders of people in that country. To this subject he thought the attention of government should be directed, and that above all things a large peace establishment must be kept up. He concluded by generally approv¬ ing of the conduct of ministers, but particularly for procuring tor the nation such preliminaries of peace as the present.

Earl Spencer lamented the ne¬ cessity he felt himself under from his sense of duty, to deliver an Opinion opposite to that of the two noble lords who had last spoke. If he did not feel himself called upon by his sense of duty, he should much rather have deplored in silence the calamity of the present peace, and the enthusiastic joy with which the people had received it. Ele should rather have suppressed the mortification he felt at the degrada¬ tion of his country : he felt peculiar pain at opposing the measures of men with whom he had so long acted, and with whom he was con¬ nected by the ties of friendship 5 but his opinion on this subject was diametrically opposite to theirs. He thought that no single object of the war had been obtained, and that we had sacrificed all means of protection. We had in every part <of the world made cessions of coun¬ tries which the valour of our forces

V. ; '• 1 ,\- ■ .

m

F EUROPE. 11

by land and sea had conquered* and which would have secured us from the effects of the aggrandize¬ ment of France upon the continent* It had been said that we had pro¬ tected our allies. What N was the fact ? How had we protected Por¬ tugal ? It appeared that it was only a portion of her territory whose integrity was to be preserved. A part of the important province -of Olivenza was to be ceded : our ally the Prince of Orange was not even named in the preliminaries, although from his faithful attach¬ ment to us he had lost both his territories and his station. Could it be said that Ceylon and Trinidad gave either sufficient indemnity for the past, or security for the future ? In India the bravery of our army had subdued Tippoo Saih, and placed that country out of danger ; but by this peace, which surren¬ ders to the enemy the Cape of Good Hope aiid Cochin, we afford them an entrance into Malabar ; while in South America we have permitted Portugal to cede to France a strong military position at the mouth of the river of Amazons. I11 the West Indies we had surren¬ dered Martinico, and left the French in possession of St. Domingo. la the Mediterranean we had surren¬ dered every thing and excluded ourselves. In Malta the French were to have equal footing with ourselves. In short, he saw nothing but a precarious peace. It was said it was the interest of France to maintain this peace, but who had learned to calculate the interest of an usurper ?, If ever peace was pre¬ carious, this was that peace. If ever precarious peace was dangerous, this was that peace. The French principles are triumphant, and

adorned

12

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

adorned with all the attraction and dignity of success. He felt' sorry to differ from ministers, and con¬ sidered it now most, peculiarly his duty to support such measures of vigour as might give the country a chance of safety.

The duke of Clarence supported the peace. He considered that we had as much security as could be expected in those revolutionary timps, from a government of the nature of the French republic. His royal highness took an able re¬ view of the events of the last war : after bestowing the warmest en¬ comiums on our fleets, he paid the highest tribute of applause to the gallantry of the British soldiers during the course of *the war. Jn this respect he traced the glory of the British arms, not only in gal¬ lant exploits achieved upon the continent of Europe, but in the conquest of the enemy’s colonies, and in the overthrow and destruc¬ tion of Tippoo Saib. While the British arms were attended with such glory and success, a gigantic enterprise of the present first con¬ sul of France threatened for a time to interrupt their progress. 40,000 of the best troops of the French republic embarked on the expedi¬ tion to Egypt. This plan not only menaced all our possessions in the East, but threatened the existence of the Turkish government.

The first important check which this formidable army of French invaders met, was from a handful of British troops under Sir Sidney Smith, long before the landing of that army which became in their turn the conquerors of Egypt. It was on the memorable 21st of March last, when a British army, engaged with a French army.

proved itself superior both in cou¬ rage and capacity. The French, although superior in numbers, were very inferior in military address. After passing very high enco¬ miums on the conduct of our army, his royal highness passed to the brilliant achievements of our navy. The memorable 1st of June, 14th of February, 1 1 th of October, and 1st of August, would be for ever brilliant and glorious in our naval history. The time was however come for making peace. Each of the powers, from their vast con¬ quests, was placed in that predica¬ ment, that no jplow could be given with effect on either side. France had completely overcome every con¬ tending power on the continent. Great Britain, as far as regarded maritime affairs, was in the same state. This was therefore (as ex¬ pressed by a distinguished personage) no common peace ; but a recon¬ ciliation of differences between the two greatest powers in the world ! He considered the possessions that 'we retained as very judiciously se¬ lected, not only from their produc¬ tions and real value, but on account of their situations and the advan¬ tages we might derive from their harbours. It was the obvious po¬ licy of Great Britain to pay her principal attention to commercial stations ; while an immense power like France naturally looked to continental acquisitions. His royal highness concluded by giving his hearty assent to the motion.

Lord Pelham, in vindication of the treaty, compared it with the projet which the former ministers had given in in 1797* The only dif¬ ference was, that the Cape of Good Hope, which by that projet was to have been retained, is now to be

made

1 3

H ISTORY O

made a free port. This difference sorely would not authorize a con¬ tinuation of the war. As to no mention having been made of the prince of Orange, it was most evident that we had not the power to reinstate him by force of arms 5 but certainly no opportunity would be lost in negotiating for his inte- rests. Naples, which now was possessed by the armies of France, was to be restored to its lawful sovereign. Malta was to be availing to neither of the contracting parties. As for Portugal, she had retained every thing that could be useful to retain, and had made no sacrifice that could be injurious. There was nothing in the West Indies which •could have justified a continuance of the struggle, and in the East the overthrow of Tippoo had com¬ pletely secured our empire from annoyance, Ceylon and Trinidad were important acquisitions ; but it was much more important that we had overcome the erroneous opinions prevalent in England and in Ireland. He concluded with trusting the peace would be found advantageous and safe for the coun¬ try.

Lord Westmeath also spoke in favour of the address.

Lord Grenville said it would be indeed to him a matter of the most lively satisfaction and heartfelt joy, if his judgment could permit him to congratulate the house as the noble mover of the address had done, or if he could agree to an address which stated that we had brought an arduous and important contest to a successful termination. Independent of every public con¬ sideration which must / have ani¬ mated him, every private feeling he possessed must have rejoiced at the

F EURO? E.

attainment of that object, which for so many years of his life it was his duty continually to urge to their lordships. He feared, however, that all the pains he had bestowed! upon that object, would turn out mere fruitless labour, for he was: sorry to say, that, according to his view of the subject, no one of the objects for which we had so long warred had been obtained. If se¬ curity was the object of the war, we now remain in a state of greater insecurity than at the commence¬ ment of the war, or at any time during its continuance. He should agree that our naval and military efforts had been crowned by success greater than at any former period: he also agreed that peace ought to have been made when it could be made on secure and honourable terms, for a secure and honourable peace is the only legitimate object of war. The question was not whether the peace should or should not be agreed to, for the honour of the nation was now pledged to the observance of its conditions ; and

l *

as so many sacrifices had already- been made, he should be the last man who would propose to sacri¬ fice the national honour. The ques¬ tion now is, what are the merits of this treaty ? or can the house assure iiis majesty that the terms of it met their approbation ? To this he could not agree, because he conceived the terms disadvantageous to the country, and fraught with national degradation. This was stated to be only a question about terms, and therefore it must be tried by an examination of the terms, by we Ah - ing our cessions and our conquests, and considering our relative si¬ tuation. He considered that it was perfectly known to every statesman,*

14 ANNUAL RE

that there were but two principles ©11 which negotiations for peace usually proceeded : the first was the state of things before the war, or the status quo ante helium 3 or the actual state of things at the time' of negotiating, or the uti possidetis , If the situation of things was such ss that it was not possible to restore them to what, they was before the war, then the negotiation should have been on the latter principle, and every deviation from that prin¬ ciple should be strictly watched If we had been much inferior to the enemy in strength at the time of the negotiation, that .surely must enter into the account j but every noble lord who had yet spoken, disclaimed, and indeed it had been completely disproved by the event of the last year’s war, in which it was by no means found that we were inferior to the enemy, either in success, in means, or resources. If the situation of the country then was elevated and prosperous, we ought to have had honourable terms' ©f peace ; we were in a condition to demand such terms as were ade¬ quate to our rank and power. He then requested their lordships to consider the situation of France, and by comparing it with that of this, country, ascertain the relative situation of both. He by no means meant to undervalue the conquests of France, on the contrary, he thought them of the highest im- portance. By taking the Rhine for her boundary, arid annexing Savoy, &c. she had not only extended her empire beyond what the most am¬ bitious of her monarchs had ever conceived, but. she bad her fron¬ tiers additionally secured by depen¬ dent republics and tributary brings, additional war, continued success.

G IS TER, 1802.

and fresh conquest. On our side, our successes were no less brilliants We had rescued Egypt 3 possessed ourselves of Malta and Minorca 3 and shut up the Mediterranean against the ships of France and Spain. We had the Cape of Good Hope, a most important key to the East. In the West Indies we had every thing that was desirable, Martinfeo, Trinidad, &c. On the continent of South America we had, at Demerara and Surinam, an em¬ pire almost equal in extent and im¬ portance to the power to whom we restored It. Although the war had not been undertaken for colonial acquisitions, yet it was wisely di¬ rected to that object, as being the best means of crippling her marine, by contracting her commerce ; but although we were disappointed in the dbjects of the war, these pos¬ sessions should have been held as pledges for indemnity, and still more . so for security. If the continent of Europe could not be restored to its former state, they ought to have, been retained as a counterpoise to the power of France. The noble lord had seemed principally to rely upon an argument ad ho mine m , by comparing this treaty with the pro- jet of Lisle, but he had forgot to state that, besides the cessions con¬ tained in that projet, the present treaty gave up Surinam, Minorca, and Malta. After four years of additional war arid expense, we had given more to receive less 3 be- sides we should have remembered in what a period of despondency those negotiations began. The stoppage at the bank, which threat¬ ened more alarming consequences than resulted from, it, to which was to be added, the unexpected de¬ fection of our allies, and, above all,

that

15

HISTORY Of EUROPE.

that which he would wish to blot from his memory, the mutiny in our fleet. At Lisle, though we gave up much for ourselves, we re¬ tained the dignity of stipulating for our allies. We then expressly stipulated for Portugal. We ex¬ pressly stipulated for the prince of Orange. We did not leave his interests for future negotia¬ tions. If ministers had insisted on an indemnity for the prince of Orange, could it be supposed that the treaty would have been broken off on that account? If it should appear that his property had been confiscated on the pretence of his having given an order for the sur¬ render of some colonies, was it not clear that this confiscation should be taken oft' when those colonies were restored ? He objected much to that sort of preliminary treaty which was to be construed by se¬ cret understandings between the parties 3 for instance, when an ar¬ ticle* expressing to guaranty the integrity of the territories of Por¬ tugal, was, in fact, to mean the dismemberment of it, pursuant to the separate treaties which Portugal had made with Spain. In permit¬ ting this dismemberment, in addi¬ tion to what we had ourselves ceded, he conceived that the secu¬ rity of our possessions in the East had suffered much 3 for when the enemy should be able to exclude us from touching either at Brazil or the Cape of Good Plope, when they were able to place as strong European garrisons as they pleased in Pondicherry and Cochin, they would have great advantages in an Indian war. They could send over armaments with safety and conve¬ nience : we could not, for want of any intermediate port to touch at.

In the West Indies we had given up Martinique, the value of which was certainly greater than that of Trini¬ dad. In the Mediterranean we had given up every thing 3 Minorca, Malta, Porto Ferrajo, and Egypt : and the first fruits of the liberation oft Egypt., was a treaty by which France was to be as much favoured as our¬ selves, throughout the whole extent: of the Turkish empire. As to Naples, the advantages she had ob¬ tained by this treaty were illusory . The French army was to evacuate her territory, but might remain within sixty miles of it, in the Cisalpine territory, and regain in a few days all that they now con¬ sented to give up. He could nest conceive that the situation of France entitled her to make such exor¬ bitant demands 3 there was no re¬ ciprocity in the treaty, all the sacri¬ fices were on our part, and none on theirs. His lordship concluded by giving his opinion, that we had given every pledge of security which was in our hands, and had now- no other security but the word of France : that whatever might be the feelings which induced ministers to consent to such humiliating and dangerous sacrifices, (the more dan¬ gerous because -they were so humi* bating,) and whatever delusive con¬ fidence the country entertained irr, the continuance of such a peace, yet that the nation would be im¬ pressed With this conviction, that the stand must at least be made then, if not sooner 3 and that we must act like men having incau¬ tiously surrendered the out-works, but who retained the citadel, and would rather bury themselves in the ruins than surrender that.

The Lord Chancellor defended the peace, and was firmly persuaded

that

16

ANNUAL REGISTER. 1S02.

that the war had been carried on till it was hopeless to proceed any further. So far of its object as went to the security of our con¬ stitution had been attained. He should not boast of this peace as a very honourable one ; but his principal wish was satisfied, if it was a secure and lasting peace, and the former ministers had de¬ clared that was their only object. We had certainly conquered many possessions of the enemy ; but had France gained no dominion over Naples and Portugal ? As to the projet of Lisle, that was but a projet, a proposition, and by no means an ultimatum, and it is by no means certain what would have been the terms agreed to, if these negotia¬ tions had gone on ; however, he wished to procure a suitable indem¬ nity for the prince of Orange j he could not, in his conscience, risk the peace by insisting upon this point • he thought it better to leave it for future arrangement. As to the Cape of Good Hope, however important it might be as a station and as a harbour, lie thought it by no means worth continuing the war at an expense of thirty millions a year to obtain the possession of it 5 and as to the Mediteranean, he conceived we were better off now than in 1797, when the island of .Malta had no power to guaranty it from France j and we were much better off than we would be if we, for the sake of retaining it, suffered France to keep possession of Naples and Portugal. In the West Indies, lie confessed that he should prefer Martinique, if it could be obtained, - to Trinidad. He thought there was a greater chance of this peace being permanent, than any peace 'which might have been made in

1 797 , 2nd although he should not pretend to call this a glorious peace, yet he conceived it would be con¬ ducive to the security of the essen¬ tial interests of the country : he, therefore, in his conscience ap¬ proved of it, and from his consci¬ ence and best judgment lie had ad¬ vised his majesty to agree to the terms of it.

Lord Moira, in reply to lord Grenville, said, the peace was only so far inadequate as it was inade¬ quate to the expectations which that noble lord and his colleagues had daily held out to parliament and the country, of indemnity for the past, and security for the future. Although parliament had given the most unbounded confidence, and ample supplies that were ever en¬ trusted to ministers, yet those pro¬ mises constantly failed, and the country was brought so on the verge of ruin, as that a peace at any price became necessary. He should, however, wish that what was past, should be, as much as possible, buried in oblivion, and that we should look forward to the more pleasing prospects which now open upon us. He did not at all agree in the justice of the meta¬ phor used by lord Pelham, that this country and France had gone on in parallel lines ; he thought there was no parallel between them. France was an extensive continental power, and her greatness depended on her army. The security of Eng¬ land rested on her navy 5 but how¬ ever glorious and brilliant our vic¬ tories bad been both by sea and by land, Great Britain stood in a state of comparative inferiority both in strength and aggrandizement. The acquisitions we had made certainly bore no comparison to those, which

France

HISTORY OF EUROPE.

17

. France had made. All the islands we had taken in the West Indies were not equal in value to Savoy, which was a very small portion of the acquisitions of France. The strict basis of the uti possidetis could not be adhered to when a weaker power was negotiating with a stronger. He rejoiced sincerely that peace was effected, and gave ministers credit for having made the best peace which, under the existing circumstances, could be procured. His lordship concluded by a decla¬ ration to ministers, that he was disposed to give them his cordial and unreserved support, in the ex¬ pectation that they would continue to deserve it.

Lord Mulgrave, in a very ani¬ mated speech, defended the peace, and gave the highest encomiums to the valour of the British soldiers and sailors.

The duke of Bedford supported the address and the preliminaries of peace, although he differed widely from some of the noble lords who had supported it ; he supported it as a peace the best which eould be obtained under the circumstances of the country. In comparing it with the projet of 1 79/, he observed that, notwithstanding the vigour and resources which this country dis¬ played in the last year of the war, France had, since 1797, gained such important victories on the conti¬ nent, as to place her higher, if possible, than she stood in 1797- He could not therefore withhold his approbation of the peace, unequal as it was, disgraceful as it might be. He hoped, however, that his majesty’s present ministers would follow up the peace by a full re¬ storation of the constitution to the people, and an immediate repeal Vol. XLIV.'

of those statutes, which originated in childish alarm, and apprehension of danger which never existed but in the minds of his majesty's late ministers. He concluded by pro¬ mising to support ministers if they continued in the same course they had hitherto pursued.

The bishop of Rochester said, that although he was a friend to peace, as became the sacred profession to which he belonged, he was an ene¬ my to a mere semblance and coun¬ terfeit of peace, which contained within it the germ of future war, and perhaps of the destruction of the country \ he should have been heartily glad to have given his sup¬ port to a peace that wras honourable and advantageous to the country, and likely to be safe and permanent. The bishop condemned the mode of defending the preliminaries by con¬ sidering the importance of the island of Malta, or any particular cession separately. We should weigh the great mass of cessions generally, and see for \vrhat they had been made : we had yielded the Mediterranean in absolute sovereignty to the enemy t, we had opened for them a door to India ; given them back the Cape, and their islands in the West Indies, rendered infinitely more valuable by British industry and capital — and in exchange for such immense cessions, we had got nothing but a precarious and hollow truce. The reverend prelate followed nearly the same ^course lord Grenville had taken in his disapprobation of the prelimina¬ ries, and concluding by hoping that ministers would not rescind those salutary statutes, which had been found so efficacious in promoting the peace and tranquillity of the country.

Lord Fitzwilliam considered the C • peace

18

ANNUAL RE

peace to be a mere hollow and pre¬ carious truce, that carried with it no symptoms of permanency or secu¬ rity. He considered, that the joy which the people expressed was a mere momentary delusion, that would vanish as soon as the people should return to their reason, and compare the immense sacrifices we have made to the trifling cessions made by France. For the two islands of Ceylon and Trinidad, the country has been nine years at war, has wasted some hundreds of mil¬ lions of her treasure, and thousands of lives. At the same time that he disapproved of the peace, he consi¬ dered that the public faith was now pledged, and that the terms of the treaty, bad as it was, must be ad¬ hered to.

Lord Westmoreland defended the preliminaries.

Lord St. Vincent considered Cey¬ lon and Trindad as two of the most valuable islands in the whole habita¬ ble globe, either considered in a po¬ litical or commercial point of view.

Lord Nelson rose to give the opi¬ nion he had formed from the best opportunities which he had of ascer¬ taining the value of some of the places 1 which we had taken and, afterwards ceded. Minorca he con-' ceived of little value, as it was too far distant from Toulon to be an im¬ portant naval station . As to Malta, he did not consider it as likely to be of any great importance to this country. We took it to rescue it from the hands of the French. It would require a garrison of /OOO men to defend the works. He thought, provided the French did not get it, it was immaterial what third power was possessed of it. Neither did he consider the Cape of Good Hope as a settlement of very

G I S T E R, 1 802.

great value. When the Indiamen were heavy ships, it was necessary to touch there and refit, but now that they are coppered and sail well, they often make the voyage without touch¬ ing at any port whatever. Fie thought his majesty’s ministers were bound to seize the first opportunity of making peace that offered, and that" the preliminaries on the table were both honourable and advantageous.

The marquis of Buckingham la¬ mented sincerely that he could not give his consent to the preliminaries on the table, as they appeared to him to be humiliating and disgrace¬ ful to this country. In the first place, he considered them dishonour¬ able, as they left our allies exposed and unprotected. Portugal, in par¬ ticular, appeared to him to have been shamefully abandoned, and by our consenting to its new commer¬ cial regulations with respect to France, we all but excluded our own woollens from the markets of Por¬ tugal. With regard to the security ot the peace, nothing had been sti¬ pulated, but we were left solely to depend on the bare word and honour of the person now holding the go¬ vernment of the French republic. What was there in the character and conduct of that person to induce us to suppose, that he would not take the earliest favourable opportunity which offered for breaking the peace ? ' He had betrayed a rooted jealousy and deep lodged hatred against this country, which it was not to be supposed would be easily washed away by any superabundant milk of human kindness in his com¬ position. Since the signing the pre¬ liminaries, die intrigues of the French government had negotiated a private peace between the republic and the Porte, in order to prevent

the

HISTORY OF EUROPE.

19

the latter power from feeling that gratitude which it ought to feel to this country for affording it the greatest assistance in the hour of clanger., which it had ever received from any European power. This was a sufficient specimen of the good faith of. the first consul. We had given him a giant’s strength, and we might be assured he would use it like a giant.” His lordship then observed, that although he could not give the present ministers his confidence on their coming into office, yet he had forborne to oppose them till the present occasion had compelled him to do so. If how¬ ever the measure 'on the table was followed up, by measures of energy and vigour, and if his majesty’s ministers would make the necessary exertions to render the peace less precarious than it appeared to him now to be, he should give them his hearty support.

Lord Caernarvon, was of opinion, that a peace more adequate, safe, ami honourable, might have been obtained, . if our negotiators had not lightly surrendered the interests of the country. Every article in the preliminaries is concession , on our side, and advantage to France and her allies, although peace was. as necessary to them as to us, and equally wished for on their side. It might therefore reasonably be expected that they would have con¬ sented to negotiate on equal terms. As to the mode of defending it by putting a question separately on every thing ceded, whether it was worth continuing an expensive war for that object; this might be as

well answered by asking, was it worth the while of France to have continued the war for any of them separately ? After having surrender¬ ed all the fruits of a nine years war, we had no better security for the peace than the good faith of a nation which had never before been cele¬ brated for that quality.

Lord Hobart defended the preli¬ minaries, and replied to the leading objections against them. He. con¬ tended that the interests of Portugal had not been deserted, and that the cession of Cochin in India was by no means of that importance now, which it would have been of, when

it was surrounded bv the territories

*

of Tippoo Saib : those territories are now in our possession^, and the neighbouring sovereign of Travan- core is our firm ally. As to the Cape, it was a possession which could not be held but at an enormous expense to this country. As a place for our ships to touch at, it was by no means necessary to us, as many ships went and returned from India without touching there ; and ns a colony its product would never be at all equal to the expense of keeping it. As to the interests of the stadtholder, the only treason they were not expressly mentioned was, that a negotiation was then depending through the mediation of the court of Berlin, which, promised a favourable issue.

The house then divided upon the question :

Contents t)4 Proxies 10

Non-contents 10 O

Majority for- the address Q4

CHAP,

20

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802,

C H A P. III.

Address on the Peace moved for in the House of Commons by Sir Edward Hcirtop — seconded by ME Lee. — Debate. — Speeches o ° Lords L. Gower — » H awkeshury — Mr. T. Grenville — • Lords Castlereagh — Temple — Mr, Pitt — Fox. — Delate adjourned — resumed next Day. — Speeches of Mr. / Fyndh a m — Wilber force — Elliot — and Addington . — Considerations on th e foregoing Debates.

XN the house of commons the address was moved for the same day by

Sir Edward Hartop, who stated that, in the conduct of the late war, his majesty’s ministers had two grand objects in view : the one to defend their country from the destructive and sanguinary doctrines of jacobinism, and the other to resist the inordinate ambition and aggrandizement of the new govern¬ ment of France. In the latter ob¬ ject we cooperated with the other powers of Europe 5 and had their zeal and exertions been equal to our own, we should not now have witnessed the humiliating degrada- lion to which they have been re¬ duced, As to the destructive prin¬ ciples which had been at war with every government, they had already sufficiently manifested their own malignity, to be for ever reprobated by the people of these realms. Even in France they were detested by the great majority of the people, as subversive of government and social happiness y and thus, by the excess of their own virulence and malignity, they had effected their own destruction. We had main¬ tained unimpaired the purity of our constitution. We« had not only

preserved but considerably increased our dominions by our great acqui¬ sitions in the East and West Indies, and by retaining Ceylon and Trini¬ dad. His majesty’s ministers, not¬ withstanding the great successes of the British arms during the last cam¬ paign, finding that one of the great objects of the war (for want of con¬ tinental cooperation) was no longer attainable, resolved on negociating for peace, and in this treaty they had preserved the British empire entire and increased in its territo¬ ries : they had also preserved the strictest good faith to their allies, by securing their interests, even at the expense of surrendering valuable conquests we had made from the enemy. He therefore thought they had held forth to Europe on this occasion, an illustrious example of honour, of justice, and of faith, worthy of admiration and of ex¬ ample, and highly advantageous both to our reputation and our inte¬ rests. He concluded by moving an addi ■ess of thanks to his majesty for his gracious communication, and expressive of a firm reliance that the ratification of these prelimina¬ ries would be advantageous fo the interests/ and honourable to the character of the British nation.

Mr

HISTORY OF EUROPE. 21

Mr. Lee' seconded this motion. In order to prove that this was a war of aggression oiy the part of France, and merely defensive on the part of England, he took a retrospective view of the conduct ot this country in 1/92, when so far from exhibiting any hostile views, she reduced her forces both by land and sea, while France on the other hand was encouraging plots for the subversion of our con¬ stitution, and the moment it was possible for her to do so, attacked our old ally, Holland. He con¬ sidered that the war, as it had been necessary, so it had added to the glory of the British name, and had given additional security both to our constitution and our empire. He saw, however, no possibility ot making any peace which would not be so far precarious as that it might be violated as soon as it was the interest of either power so to do. He remembered the saying of an emperor of Morocco, who wishing to break a peace, and being- told that that would be violation ot faith, replied, “ I break it be¬ cause it is my interest.” He sus- *

pected that this savage emperor spoke, in plain blunt terms, the liberal language and policy of the modern courts of Europe. He considered, however, that this peace promised a reasonable degree of permanence and security.

Lord Levison Gower could by no means admit that the projet ordered at Lisle was any criterion to judge ot the merits or demerits of the present peace by. The cir¬ cumstances of the country were then totally different from the cir¬ cumstances under which the present peace was signed. A short time before the negotiation at Lisle, the

bank had stopped its payments, and commercial credit had received a violent shock. A spirit of danger¬ ous insubordination existed in our fleet, and the funds had fallen so low, as to make us ‘almost despair of the future resources of the em¬ pire. In Ireland, although rebellion had not absolutely taken the held, yet the most unequivocal sentiments of disaffection had been exhibited. The navy of the enemy was at that time nearly equal to our own, and we had not a single frigate in the Mediterranean. The situation of the country now was widely dif¬ ferent, and yet we had made many more cessions than that projet at Lisle proposed to make. We had ceded Surinam, Minorca, Porto Ferrajo, and Malta : and what had we obtained as the price of all those cessions ? Notwithstanding, how¬ ever, that the terms of this peace was far short of his expectations, yet peace itself was so desirable an object, and had been received with such general joy, that he should by no means oppose the address, al¬ though he conceived it his duty to make those observations.

Lord Hawkesbury, at consider¬ able length, defended the prelimi¬ naries. He first observed upon the comparison which had been drawn between them and the articles of the projet at Lisle. Lie thought that it was unfair to dwell upon any comparison between them, as the projet at Lisle was but a projet , and no person could venture to deny that Lord Grenville would have been glad to have taken less from the government of France than he then demanded. After nine years effusion of blood 3 after an increase of debt to the amount or nearly 200 millions 3 after the un - C 3 interrupted

22

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

interrupted exertions of the country, and, at the same time, the most splendid and signal successes, there was no man who could deny but that peace was a most desirable object. Notwithstanding the zeal, however, with which he had laboured for the public tranquillity, he solemnly disclaimed the plea of over-ruling necessity, which some persons had set up. Although he felt the pre¬ sent peace to be eligible and ade¬ quate to the relative situation of the two countries, yet he would not pretend to say that it was free, from all objections, and secure from all risk and danger. He would not attempt to pledge himself for the stability of the present peace 5 he should confine himself to that question which was peculiarly be¬ fore the house, whether his ma¬ jesty’s ministers in signing this peace have been to blame or not ? In considering this question it would be necessary to observe the different grounds upon which this peace, has been objected to. Some persons object, because they say the object of the war had not been ob¬ tained : they state that the object of the war was to destroy repub¬ licanism, and by an interference in the internal affairs of France, stop the progress of its revolution. This was an opinion which he must utterly deny to have been well- founded, and on the contrary he must declare that this country had been forced into the war by France. It was franco who had interfered in the internal affairs of other coun¬ tries : who both openly and by her agents propagated disaffection, se¬ dition, anarchy, and revolt in this country. The revolution was a torrent so dreadful, that no man or se t of men could hope to check

2

its rage and impetuosity : but if this country had opposed its fury with some success 5 if it had changed its direction into a channel less dangerous to the general welfare, some acknowledgment was due to the wisdom and zeal of govern¬ ment, as well as to the spirit and exertions of the country. It was impossible to look at the present state of France without being con~ vinced that we had effected that most important change-; a change which is manifest to the moot su¬ perficial observer in the manners, habits, and opinions of the people ot France. After considering well the effects of this change, and the existing circumstances, he con¬ sidered that there had not been a time when fewer evils could be expected from peace than at present. With regard to a continuance of hostilities, there were two questions to be considered : first, whether we possessed the power of forming another coalition against France ? secondly, what injury could Eng¬ land and France do to each other ? As to the first question, it must be recollected that the first coalition had failed, and that the second had also failed. Was it then very de¬ sirous to hazard the experiment of a third ? But if we should have desired it ever so strongly, the elements of a new coalition were not to be found. We should look for them in vain in Germany, Prussia, or Russia. A coalition being therefore impossible, it only remained to consider what harm could England and France do to each other by continuing the war ? The fact was, that with our im¬ mense naval superiority we could not strike any effectual blow against Prance, and neither power could

material] v

HISTORY OF EUROPE.

23

materially affect the other. That was the time then which was chosen by both for signing a treaty of peace, in the consideration of which it. would be necessary to observe upon the time, the tone, and the terms of it. The time was in the hour of victory to this country, when its triumphs by land and sea were recent, and the voice of peace could be listened to with honour both by the government and the people. The tone was that of dignity and independence, far re¬ moved from any humiliating idea, either with respect to ourselves or our allies ; and in speaking of the terms he must disclaim the support, and condemn the opinions of those - who were fond of under-rating the resources of this country, and ex¬ tolling the power of the enemy. The situation of the two countries was materially different 5 but that difference was one of the strongest reasons for the peace. The first feature of this peace was a strict good faith and magnanimity towards those powers who had been our allies. W e had stipulated that the Ottoman Porte should be restored to all the possessions which it held before the war. To Portugal we had given every protection suitable to our strength and her interests, and as for Naples we had behaved with uncommon magnanimity. Naples had been called upon by France to exclude our shipping from her ports ; she went further, and joined in an alliance which would have warranted on our part a declaration of war : yet what was our conduct on the occasion ? We interfered in her favour, and ob¬ tained for her the restoration of her territories, and the establishment of her independence. For the

Ottoman Porte we had not only recovered all her territories, but even procured a cession on the part of. France of the sovereignty of the ex Venetian islands, which in the hands of France might be extremely dangerous to the Turkish empire. For the stadtholder and the king of Sardinia, although not bound to them by any obligation of strict faith, yet we had done as much as was possible. We had interfered as far as our interference could have weight. Having said so much with respect to the good faith of this country, he should next examine the question of the acquisitions made by the two countries. On this subject he should first observe, that it was the opinion of many men of the soundest judgment, that an increase of power is by no means a necessary consequence of increased acquisitions. This prin¬ ciple applied equally strong to the continental acquisitions of France and our colonial acquisitions. In the West Indies he could not per¬ ceive any cession which could be the subject of regret, nor any pos¬ session given up in the Fast In¬ dies which could be the subject of jealousy. The possessions there ceded were not calculated for ag¬ gression 5 if they were strong enough to attack us in the East, the island of Mauritius would be the most formidable point to commence the attack from. As for Minorca, the experience of all former wars shows, that we can make ourselves masters of it when we please, but that we have always thought proper to restore it at the peace, and save our¬ selves the expense of garrisoning it. Malta is certainly, from its si¬ tuation and impregnable state, of considerable political importance C 4 and

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

24

and value 5 but it neither is itself a source of trade, nor can its value be at all ascertained from any secu¬ rity it may be supposed to give to our Levant trade. Our Levant trade is in fact next to nothing. The amount of the British exports to the Levant do not exceed 112,000/. per annum, which is a mere nothing to the general com¬ merce of Great Britain. That trade lias long been, and is likely to con¬ tinue, principally in the hands of the southern nations of Europe, whose commodities are more suit¬ able to that market. The Dutch, however, had, by the effect of very wise regulations, enjoyed an exten¬ sive trade to the Levant, without having any settlement in the Me¬ diterranean, and it was the intention of government in this country to adopt similar regulations. As to the acquisitions we have made, he thought he might, without over¬ rating, state, that Ceylon and Trinidad were the two great naval stations of those parts of the world to which they belong. Ceylon is peculiarly important : its ports are so capacious and secure, that the whole commerce and navy of Great Britain, could lie there in safety ; its native productions are of great value, and its situation would afford (if necessary) a retreat for our Indian army, which the united force of the world would not be able to drive them from. Trinidad is also of great importance as a naval station, and one of the most productive and healthy islands in the West Indies. Such having been the results of the war, and such acquisitions being secured to us by this treaty, he thought that tile peace must be allowed to be honour¬ able, although it might not be what

some gentlemen would call glorious, ' It certainly was as favourable for this country as any of the five last treaties of peace, namely, the treaties of Byswick, of Utrecht, Aix-la-Chapelle, Paris, and Ver¬ sailles. Of those five treaties, it was only by that of Utrecht and the peace of 1 703 that we acquired any thing. By the peace of 1/83 we lost considerably 5 not only our American colonies, but other va¬ luable possessions} and as to the only two treaties by which we had before gained any thing, it must be recollected, that in the wars which preceded them France had been unsuccessful on the continent. He could not conceive the consist¬ ency of those persons who could sign the projet at Lisle, and not sign the present treaty. The ques¬ tion was not now about a peace, in which the continental powers were to take a leading part, but a separate peace between Great Bri¬ tain and France. In the projet at Lisle, all that was asked in the first instance was Ceylon, Trinidad, and the Cape 5 and although we had since made other conquests, yet we had lost some, particularly the important possession of St. Domin¬ go. In appreciating the real strength of France, we must balance against her territorial acquisitions,, the di¬ minution of her commerce, the ruin of her manufacturers, and her loss of wealth 5 and in appreciating our situation, we would find, by the great increase of British exports, that our substantial power has' in¬ creased in a proportion equal to the territorial increase of France, The navy of Great Britain had during this war obtained as decided a superiority as her commerce. In the beginning of the war we had 135 ships of the

line.

HISTORY OF EUROPE.

line, and 133 frigates ; on the 1st of October 1S01, we had 202 sail of the line, and 2/7 frigates ; while the French, who at the commence¬ ment of the war had 80 sail of the line and 66 frigates, had, at the con¬ clusion, but 39 sail and 35 frigates. It would not be in the power of France, with every exertion she could make, in a ten years peace, to build a navy equal to that of Great Britain, and he felt convinced that if even the war was renewed, in seven, eight, or ten years, this country would begin it to much great er advantage than they had done the last. This country had been e neaped in a long and dreadful contest, but she had come out of it with honour and advantage 3 and although its situation, as well as that of Europe, might ap¬ pear critical, yet he hoped in a sound system of policy, combining firmness with moderation, there would be found a counterpoise to every danger, and a remedy to every evil.

The right honourable Thomas Grenville next rose, and stated his opinions at considerable length. He said, that those who had opposed the peace had been represented as frantic people, who contended that the restoration of the French mo¬ narchy should be the sine qua non of peace. This charge, however, could by no means apply to him, because he had never entertained £uch an idea. Gentlemen, there¬ fore, who advanced the charge, had gone further than they were war- , ranted to go. As to the right of interference in the affairs of France, we had surely a right to interfere for the purpose of preventing that enormous aggrandizement, which was big with danger to ourselves. This had ever been considered, by

our wisest statesmen, as an object of tfye first importance to this country. Whenever a peace had been con¬ cluded between two contending parties, it followed, of course, that one party had the superiority over the other, which it was fair and proper to exert for the purpose of ensuring advantageous terms, such terms at least as should place the country which 'accepted them in a state of security. And he hoped that the spirit of the English would ever lead them to resist, with energy and decision, terms of a different nature, fraught with dis¬ honour, and big with humiliation. But while he disclaimed the wild notions which had been falsely im¬ puted to him, he should, he hoped, never be found amongst those faith- less watchmen of the state, who should seek to lull the people into a false security and a treacherous repose, but ever act with such as should endeavour to rouse them to a just sense of existing danger, of a danger which threatened them with ruin, with annihilation. It had been the practice of some of the public papers to accuse those who condemned the peace, of be¬ ing hostile to his majesty and to his majesty’s government. He, however, had no hostility to his majesty, nor yet to the ministers ; but no dread of misrepresentation should ever deter him from giving his sentiments, freely and fully, re¬ specting a measure which appeared to him calculated to increase our danger instead of diminishing it. He felt it his duty to oppose it, find he would contend, that both in the present treaty, and in the convention with the Northern Pow¬ ers, ministers had assumed an humble tone, which .would lead

to

26 ANNUAL RE

id consequences dangerous to the, existence of the country. The gen¬ tlemen who had that night sup¬ ported the peace, had purposely dissembled the real object of the war. He had ever considered it as a war for indemnity and security. The enemy had threatened the exr istence of our liberties and our con¬ stitution. To preserve them, then ; to prevent the diffusion of princi¬ ples subversive of all the bonds of civil society 5 to obtain indemnity for the expenses which we had 'b$en compelled to incur, and se¬ curity for the future, was the real and avowed object of the war. Ministers had thrown oiir successes aside ; they seemed to have for¬ gotten our victories, and to have lost sight of our conquests. But the recollection of those victories and those conquests would remain to heighten and to aggravate the re¬ flections that must arise, from the contemplation of our sacrifices. To have been victorious, and vet to be treated as a vanquished nation, was a galling and a mortifying re- flection to a British mind, It im¬ plied, indeed, a contradiction of terms, and a confusion of ideas, which no acuteness could, reconcile, no strength of understanding dis¬ pel. The noble lord (Hawkesbury) had begun by stating, that the pre¬ sent period was very different from that at which the.: former negotia¬ tion took place ; that we had ori¬ ginally opposed the principles of France, but latterly we had op¬ posed her power. But in his opinion both led to the same end ; and if the power of France threat¬ ened the existence of this country, it was as much our interest and our duty to oppose that power, as it was to oppose her principles, when ex-

GIXTER, 1802,

cried for the same purpose. Mr. Grenville then entered into a com¬ parison of the terms of the present treaty with the terms which were offered to us at Lisle ; and clearly showed that the latter were far preferable to the former. It had been said, that, the general language of the country in respect of the peace was, that it was such a peace as every man was glad of, but no man proud of. But he hoped and sus¬ pected, that this was an epigram¬ matic expression, and not a true picture. For, if Englishmen could rejoice at a had peace , at , a peace of 'which they could not he proud , the national character was totally lost. Though the supporters of the peace had prudently forborne to in¬ sist on its glory, they still perse* verqd in representing it as honour-’ able. But in what light was it ho- mount hie ? The noble lord had con¬ tended, and truly contended, that time and circumstances were ne¬ cessary considerations in the con¬ clusion of a treaty; but he was at a loss to perceive the wisdom of that policy, which would reject better terms in a moment of dis¬ may, and accede to worse in the hour of victory and confidence : there might be a show of magna¬ nimity in such conduct, but. was it wise, was it politic, was it compa¬ tible with the real interests of the country r— Let us see in what re¬ spect it was honourable, as it relafes to our allies ; how far their interests have been consulted. Ministers have assumed great credit to them¬ selves for their conduct towards our allies. What has been done for them ? Turkey was the only power which could be tfuly said to be in alliance with us. It was said that the integrity of the Sublime Porte

had

HISTORY. 0

had been secured. But is that her opinion ? does slid feel se¬ cure ? A week after this stipula¬ tion for her security, a week after this extraordinary instance of our magnanimity had been displayed, Turkey preferred the guarantee qf her enemy to that of her ally, and chose to negotiate for herself. As we had compelled the French to evacuate Egypt, both the security of Turkey and our- own required that we should have retained in our possession some strong fortress, garrisoned by British troops. With¬ out this precaution, what was there to prevent the French from return¬ ing to Egypt ? At the very moment when we magnanimously stipulated for the evacuation of that country, there was hot a French soldier re¬ maining in it, (thanks to general Hutchinson, whose military skill, whose frm perseverance, and whose manly courage could only be ex¬ ceeded by his modesty,) who was not a prisoner to our gallant, per¬ severing, and victorious army. As to the integrity of Naples, that was as insecure as Turkey ; for, though the French troops had evacuated a part of the Neapolitan territory, what was to prevent them from returning, especially as they re¬ tained possession of the Cisalpine republic ? “I wish to know what is to prevent the French who evacu¬ ated Naples to-day, Monday, from reentering it on Wednesday, the distance from the Cisalpine re¬ public not being more than sixty miles ?” Such is the situation, such the security, such the integrity of Naples. In casting our eyes over the map of Europe, we look in vain for the kingdom of Sardinia. The territories of his Sardinian majesty live only in our memory. In the

F EUROPE. ' 27

Mediterranean, he had only the litde island of Sardinia left, for the security of which he was solely in¬ debted to the protection of our fleet ; a protection which he would lose the moment the definitive treaty should be signed. The next of our allies, the integrity of whose dominions exhibits an illustrious proof of our magnanimity, is Por¬ tugal. On this subject he had en¬ deavoured to obtain information ; but he had not been sufficiently successful to speak with decision on it. Fie adverted to the treaty of Badajos, and to the cession of a portion of the Portuguese territory in the Brazils ; and he asked Whe¬ ther it was to be understood that our treaty with France sanctioned that cession ? Portugal, likes Naples, had been secured by us in the in¬ tegrity of her possessions 3 and our magnanimity on this occasion had b'Cen loudly vaunted by the noble lord, because those two powers had formed separate treaties with the enemy. But were not those' trea¬ ties the effect of compulsion on the one hand, and the result of con¬ quest on the other ? ■ Should we have been justified in declaring war against Portugal and Naples for yielding, against their will, to dire necessity ? If no blame, then, at¬ tached to Portugal, if she ought: really to be considered as our ally, as no human being could suspect her of possessing the ability to re¬ sist her enemy, there could not be the smallest reason for any diminu¬ tion of our attachment to her. How have we provided for her security ? The preliminary articles will tell us how. Mr. Grenville then took a large bundle of papers out of his pocket, but begged the house not to be alarmed, as he only meant to

read

ts

ANNUAL RE

read about half a dozen lines. He then read the following articles of the preliminary treaty. V. Egypt shall be restored to the Sublime Porte, whose dominions and pos¬ sessions shall be secured in their integrity such as they were before the war. VI. The territories and possessions of liis Most Faithful Ma¬ jesty shall also be maintained in their integrity. France, as far as any treaty can bind her, has con¬ cluded a peace with Portugal 5 but on what terms ? She has taken from her Qlivenza and the adjoining ter¬ ritory, which Spain had long co¬ veted ; and for which nothing more was requisite than to express a wish, in order to obtain it from France. France, at the same time, took for herself a portion of the Brazils, which gave her the com¬ mand of the river Amazon and the whole of the adiacent coast. Mr. Grenville quoted monsieur de la Condamine, in order to show the advantage which France would de¬ rive from the possession of tills tract of country, in addition to what she already enjoyed in the proximity of Dutch Guiana. Is this the mode of guarantying the possessions, of securing the inte¬ grity of a faithful ally ? If integrity and dismemberment be synonymous terms, then, indeed, the assertion may be true. In allusion to the term honourable, which the noble lord has absurdly applied to the peace, every man must feel that no peace was safe that was not honourable, and that no peace was honourable which was not safe ; * but, unfortunately, this peace was

neither safe nor honourable : nor

$

could any peace be honourable, which gave us territories that did not belong to the power by whom

G IS TER, 1802.

thev were given. The conduct of our government in the negotiation at Lisle was very different : they did what was wise and proper to attain peace for the good of the country. 1 hey selected certain points of importance, which it was necessary, for the preservation of that honour, to insist upon. He was surprised to hear certain ex¬ pressions which had fallen from the noble lord, relative to the acquisi¬ tions we had made by the present peace, which he contrasted with lord Malmesbury’s projet, the wis¬ dom of which he extolled. We should have been fully justified in the retention of Ceylon, the Cape, and Cochin, for the more effectual defence of our eastern empire. When we look at the cessions which we have made, we should find the conquests we had re¬ tained comparatively trifling. His mind was not at all satisfied, with the situation in which the Cape was left by the treaty. We had ceded a port which might become a great annoyance to our trade. The Cape furnished a military station of vast importance in the event of a sudden war, not preceded by a procla¬ mation. The marquis Cornwallis, in his return from India, had strongly pressed the necessity of retaining Cochin, and the Cape ; or if only one of them could be retained, the Cape in preference to Cochin. Though Ceylon was an important settlement. Cochin, on the western side of the peninsula, was one of the strongest military frontiers in India. In the event of a war, a fleet might sail from the Cape and arrive at Cochin before any person in India could know of its arrival, and before any person in England could be apprised of its

sailing.

29

HISTORY 0

sailing. Pie might possibly be told, that our merchantmen were advised to avoid the Cape 5 that the im¬ portance of that settlement was not so great as was represented 5 and that our ships might touch at the Brazils. The settlement .which the French had acquired in the Brazils would, in that case, give additional importance to France. The Cape and Cochin were insisted on by lord Malmesbury, at Lisle, as points from which we would not accede 5 and these were now given up, from that want of vigour, spirit, and prudence which mark our ne¬ gotiations. An attempt had been made to represent the Levant trade as unimportant to this country. But our manufacturers, he con¬ ceived, would tell a far different tale. Was it true that Malta was unimportant ; — that fortress which had sustained a blockade of nearly two years ? It could not he seri¬ ously contended. To rescue Malta, and Egypt trom France is deemed an object of primary importance ; but when it is considered expedient to give them up, their importance suddenly vanishes, and they be¬ come trivial and insignificant. No part of the treaty of peace, nor any thing connected with it, excited so much astonishment in his mind, as our treatment of the house of Orange, except the defence of that treatment. Britain was formerly bound by a solemn treaty with that house. Fie understood some pri¬ vate arrangement was making, be¬ tween France and Prussia, relative to that subject. But the prince of Orange was not to be thrown as an outcast on the world, by those for whom he had sacrificed his all. Where would have been the diffi¬ culty in introducing .an article in

the preliminary treaty, similar to one which was prepared at the ne¬ gotiation at Lisle, which stipulated for the restoration of the whole pro¬ perty of the house of Orange, or the full value of it in money? There could be no objection to this, but we wanted the spirit, the vi¬ gour, or courage to support an ally, who had been so unfortunate as to be an enemy to France ! Though he did not think the' peace of 3 7 83 was either glorious or honourable ; yet he would recommend it to the gentlemen to read the preliminaries to that treaty, and compare them with the present. Let the cessions made then be compared with the cessions made now ; and, though he thought the former a bad peace, which presented nothing but defeat and humiliation, yet would the latter be found infinitely worse in itself, and unfortunately more dan¬ gerous in its consequences. The present peace was not honourable, in respect of our allies ; nor was it necessary to be made. Mr. Ad¬ dington had indignantly disclaimed, the plea of necessity. Although a difference of opinion existed as to the terms of the peace, no one would contend that we were re¬ duced to the necessity of making a peace, dishonourable to our allies or unsafe to ourselves. lie con¬ trasted the terms of the peace of Utrecht, and of the peace of 1~6'3, with those of the present peace ; showed the vast increase of power which France had acquired now, and the consequent increase of dan¬ ger to ourselves. The noble lord had contended, that our danger did not accrue from the existence of republican principles in France, but from the extent of her power ) that, in tin: respect, tilings had changed.

Admitting

/

so

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1-802.

Admitting such to/ be the case, could any man view the present power of France, and consequently pur; present danger, without shud¬ dering ? In. the event of a war, notwithstanding our stipulations, all the: ports and fortresses in the .Me¬ diterranean would be seized by France, and shut against us. She will monopolize its commerce in time of peace, its power in time of war. Acting upon such a principle of negotiation, or rather of sacrifice, and let the definitive treaty be completed, and he would desire to know whether it would not place us in a state of war with France in twelve months ? Could peace be good if its duration were so short ? It would reduce us to the necessity of dismantling our navy, and dis¬ banding our army and our volun¬ teers y it had deprived us of all the military points and stations ; and, notwithstanding all our exertions of economy, what would be our state, if France, in the course of twelve months, should take us unprepared, and direct ; her whole power against 11s r He called upon the house se¬ riously to reflect on our situation 3 and to ask themselves what state vve should be placed in if France should so declare war against us ? Did they not believe that such a war must shake our country to -the very center ? Feeling, as he did, that the peace was neither honour¬ able to our allies, nor safe to our- /selves, he should give his decided negative to the motion.

Lord Castlereagli supported the peace, and thought it bid as fair to be lasting as any which had ever preceded it. This peace, at least, would try France, and he thought it but fair to give her a trial. He • relied much on tire great change

which had taken place in the public mind, both in Ireland and in France.

Lord Temple highly disapproved of the concessions which ministers had made, as dangerous to the safety, and degrading to the honour of Eng¬ land. He had seen with regret, that a party of degenerated Eng¬ lishmen were to be found, mean enough to draw the coach of gen. Lauriston through the streets of London, with cries of <<r Long live Bonaparte.” This was an afflicting prospect, and augured no good to die country : but this was in some degree encouraged by the conduct of ministers ; for he understood that general Lauriston was , accompanied from France by a person who had been twice sent out of the country under the alien act ; that on his ar¬ rival the proper officer recognizing him, refused him permission to land, till general Lauriston declared that in that case he would return with the preliminaries 5 and this man he understood was in the coach with general Lauriston when he was drawn in triumph through the streets of London, and that ministers had not the spirit to take notice of .the circumstance. If that was a true statement of the fact, it was rather an unhappy omen of what this country had to expect from a con¬ nexion with France, under its pre¬ sent ministers. He opposed minis¬ ters from no factious motive, but because he sincerely thought them unworthy of the confidence of the public. He was aware that bis ob¬ jections would, not be supported by those who were in the constant ha¬ bit of opposing the conduct of ad¬ ministration, but He did not wish for the support of any man who could declare his pleasure at the peace, <c because it was glorious to

tire

H IS TORY O

the enemy.” Such a sentiment he • thought by no means becoming a •patriot or an Englishman, and any peace founded on it must be hollow and suspicious.

Mr. Pitt said, that lie had upon this occasion the misfortune to dif¬ fer Iron! some of those with whom lie had been long united in. the ties of private friendship and political opinion. He should begin by ob¬ serving,' that whatever variety of sentiments once existed, as to what governments we ought to treat with, whatever objects it might have once been thought most advisable to pursue in' the course of the war, for some time past all have agreed that the question of peace and war was now a mere question of terms. After the continental ' alliance had been dissolved, nothing remained for us but to procure just and ho¬ nourable conditions of peace for our¬ selves and the few allies which had not deserted us. When it became merely a question of terms, he was much more anxious as to the tone and character of the peace, than about any particular' object which should come into dispute. Although he conceived it the duty of every minister to obtain the best possible terms for the state to which he be¬ longed, yet as long as the peace was honourable, lie should prefer ac¬ cepting terms, even short of what he thought the country entitled to, to risking the resultof the negotiation by too obstinate an adherence to any particular point : although certainly every- thing had not been obtained by the preliminaries, yet it did not ■appear to him that the difference between those terms and what the country had a right to, was to be compared with the evils which might have resulted from being too

F EUROPE. si.

peremptory in our demands. He thought the. principle and the terms of the treaty had been well described by his noble friend (lord Hawkes- bury). Our grand object was to add fresh security to. our maritime strength and- commercial greatness. \Vedid-not seek to retain any of our conquests which we did not materially want, and which were unconnected with our ancient pos¬ sessions. In the • East and West Indies we had got every thing that we could reasonably demand y and if we consented to give up our con¬ quests in the Mediterranean, what¬ ever glory we had acquired in mak¬ ing these conquests, it must be con¬ fessed, that the Mediterranean and Levant were of much less importance to British commerce than the East and West Indies. Although certain ports in that, quarter might be use¬ ful in a future continental war, yet when we were selecting which, of our Conquests we should retain, we should certainly prefer those which are connected with the constant and permanent sources of oim prosperity. As to Minorca, during the four last wars it had re ¬ gularly shifted hands. In- peace it Was of no importance, and in war the power which was strongest at sea' always took it. He was sorry we could not retain Malta ; but if we were obliged to give it up, he did not know in what hands it could better be placed than those men¬ tioned in {he treaty. Turning to the East Indies, he felt. -regret, at the cession of the Cape of Good Hope ,, which lie had beeir always accus¬ tomed to: estimate more highly than his noble, friend, but still he "consi¬ dered it as much less important than Ceylon, which was to us the most valuable, colonial possession on the

globe.

32

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1602.

globe, as giving to our Indian em¬ pire a security which it had not en¬ joyed from its first establishment. As to the arrangement proposed by lord Malmesbury about Cochin, he did not feel himself at liberty to state how far lord Malmesbury had been permitted by his instructions to recede from the projet presented at Lisle : but it was evident that Cochin was' not now of the im¬ portance it possessed while Tippoo dSaib was master of the surrounding districts. It was like Berwick-upon- Tweed, which, while the Scotch were a separate people, was ot great importance as a fortified frontier town j but after the whole island was happily united, what was the political importance of Berwick- upon-Tweed ? While Tippoo ex¬ isted, the supplies he might have received from the port of Cochin, in the hands of France, was a most important consideration, but at pre¬ sent, even Negapatam was of more consequence than Cochin. Mr. Pitt also expatiated at great length on the importance of Trinidad 5 he said, that with the terms of peace, as they regard ourselves, he was completely satisfied. They were also satisfactory with respect to our allies : for the Porte we had done every thing we were bound to do, and a great deal more. The recog¬ nition of the republic of the Seven Islands was of the utmost import¬ ance, as the very existence of the Turkish empire was in danger, if they should be left in the hands of France. ForNapIeswe had done every thing which could have been done, even if the treaty had still existed With that, power. As to Sardinia, it was evident, that unless we had the poyer to dissolve the Cisalpine and Ligurian republics, and undo all

‘ 3

ih at the war in Italy had done, we never could restore the king of Sar¬ dinia to his former situation. With respect to Portugal, we had not only" exhibited the most punctilious good faith, but the most dignified libera¬ lity. France would have insisted on far more considerable cessions, bad it not been for our interposition. As to our guaranty of the constitution of Holland in 1787, could it be for¬ gotten what exertions we had made to support it ? As to a mere pecu¬ niary indemnity to the stadtholder, which was all that was asked at Lisle, it was an object of too trifling importance to endanger the success of a negotiation about. Many gen¬ tlemen seemed to think, that we had ceded possessions which were important to our security ; he, on the contrary, thought that what we had ceded was not unimportant to our commerce or finance, but had nothing to do with our security : the retaining them would not have maintained the integrity of Portugal, Naples, or Sardinia, nor would have deprived the French of any of that immense line ot coast which causes our dismay. A little more commerce, a little more finance, after a continuation of the war for some years longer, would be a bad bargain : unless it was possible to raise up a new confederacy more unanimous and better cemented than the former ones, war might not only be an idle waste of trea¬ sure, but might leave the relative situation of the country worse than it is at present. France had not insisted on the uti possidetis with the nations she conquered on the continent, much less had we a right to insist upon that basis with her. It would be strange indeed if we should expect that the gigantic

power

I

HISTORY OF EUROPE.

33

power of an enemy should be a ground for obtaining better terms than could reasonably be asked if he was feeble. It would be strange language indeed for a negotiator to say to France, You are so formida¬ ble, and so exceedingly alarm us, that you must give us a share of your possessions to make us equal. A wish of this sort might be ex¬ pressed, but it could not reasonably be expected that it would be grati¬ fied.

As to the present government of France and the first consul, he should abstain from any disrespect¬ ful or irritating language, as every mark of outward respect was due to every government with wdiich we were at peace. His opinion of the past however remained un¬ altered. This country was at first called upon to resist an attack against all existing governments j its object was security. He must con¬ fess that his majesty’s ministers then thought that the dissolution of the revolutionary government was the best means of obtaining this securi¬ ty, but he never reckoned it a sine qua, non : he then thought the restoration of monarchy would be a happy thing for France and for Europe : he thought so still, and he should confess that, to his dying day, he should regret the disappoint¬ ment of his hopes. He should have been happy to have put to¬ gether the fragments of that ve¬ nerable edifice which had been so cruelly scattered; but wThen that object became unattainable, he must take that which was within his reach. They had survived the ra¬ vages of jacobinism; they had, at least, lived long enough to see it lose much of its virulence, and stripped ot those delusive colours which once gave it its powers of do

Vol. XL1V.

struction. At other times we might have thought of driving France within her ancient limits, and even strengthening the barriers of her neighbours : but now that every hope of success in such a plan is vanished, it becomes right to consider the actual situation of the two countries. To remain ob¬ stinate after circumstances had changed would be the most fatal of errors. Fie coincided with wrhat had fallen from his noble friend (lord Hawkesbury), that when we speak of the aggrandisements of France, we should also take into the account her losses, both in po¬ pulation, capital, and industry ; we must take also into the account the acquisitions of other powers. The growth of this country too had been immense, and by the advantages we had gained by the union with Ire¬ land, by our naval and military re¬ putation, by the consolidation of our Indian empire, and the increase of our commerce, we might well hope, that if the country was true to itself, that it would enjoy a long train of prosperity and happiness. Fie concluded by giving his sincere assent to thy motion.

Mr. Fox said, that since he had been member of that house, he never gave his assent with greater satisfaction to any measure, than he now did to the preliminaries of peace. He considered that this; peace must be allowed to be honour¬ able by those who supported it, or else it could not meet their appro* bation, or be considered sate. With nations, as well as individuals, ho¬ nour is the most essential means of safety. Without honour a nation can neither expect to meet respect at home, nor confidence abroad, which are absolutely necessary to the true greatness of a nation. Na-

tioaai

34 f

ANNUAL REGISTER, 2802.

tional honour he had therefore al¬ ways held forward as an object of the first importance. As to a glorious peace, no peace can deserve that title but the peace which fol¬ lows a glorious war, which is a de¬ scription inapplicable to the late war, either in its original, principle, or final result. The great points for present consideration he conceived to be two : 1st, Whether peace on the conditions obtained, is preferable to a continuance of the war ? 2dly, Whether better terms could have been had ? As to what might be sained or conceded between two great nations, lie perfectly agreed with what had been stated by lord Hawkesbury : he considered Ceylon and Trinidad as very important ac¬ quisitions; and although he admit¬ ted the importance of Malta, and re¬ gretted the necessity of giving it up, yet he could not flatter Mmself that we could have obtained peace on better terms. We could produce no serious pressure on France, and perhaps it was better not to risk the rupture of the negotiation, by in¬ sisting on an article which the pride or prejudice of the enemy would have led him to refuse. France and England were now in such a situa¬ tion, that neither could produce any considerable impression on the other. In Europe, we could not affect France ; in the colonies, we had done every thing we could do ; and happily the present ministers did not speculate on the financial difficulties of France. If too much importance had been attached to trifles, we should have risked another year of war, which, although our resources' would be able to carry us through, would certainly be a great evil. Even those who cry out the most loudly against the terms of peace, would not

pretendto recommend a continuation of the war. When the horrible evif was considered of the bulk of the people subsisting on charity, it must appear infinitely better that they should be able to purchase by their labour that subsistence which the war had put out of their reach, than that we should insist on retaining either Malta or the Cape. Some regretted that the peace was glo¬ rious to France j for his part, if the peace could be glorious to- France without being dishonourable to this country, he should not feel concern at it. As far as the object of the war was a restoration of the house of Bourbon, it was to him a recommendation of the peace, that that object should have failed : had it succeeded, the general liberties of mankind would have been endan¬ gered. Then would have followed coalitions of princes for the mutual oppression of their subjects : had such coalitions formerly existed among the princes of Europe, Eng¬ land would not now have enjoyed a free constitution. Were such coali¬ tions of princes now to be made, it would be the greatest misfortune which could befall this country. As to the maxim which had been laid down by a right honourable gentle¬ man (Mr. Pitt), that when the exe¬ cutive government . makes peace, men in high stations should abstain from inflammatory or insulting lan¬ guage ; if this is true after peace is concluded, how much more forcibly would it apply to using such inflam¬ matory language as he had used, be¬ fore war had ever been declared ? Wi t h respect to the terms and the tone of the treaty, he perfectly coincided with the noble lord (lord Hawkes¬ bury), but as to the time of it, he must still insist, that both before the

85

HISTORY OF EUROPE.

War began, and at almost every period since, better terms than the present were in our power. The negotiation at Paris broke off on ac¬ count of the extravagant terms we then demanded, and in the failure of that at Lisle, Mr. Pitt had de¬ clared, that he trembled lest it should succeed, and employed it only to assist his schemes of finance . Even passing by the negotiations at Paris and at Lisle, we might have had much better terms when Bona¬ parte made overtures of peace. It was then said, we must pause. We did pause, and that pause cost us, beside the lives of thousands, seventy-three millions of money. This was more than the whole of the national debt from the revolu¬ tion to the year 1755. Thus Mr. Pitt’s pause had cost more than the victories of the duke of Marlborough and king William together. The experience of the first coalition ought to have taught ministers not to have placed too much confidence in a second. And it must be al¬ lowed, that the excessive aggran¬ dizement of France was not the ef¬ fect of the peace, but of the war. He was of opinion, that for the fu¬ ture, to enjoy the blessings of peace, we should confine ourselves to small establishments, and not pretend to cope with France in keeping up ex¬ pensive armies : he thought the new order of things would cherish, on both sides, pacific dispositions 5 and that it was in an increased commerce we must find compensation for the territorial aggrandizement of France.

Mr. Fox then commented with some severity on the observation of lord Castlereagh, that Ireland had been managed with a delicate hand,: he said, the conflagrations, whip¬ ping, and ether enormities, com¬

mitted in that country in 1797 > hy no means deserved that appellation. If however the effect of the peace should be, that the habeas corpus act was to be again put in force, and the common law established, he should rejoice : he should receive, however, the restoration of the li¬ berties of the country as a right, not as a boon.

Mr. Addington rose about three o’clock, and apologized for troubling the house at so late an hour : he said it had been the leading feature of his majesty’s present administra¬ tion, to endeavour to efface .that angry aspect and tone which had been apparent not only to France, but to ail the countries in Europe* The cessions which Portugal had been obliged to make in Guyana were not considered by Portugal herself as likely to be prejudical to her essential interests : although an honourable gentleman had spoken with much levity of the service we had rendered, and the security we had obtained for Naples, yet if that honourable gentleman would take the trouble of speaking to the Nea¬ politan ambassador on the subject, he would find that the king, his master, was perfectly content with what had been done by this country. He trusted a right honourable gen¬ tleman (Mr. Windham) would not wish, by a further continuance of the war, to drive this country into such an extremity of danger, and so completely to exhaust its resources, that it should never again, in any future war, be able to oppose any check to the aggrandizement or am¬ bition of France. For his part, he felt no desire to deprive France of her distant colonies,' j nor of her due proportion of commerce ; and as to Per form of government, this couu- D 2

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

ss

try in time of peace had nothing to do with it, and it should be the principal object of his administration to preserve faithfully a peace which had been honestly made.

Dr. Lawrence, Mr. Windham, and Mr. Grenville, explained, and the house, on account of the lateness of the hour, adjourned the debate. On the next day, previous to the renewal of the debate, lord Temple asked ministers whether they had been informed of the ratification of the treaty between France and Portugal, which was stated in the French official journal, and whether the ratification extended to any new cessions since the treaty of Badajos ? Lord Hawkesbury re¬ plied, that he had no information on the subject but from the French papers ; but that the ratification certainly did not extend to any new cessions.

Mr. Windham delivered his sen¬ timents at great length against the peace. Every thing he heard and saw made him more strongly dis¬ approve of the terms of it. Not¬ withstanding tire tone of vigour and dignity assumed by Mr. Pitt, he could draw no inference from his arguments, but that we are com¬ pletely in the powrer of the enemy, and have no other security but the disposition he may please to show. He thought he perceived a general apathy to the danger of the coun¬ try, a general disregard for its na¬ tional dignity and honour, wdfich made him tremble for its future destiny. The question of the pre¬ sent treaty had nothing to do with the negotiation at Lisle, no more than with the peace of 17^3, and yet that appeared the favourite topic of those who supported the prelimi¬ naries, which they urged as an

argumentum ad kominem against him. He should allow that the present question was not so much whether the peace wras good or bad, honourable or dishonourable, ade¬ quate or inadequate j those consi¬ derations were but parts of the question, which was really this : Whether the peace which, has been concluded is or is not better than a continuance of the avar ? To an¬ swer this question rightly, it was necessary not only to consider the cessions which had been made at the peace, but the effect which those cessions produced on our na¬ tional character. If the peace has been concluded on terms wdfich lowered the character of this na¬ tion 5 if any symptoms of weakness wrere discovered in it, then perhaps a continuance of the war wrould have been better than such a peace. It had been often stated in that house, and perhaps truly, that the preservation of national honour wras almost the only legitimate ground of war. National honour wras cer¬ tainly a subject of the first-rate importance : if wre permitted any violations and aggressions in this quarter, it would immediately lead us to infamy and ruin. [Here Mr. Windham read an extract from Junius , comparing the deli¬ cacy of national honour to that of female purity.] The situation of things, as settled by the peace, is this. Austria has been conquered, and has lost her rank among the nations, and there remains no coun¬ terpoise in Europe for the great powrer of France. In the East, Pondicherry and Cochin has been restored to France, and in the West Indies she had recovered many valuable islands, wdfich we had won from her by conquest, The posses¬ sions

HISTORY OF EUROPE.

sions of Spain also might be said to be hers ; she could take them whenever she pleased : she has now the means of increasing her foreign settlements,, and of surrounding the British empire. If peace was sup¬ ported on the ground of our in¬ ability to pursue the war, he must ask, was that inability likely to grow less ? He thought not : on the con-

O

trary, he thought the disparity be¬ tween the countries would daily increase. All that we could ex¬ pect from the present peace was, that the enemy may not think it expedient at present to exert the power she has obtained for our destruction. France has uniformly aspired to universal empire : in the beginning of the revolution she had an empire of opinion, but now of power. French principles .first paved the way for power, and now her power is used to dissemi¬ nate principles 5 not such principles, however, as now are tolerated in France-, but principles which will not serve for home consumption, and which, therefore, they send abroad for exportation. Bonaparte knows well how to be the sup¬ porter of despotism in France, and of jacobinism in Holland. Mr. Windham then asked, should we hold an intercourse with a nation which was the foe of morality ? with a nation with whom the sacred institution of marriage has been abolished ? The scheme of the French illuminati was, that their end was to be accomplished by the destruction of morality, and the fairest part of the creation were made their instruments of corrup¬ tion. As to the supposed change of character in the French people and government, the only difference is, that in more jacobinical times

they were chiefly formidable from their principles, but now it is their arms and real power which gives alarm 5 but in all this change they have preserved the same hostile spirit against this country. This country is still marked out as Car - triage, which must be destroyed, to make way for the universal empire of modern Rome. The Romans too conquered Carthage point by point, always terminating a glorious war by an advantageous peace : every renewal of the war was attended with fresh advantages, and Carthage at length sunk beneath her powerful rival. We have by the present peace given out of our hands every security which we pos¬ sessed, and in this situation we shall be obliged at a future time to con¬ tend against an enemy infinitely stronger, by reason of her great acquisitions. It seems that it is supposed that our great capital will enable us for a long time to out¬ strip France in the race of com¬ merce : but without wishing to undervalue this great advantage of capital and industry on our side, he must ask, was it to be supposed that Bonaparte would permit this great commercial contest: to be fairly decided, or would not he rather endeavour to decide it by the sword ? Wealth, though a means of carry¬ ing on war, will not by itself save a country from ruin and destruction. He asked at present for security, and nothing more j but he could not conceive that security could be obtained under a peace like the pre¬ sent. Let (Economy be as great as it can, and the' expense of such a peace must be very nearly equal to that of a full war establishment ; and all we can hope to obtain at that great expense, is a mere armed 3 . truce.

(

38

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

truce. On the other hand, war would have preserved us from all communication with the enemy, and consequently from all contagion from their principles : it would have left us in possession of all our commercial advantages, and have given us all those chances which arise out of war. When he has heard so much of the wealth, ener¬ gies, and resources of the nation, he has always thought that there never was a time when they were more necessary to be called forth than at present, when the security and the very existence of the nation is in danger. There was another point to which he wished to direct their attention 3 he considered the entire desertion of the interests of the emigrants (who had shown such attachment to the cause they em¬ braced, and given such cooperation to the British forces), as a thing most disgraceful to the country. There ought to have been stipulated for them at least a safe return to their country. He thought that the chief fault throughout the wear was, that the people were not suf¬ ficiently aware of their danger. The people, always accustomed to wish for an end to the war, had not sufficiently reflected on the dangers of a peace.

Mr. Wilberforce rose in reply to Mr. Windham, and took notice of the universal joy which pervaded all classes of people when they heard that peace was made, and which was not diminished by hearing the terms of it. He complained of the ideas which the honourable member had imbibed, and seemed anxious to propagate : it appeared as if that right honourable gentle¬ man thought there ought never to be peace with France, till a counter¬

revolution was effected in that country, and yet the whole nation was convinced that this country alone, without continental coopera¬ tion, could not effect such counter¬ revolution. The only difference between this peace, which the right honourable gentleman painted as a funeral, and that which he would have solemnized as a festival, was, that some colonies were restored, which he would have wished to have kept. Mr. Wilberforce then, in speaking of Trinidada, la¬ mented the probable increase of the slave trade : he concluded an ani¬ mated speech by deploring the con¬ tagion of modern French morals, although he thought this contagion would be as fatal in war as in peace.

Dr. Lawrence spoke at great length, and very ably, against the peace. The strongest topic he urged in addition to the grounds which had been taken by the other speakers on the same side, was, that, while the French were always faithful to their allies, his majesty’s ministers deserted ours. He added that general Menou, when cooped up in Alexandria, obtained better terms for his allies in Egypt than we had pretended to do for ours in Europe. The consequence he con¬ ceived that must result from this conduct was, that the weaker powers would for the future put themselves under the protection of France, whom they knew to be faithful to her engagements.

Mr. Elliot looked upon the peace as ruin, and the treaty as an unne¬ cessary sacrifice of our honour and interests, merely to purchase a short-lived and precarious tranquil¬ lity. [Mr. Elliot necessarily went over many of the grounds which

the

HISTORY OF EUROPE.

39

the other speakers had taken and nearly exhausted] .

The Secretary at War supported the peace, and considered that the future security of this country might be sufficiently provided for, by improvements in the system of military defence.

Several other gentlemen spoke on the question : most of whom were in favour of tire peace.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer closed the debate by a short reply to the arguments against the preli¬ minaries.

Thus terminated, after two days long and close argument, the very ani¬ mated discussion of the preliminaries of the peace : a peace the most im¬ portant in all its lights and bearings that the world had ever witnessed. In what situation it left the beiiige-

■o

rent and the neutral powers of Eu¬ rope, as well with respect to their ter¬ ritorial, as to their political relations, it will belong more appropriately to another part of this sketch of the His¬ tory of Europe, for the year 1802, to detail : but it may be necessary here to call the attention of our readers to the line of conduct which the great leading characters of the country chose in this memorable debate to risk their political fame and reputation upon. No occasion could be more solemn, no question more momen¬ tous, no decision more important. Impressed with these sentiments, each individual, whether leader or partizan, carried with him to the arduous contest all his energies of mind, all his powers of ratiocination. Each seemed to think the present contest that on which not only the dearest interests of his country were to be decided, but by which his own character as- a statesman was to be determined on by his contemporaries

and by posterity : nor was the scene less interesting to the people of England, who were anxiously waiting the investigation and de¬ cision of parliament, assembled for the express purpose at. so early a period for the consideration of this great object of their wishes. This anxiety was still more widely spread, for there was not a power of Europe which did not look to the arguments and resolves of this day with an interest proportioned to the importance and magnitude of the subject.

It naturally occurs, from the 'trifling division in point of number in the house of lords against the address, and its being carried in the house of commons without a division, that the sense of the country was with the peace, and that, re¬ gardless of its terms or its conse¬ quences, it met with the entire approbation of the public. That this was the case it is not possible to deny : a series of years of most expensive war, of unusual pecu¬ niary contribution, of real or ap¬ prehended scarcity, the total dis¬ comfiture of our continental allies, and the apparent impossibility of achieving any of the great objects for which war had been resorted to originally, had in their united effect contributed to render a cessation of hostilities' highly popular. It was considered that those who made the peace were among the most violent and steady supporters of the war system ; that their abilities were guarantied to the public on their coming into office by the late minister 5 and that Mr. Pitt, him¬ self a host, had given his unqualified approbation to the measure, as it now appeared before the public. It could not be conceived, that D 4 men

40

ANNUAL RE

men who had so long filled up the inferior departments in an administration, composed of the most splendid abilities this coun¬ try had ever seen, with decency, and even credit, would sacrifice the opinions and politics of their whole lives for a momentary popu¬ larity ] or for the continuance of the high situations they had, so much to the surprise of the world (perhaps to their own), been placed in ; and, above all, that whatever their abilities might be, that they had sufficient patriotism and political science, not to abandon all the ad¬ vantages we had gained, with so much blood and treasure, to France, without securing at least the per¬ manency of a peace which had cost us so dear. The result therefore of this important debate was highly acceptable out of doors. The character of the first consul, the aggrandisement of France, the abandonment of our allies, the surrender of our conquests, the abrogation of all former treaties, the loose and ill defined terms of the present, were of trifling con¬ sideration when contrasted with the (( blessings of peace nor did the eloquence and arguments of those in both houses of parliament, who ventured to doubt the solidity of the principles on which it was made, or the permanency which those by whom it was supported, asserted must belong to it, weigh with the world whenqrut in the scale with lord Hawkesbury’s assertion, viz. “ That should we have to renew our contest with France in the course of eight or ten years, we must commence it with greater advantages than we did the last war !” and with Mr. Pitt’s, who said, (< We had every prospect of a long peace 5 for “ that he saw

GISTER, 1802.

some symptoms of the views bf France corresponding with our own.”

We have seen that on this occa¬ sion Mr. Pitt gave his warm and decided support to the present go** vernment, as did those over whom his personal influence extended j but the ministry received at this moment assistance from another quarter, which, however it might increase the number of its support- ers, certainly could not have added much to its satisfaction from the mode in which it was given. Mr. Fox, and those who usually acted with him, in approving of the peace, took this opportunity of charging, in the bitterest language, those who had carried on the war with culpable misconduct. A war,” said they, “ which left us no alternative save that of utter ruin, or a peace like the present.” Indeed the former gen¬ tleman went still further, and at a public meeting, said, that one source of his pleasure at the peace was, et because it was glorious to the ene¬ my !” Nor could administration feel much pleasure in hearing from Mr. Sheridan, another of their present adherents, that <f this was a peace which all men are glad of, but liq man can be proud of.” Gene- rally, however, peace in the abstract was approved of by those who were die most strenuous opponents of Mr. Pitt’s administration, with¬ out either canvassing its terms, or revolving its probable consequences. But powerfully as Mr. Addington and bis associates were supported on this momentous occasion, an opposition of a very serious nature, both to them and to their measures, now began to manifest itself : an opposition, inconsiderable indeed in point of number, but of the first

magnitude

HISTORY OF EUROPE.

41

magnitude when estimated by the political experience, brilliancy of talent, and weight of rank and character of those who com¬ posed it. In the house of lords, where ten only divided against the address*, were to be found the names of the marquis of Bucking¬ ham, earls Fitzwilliam and Spen¬ cer, and lord Grenville, all of whom had filled the highest offices of the state with the greatest honour to themselves, and advantage to their country ; in point of fortune and influence second to none* Nor were their opinions, however unpalatable to the multitude, lost upon the thinking part of the com¬ munity. When it was understood in the world that the peace was con¬ sidered by such men as tending to the humiliation and even degrada¬ tion of the national character ; that the terms of it left us for ever de¬ pendant on the good faith of France j that we had surrendered by it as much commerce as territory to our natural enemy ; and that r<r as the threat of invasion terrified us into peace, so France would always have it in her hands with tenfold more

power, as it would come from so many more points 5” and <<r that wre could not reckon on the proba¬ bility of peace for any long period 5” it created considerable sensation, and damped in no small degree the rapturous joy evinced by all ranks of people on the first news of the cessation of hostilities. In the lower house of parliament, those sentiments were supported with the united judgment, talents, and eloquence of Messrs. Windham, Grenville, lord Temple, Mr Elliot, Idr. Lawrence, See. who now, with those of the lords who divided against the address, began to be known by the appellation of the new opposition.

We have gone into considerable length, both into the debates on this important subject, and into our remarks upon them, because we conceive that no subject could be more interesting to our contem¬ poraries, or more necessary to go down to posterity, in as ample and satisfactory a manner as the limits- and nature of this work would admit.

* List of the non-contents, Nov. 30, isoi.

Marquis of Buckingham Earls Pembroke, Warwick, Fitzwilliam Radnor,

Earls Spencer, Caernarvon Lords Grenville, Gwydir,

Bishop of Rochester.

\

CHAP.

*12

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

CHAP. IV.

\

Thanh of loth Houses of Parliament to Sir John H, Hutchinson, and the General Officers and the Army acting in Egypt-— and to Lord Keith, and the Admirals under him, and to the Navy. — Debate on the Russian Convert tion , — Rem arks ,

SOME days after this discussion the thanks of both houses of par¬ liament were voted to sir John Hely Hutchinson, and the general officers who commanded the army in Egypt, as also to lord Keith, and the ad¬ mirals commanding the fleet em¬ ployed in that expedition. The votes of thanks passed unanimously in both houses ; but several distin¬ guished members, in each house, took the opportunity of paying the highest compliments to the gal¬ lantry of our army and navy, who bad rendered such distinguished services to their country.

The next public business of im¬ portance which engaged the atten¬ tion of parliament at the com¬ mencement of this session, was the consideration ot the terms of the convention with the emperor of Russia, signed at St. Peters- burgh, the f th of June 1801, which terminated the northern con¬ federacy, aimed at the vital in¬ terests, and even the very exist¬ ence of the British empire, by a violent though insidious effort to extinguish our maritime rights and regulations, and to deprive us of our naval dominion, at a moment when we were deemed incapable of bearing up against the extraordi¬ nary and unexampled difficulties we

were then contending against. But, however well-grounded the hopes of our new adversaries, they had found in the vigilance and -vigour of Mr. Pitt and his colleagues, and in the public spirit . and magnani¬ mity of the British nation, the complete frustration and overthrow of their hostile attempts. The vic¬ tory of Copenhagen, the particulars of which we have detailed in our preceding volume, which, though fought under the auspices of a new administration, was the immediate fruit of the prompt and decided measures of the old, taught our adversaries that in the defence of our legitimate rights we were in¬ vincible, at the same time that our wisdom and moderation in the mo¬ ment of victory rendered us truly worthy of it. The convention now to be considered was the conse¬ quence of this proud and glorious day. And it remained to be de¬ cided, by the investigation of both houses of parliament, whether we had followed up the brilliant suc¬ cess of our fleet, by securing on a solid and equitable basis the rights we contended for, or whether in negotiation we had bartered those rights for specious but futile ad¬ vantages.

On the 13 th of November this

question

43

HISTORY OF

question came on to be discussed, and when the order of the day for the consideration of it in the house of lords was read.

The earl of Darnley rose to move an address which would amount to an approbation of the conduct of his majesty’s present ministers : he could not withhold his approbation of their conduct since they came into office, especially when con¬ trasted with that of their prede¬ cessors, whose servile imitators they had proved themselves not to be, as he had expected. The conven¬ tion on the table was a striking instance of that. It was evident from that document, that they had not continued to bully and insult the powers of Europe $ but that, by a judicious mixture of firmness and moderation, they had induced them to lay aside their unjust pre¬ tensions, and had finally settled, upon an equitable and permanent basis the maritime law of nations. Upon the principles of the law of nations depended the greatness and prosperity of Great Britain as a maritime power. And yet this law of nations, although clearly ascer¬ tained by the ablest ministers of all countries in Europe, has yet been frequently violated and broken in upon by reason of the political in¬ terest and prejudices of the different countries. It was not surprising that in the last war our unparalleled successes at sea, and the vast ex¬ tension of our commerce, should awaken the jealousy of other powers, and dispose them to join in a co¬ alition contrary to our interests. He thanked God, however, that ' ministers had firmness and en¬ ergy enough to convince them that they did not want spirit to maintain

E UROP E.

the just rights of tke country. [His lordship then complimented lord Nelson who sat near him.} Among the parts of the treaty, par¬ ticularly to be attended to, the first and most important was, the abandonment of that false and dan¬ gerous proposition that c<r free ships made free goods.” This was effec¬ tually done away by the third ar¬ ticle of the convention, which dis¬ criminated what was to be reckoned ' contraband and liable to seizure. The’ second point of importance was, the right of search of ships under convoy, with the exception of privateers.” The third important point regarded what was called the contraband of war.” The convention in this respect differed as with respect to Russia, and with respect to Sweden and Denmark. With Russia, this contraband of war extended only to military war¬ like stores ) whereas with Denmark and Sweden this point was settled according to ancient treaties sub¬ sisting between the countries, by which treaties were also ascertained what should be termed a blockaded port: this is now settled to mean a port so blocked by the enemy’s ships, as that it cannot be entered with safety. The principal merit which he thought belonged to this treaty was, that it prepared tlie way for the peace with France, which, although he was aware that this was not a time for its dis¬ cussion, he considered as absolutely necessary for the country. He concluded by moving an address,

“ thanking his majesty for his communication, and assuring him of the cordial concurrence and ap¬ probation of that house, as the most effectual means ’ of reestablishing

friendship

4 4

ANNUAL RE

friendship with the Northern Pow¬ ers, add maintaining - the maritime rights of this country/’

Lord Cathcart, in seconding the address, took a general view of the events which preceded this convention with Russia. He con¬ sidered that on no single occasion did this country gain such an ac¬ cession to its. character, as by the spirit and decision with which it brojve the combination that was forming against it. A glorious vic¬ tory opened our way into the Baltic, and the moderation as well as firm¬ ness of our government had secured, as the fruits of it, the maritime rights of the country. He con¬ sidered the Conduct of his majesty’s ministers throughout the whole of this arduous transaction as worthy of the highest degree of praise.

Lord Grenville said, it was im¬ possible for him to agree in that unanimous approbation recom¬ mended by the noble lords who had just spoken. In the first place, he conceived it highly premature to give their approbation to a treaty which must still be a subject of discussion between * this country and the Northern Powers (the rati¬ fication of all those powers not being yet obtained) : but he had another and much more forcible ob¬ jection ,• it did not secure for this country the objects for which the War was commenced, and which the tryatv professed to have ob¬ tained. The consideration of this treaty was widely different from that of the treaty lately concluded with France. The latter being a treaty of peace mdde with an enemy, was absolutely binding on the national faith, and parliament had little more to consider than the conduct of ministers in making it.

G IS TER, 1802.

This, however, being a conven¬ tion with a state in amity, if there was any thing defective in the treaty it might be a subject of fu¬ ture exolanation and amicable ar- rangement y he therefore felt par¬ ticularly desirous of pointing out the consequences which would re¬ sult from the treaty in its present shape, and anxious that his ma¬ jesty’s ministers would settle, by future arrangement, what was de¬ fective in the present. As the question of neutral rights had been agitated, he wished it might be for ever put to rest, and that the treaty should constitute a code of laws, which might be appealed to on any future occasion. In order to judge whether the present treaty had succeeded in obtaining the objects of the contest with the Northern Powers,4 he should state what those objects were, which he thought might be reduced to fivq distinct points.

The first point which was assert¬ ed on the part of this country was, that neutral nations should not be permitted in war time, either to carry eoastways, from one port of an enemy’s country to another, the commodities of that country y nor convey home to an enemy’s country, the produce of its colonies y and that such property, although in a neutral bottom, was seizable under the ma¬ ritime law of nations. Were neu¬ trals allowed to exorcise such pri¬ vileges with respect to belligerent powers, the enemy could carry on every species of commerce without the least interruption or annoyance from this country in war time.

Hie second point was, that free ships did not make free goods ; it the contrary principle, which the Northern Powers contended for,

v. as

45

HISTORY O

was once admitted, France could in war time derive supplies of every thing necessary for her support in

war, in defiance of all our efforts to prevent them.

The third principle related to the contraband of war, by which neu¬ tral nations were not to be allowed to supply an enemy with those neces¬ saries of war, which it might be in want of either for offence or de¬ fence, and among those articles naval stores are the most important.

The fourth point related to con¬ voy, and under this it was asserted that neutral vessels, even sailing un¬ der convoy, should not be exempted from the liability of search.

The fifth point related to block¬ aded ports. The principle' which we contended for under this point

was, that no vessel should be suf¬ fered to enter a port blockaded by a cruising squadron, inasmuch as by throwing in supplies they might enable the port to hold out longer against us, and that any vessel at¬ tempting to enter, and bound to such blockaded port, was liable to seizure. The neutral powers, oil the other hand, wished to restrict the signification of a blockaded port, to "that before which a blockading squadron was so placed, as to render it apparently unsafe for a vessel to enter.

Having recapitulated those, as the grounds of the original contest be¬ tween Great Britain and theJSTorthern Powers, his lordship proceeded to consider how far the terms in the present treaty went towards obtaining them. In the first place he observ¬ ed, that the expressions used in this treaty were ambiguous, and drawn from a document most hos¬ tile to us, namely, the convention Of the armed neutrality. One of

F EUROfE.

the first articles would, from its wording, secure the free conveyance of the colonial produce of the ene¬ my, on the ground of its being the acquired property of neutrals. Al¬ though this appeared to be only conceded to Russia, yet Sweden and Denmark would derive the same power if that was made the basis of a general treaty, and in their hands this privilege would be essentially injurious to the country. Another advantage which this clause gave to neutrals was, that it gave them privileges in war which they had not in peace, namely, that of trans¬ porting the produce of the colonies to the mother country : this was a privilege which the navigation laws of every state which had colonies reserved to the mother country. As to the second point, the renun¬ ciation of the claim that <c free bottoms made free goods,” this certainly had been obtained, which was only a confirmation of the existing law of nations. The third point, that of contraband^ war : he was sorry to see that this part of the treaty went on the ground of the treaty with Russia in 1797- With Russia, a power that had no mercan¬ tile navigation, it was an object of no moment ; but to grant the same indulgence to other powers would be most dangerous. It was also most strange in the enumeration of warlike stores to leave out those ar¬ ticles which Russia, might be ex¬ pected to supply, namely, pitch, far, hemp, cordage, sail cloth, ship timber, and even ships themselves. The fourth point respecting block¬ aded ports had been in a great measure abandoned by this treaty. Formerly a port was considered to- be blockaded, when it was declared to be so, in consequence of a squa¬ dron

46

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

dron cruising before it for that purpose,, even although that squa¬ dron should be driven off for a while by a gale of wind or any other cause. By the present treaty a port is not considered blockaded unless there is a stationary force before it. The next article as to the right of seafch he considered equally injurious to us. By this article ships were not to be stopped but upon just causes and evident facts. We had always before exer¬ cised the right of search upon good cause of suspicion and not upon the evidence of facts. It is often impossible to get facts in the first instance 3 they usually come out in the search. Notwithstanding the many complaints which had been made against this right of search, he usually found, when those complaints came to be ex¬ amined, that they were ill founded. He had no objection, however, to depriving privateers of this right of search, but with ships of war the right ought to be main¬ tained in its full extent. The causes for detension and seizure seldom appeared till the search was made 3 they were not to be perceived at a distance by a tele¬ scope. He would suppose, in war time, a Danish frigate was going with a convoy into the port of Brest : the papers on board the frigate convoying them might be perfectly regular, and yet the ships full of naval stores. His lordship concluded, by saying that he found, in every part of the treaty, so much ambiguity and concession, so much variance from the established prac¬ tice, that he felt himself obliged to deliver his opinion, in hopes, even yet, before it came to be the defi¬ nitive law for the government of

our navigation and marine* that it might be modified and rendered more consonant with our ancient claims, our invariable practice, our national dignity, and our maritime power.

The Lord Chancellor defended this treaty, to the conclusion of which he observed that be had been a party, and consenting to its adoption. He contended that this settlement had been obtained on a great and liberal basis, which showed to the world that Great Britain was not in¬ tolerant in her power, and that she did not wish to stand upon trivial nice distinctions. The nation had points, or gained the great objects for which it contended, namely, that free bottoms did not make free goods; that ships of war had the right of search 3 that the blockade of ports should be recognised as legitimate 3 that the exercise of those rights should be regulated by clear, in¬ telligible and liberal rules 3 and what was of more consequence than all, that, any casual violation of those rules should not be a ground of quarrel, but should be determined by the tribunals of the country. Those were, as he conceived, the heads of the treaty, and as to the wording of the clauses in their con¬ struction, he held an opinion very different from that of the noble lord who spoke before him. He considered that the words were sufficiently explicit to prevent neu¬ trals from carrying on either the coasting trade of an enemy’s coun¬ try, or their colonial trade. France had at one time, in the course of the war, broached the monstrous doctrine, that they had a right to seize and confiscate the property of neutrals, if of British produce. This treaty went on a different

principle,

HISTORY

principle, and declared “ that this country would not consider as ene¬ my’s property such goods as, hav¬ ing formerly belonged to the ene¬ my, had since become the property of neuters.” Although we there¬ fore permitted neutrals to acquire the colonial productions of our ene¬ mies, yet we did not allow them to carry on the colonial trade. Almost any other treaty which had ever been made would be found liable to as serious objec¬ tions, if examined with the same critical acumen. The intention of the parties, however, formed the true interpretation of every treaty. This was a treaty concluded with Russia separately, and it was not to be supposed that all other neutral nations were to come under this arrangement. Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and America, were no par¬ ties to it, and could not insist on any of the stipulations of it. His lordship, upon the whole, conceived it as unobjectionable as any treaty which had ever been concluded by this country.

Lord Grenville explained. He did not mean that the article with respect to the Cf contraband of war,” which was introduced in this treaty with Russia, would be extended to the treaties to be made with Swe¬ den and Denmark $ but he meant, that in this treaty it should be put out of all doubt that England gene- nerally considers naval stores as

contraband of war.” Holland and America might again suppose, from the wording of this treaty, that by the law of nations, on which they stood, naval stores were not contraband.

The Lord Chancellor again re¬ peated that this article in a separate treaty with Russia could not be

4

EDROP E. 47

construed or conceived to extend to any, other nation on earth.

Lord Holland voted for the ad¬ dress, but not on any of ’the grounds assigned by the noble mover or seconder. He thought many con¬ cessions had been made in this treaty 5 concessions, which so far from objecting to, he highly ap¬ proved of 5 and should vote for the address, because he thought those concessions likely to tend to the preservation of peace, by showing that his majesty’s ministers were willing to grant every accommo¬ dation that was reasonable to foreign powers. His lordship, after rea¬ soning for some time on the former treaties subsisting between this country and the Northern Powers, as also upon the five heads enume¬ rated by lord Grenville, agreed with that noble lord, that there still remained in the treaty much room for explanation and amend¬ ment. He could have wished that those explanations which the learned lord (the chancellor), had confessed to be necessary, had been obtained before the house was called on for the present vote, but he should, however, support the ad¬ dress.

Lord Grem ille again rose to ex¬ plain, in consequence of some ex¬ pressions of censure used by the noble lord against his majesty's late ministers, for advising a war on mere speculative points. Those points which he had named were by no means speculative points, but rights of the utmost importance, and principles upon which the existence of this country as a ma¬ ritime power depended.

Lord Muigrave supported the ad¬ dress, but differed from most of the noble lords wire had spoken

in

O F

48

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

in several points: he could not agree with the noble and learned lord (the chancellor), in his exulta¬ tion at this treaty, as one of the most advantageous this country had ever made ; nor could he agree with another noble lord (Holland), who had treated lightly the five dif¬ ferent heads enumerated by lord Grenville, as the principles which caused the contest with northern powers : he thought those principles were rights of the utmost import¬ ance to this country as a maritime nation ; he considered that these rights were not secured by this treaty as fully as might have been wished, but yet that a great deal had been obtained, and a great many claims hostile to this country had been now abandoned by the northern powers. Under this im¬ pression he voted for the address.

Lord Nelson highly approved of the convention which had been concluded. It put an end to that principle which was endeavoured to be enforced by the armed neutrality in 17SO, that ft free ships make free goods a proposition so inju¬ rious to the rights and maritime in¬ terests of this country, that if it had been persisted in, he thought the country should wage war to the last drop of British blood rather than be submitted to. That proposition was now set at rest, and abandoned by Russia. It was to obtain this that the rashness and violence of the emperor Paul set forward the con¬ federacy y but the good sense, mo¬ deration, and temper of the present emperor abandoned it. As to our not classing naval stores as contra¬ band of war, in our separate treaty with Russia, he saw no danger in the omission : Russia neither sup¬ plied those naval stores, nor had 3

she ships to convey them. The* case would be widely different, if we were to allow some other mari¬ time states the privilege of convey¬ ing ship-timber, guns, powder, and shot, into our enemy’s ports in time of war. His lordship approved of the article restricting the right of search of ships under convoy of a neutral Hag ship, to our ships of war only. He should himself, in many cases, conceive it his duty to make such search, although he should do it with the utmost respect and civility to the commander of the neutral frigate. His lordship concluded by declaring, that he should vote for the address.

The question was then put, and agreed to without a division.

In the house of commons, on the same day, lord Hawkesbury moved the order of the day for the conven¬ tion with Russia.

Lord Temple asked whether mi¬ nisters had received official informa¬ tion of the accession of Sweden to the convention ?

Lord Hawkesbury replied, that they were positively assured of the readiness of Sweden to accede, but that the formal act of accession had not as yet arrived.

Lord Francis Osburn moved the address. [His lordship spoke in so low a tone of voice, that his argu¬ ments could not be distinctly heard].

The honourable Mr. R. Ryder seconded the motion ; he began by recalling to the recollection of the house, the pledge which they had formerly given to his majesty to ma¬ intain the naval rights of the country and the long-established maritime law of Europe, He hoped that, by the terms of the treaty now on the table, those rights must appear fully supported and maintained;

and.

HISTORY OF EUROPE.

49

and that the dangerous pretensions advanced by the Northern Powers had been abandoned. This treaty was not to be viewed as a full and extended system of maritime law, but as a final decision of certain points of controversy which had been the most disputed, and there¬ fore were selected for discussion. The principle which had been set up by the Northern Powers, that free bottoms made free goods,” they had been obliged most unequi¬ vocally to abandon. If this had been admitted, the trade of the enemy could be carried on exactly as well in time of war as in peace, and our enemies would be safe from all annoyance on our part. Al¬ though in the article respecting the contraband of war,” naval stores are not particularly mention¬ ed, yet, as former treaties are hereby recognized, this matter stood ex¬ actly on the ancient footing. The right of search for contraband goods was also admitted, and certain rules laid down for the regulation of it. By this convention too, the precise definition of what shall be a blockaded port,” is laid down on rational principles. A port is to be deemed blockaded when there is a stationary fleet so placed before it, as that it is evidently unsafe for a vessel to enter : in such case every neutral having fair notice of the blockade, will be liable to seizure if they attempt to enter. He hoped that this treaty would put an end to future contentions on this subject. He congratulated the house and the country for having so decidedly re¬ fused to listen to the counsels of those who either expressed doubts of the justice of our claims, or wished us to wave the assertion of our rights, and act as the govern- Vpl. XLIV.

ment. had done in 1780. Playing paid some compliments to the spirit and decision of our ministers, and to the gallantry of our navy in the Baltic, he concluded by giving his hearty assent to the address.

Mr. Grey said, that he so much rejoiced at the termination of the dispute with the Northern Powers, that he felt but little disposed to enter minutely into a consideration of the terms, and he should not have risen, if the honourable gen¬ tleman who spoke last had not so pointedly alluded to the opinion he had formerly delivered on that sub- ject. However that gentleman might think himself justified in congra¬ tulating the house and the country, ©n his (Mr. G.’s) advice not being attended to, he by no means re¬ pented of the advice he had given, which, in all the circumstances of the country, he thought was the most prudent to have been followed ; he rejoiced most sincerely at the termi¬ nation of the dispute, as ultimately connected with the war with France, and he had no difficulty in affirm¬ ing, that till that dispute was set¬ tled, peace with France was unat¬ tainable ; he therefore viewed the convention as a judicious com¬ promise, but could not possibly allow that it liad satisfactorily settled all points in dispute. He considered the address premature, inasmuch as no official information of the acces¬ sion of Denmark and Sweden had been received : besides, he could not see upon what ground we could say, that there was no room for future disputes with Sweden and Denmark about the question, whether naval stores were or were not contraband of war, when in this convention with Russia, to which they were invited to accede, naval stores were E net

.50 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1S02.

not mentioned among the things which were to be considered as con¬ traband. Denmark and Sweden might well conceive themselves to be bound not by the antecedent treaties, which were now confirm¬ ed, but by this convention, which professed to settle all controverted points. As to what had been gained respecting the signification of a blockaded port, we had certainly given up our former definition, even, if we had not accepted the definition of the neutral powers : by our for¬ mer definition of blockade, the whole coast of Holland was said to be in a state of blockade when the blockad¬ ing squadron were in Yarmouth roads. As to the right of search, he considered it had been limited in a very proper way 5 and the regula¬ tion about privateers met his most cordial approbation. Upon the whole, he rejoiced that the business was terminated, but saw no reason to repent of his former opinions on the subject. He concluded by support¬ ing the address.

Lord Temple highly disapproved the treaty : he considered that all the grounds on which the house had pledged itself to his majesty in the last sessions, had been wholly or partially given up. His lordship divided into five heads, the points of dispute between this country and the Northern Powers : 1st, The co¬ lonial and coasting trade 3 2d, the right to search ships under convoy 3 3d, the right of blockade 3 4 th, free ships making free goods; 5th, the articles to be considered contraband of war. From our claims with re¬ gard to all these, it had been cleclar- ed impossible to recede consistently with the honour, the interests, and even the very existence of the coun¬ try : in every one particular, how¬

ever, our claims had been receded from. He so much disliked , the system of privateering, that he ap¬ proved of taking from privateers the right of searching neutrals under convoy 3 but he could by no means approve of the method pointed out for ships of war to exercise that right. If the papers were found not to be regular, it was said the captain might search 3 but how easy would it be for a neutral to carry a set of false papers ? He thought, in that point respecting the blockade of ports, we had receded a great way from the rights we claimed, where we admit that if the squadron des¬ tined to blockade Brest should be blown off by stormy weather, that Brest should on that account cease to be considered a blockaded port. His joy at finding the northern powers had abandoned the principle that “ free bottoms make free goods,” was much abated by finding in the treaty another clause which would make this of little avail. Neutrals were allowed to purchase the goods of the enemy and carry them unmolested where they pleas¬ ed : he could not conceive how it was possible to prevent fraud in this species of traffic. When a cargo of French wines, or French colonial property, was met at sea, how could it be certainly known whether the property was or was not purchased by neutrals ? With regard to contra¬ band, the Beaty conceded a point of the greatest importance, namely, that contraband of war does not in¬ clude naval stores. This had been before, in former treaties, conceded, for a limited term of years, to powers who could make no great use of the privilege 3 but now it ap¬ peared that ‘this concession was to be ingrafted into a general system of

maritime

51

HISTORY OF EURO? E.

maritime law, which this treaty ap¬ peared intended to fix. Those con¬ cessions appeared to him of so much importance, that necessity alone could justify ministers for making them. They had struck that flag, which an honourable gentleman (Mr. Sheridan) had eloquently and truly declared ought never to disap¬ pear till the nation itself was over¬ whelmed.

Lord Hawkesbury began his de- fence of the treaty by stating, that he should not trouble the house at much length, but he found it neces¬ sary to mention the grounds upon which he differed from the honour¬ able gentleman (Mr. Grey) and the noble lord (loVd Temple). The honourable gentleman had conceived it irregular to move for such an ad¬ dress, until the official accession of Sweden and Denmark had been re¬ ceived j but although the house had been assured by his majesty of the acquiescence of those powers, yet it must be recollected, they were only now considering the convention with Russia as a separate treaty. He could not allow that this con¬ vention was a compromise, as the honourable member had called it, nor that we had given up all the ob- jects for which we contended, as the noble lord supposed. We had maintained, in full force, all pur maritime rights, as far as it ought to have been our desire. Some asked, What did the treaty give us which we had not before ? He answered, that it was not to obtain any new advantages, but to support and pre¬ serve our incontestable and ancient rights that the dispute arose. The real state of the question he con¬ ceived to be this : the powers of the North had confederated to dictate a new code of maritime law to Eu¬

rope. We went to war to dissolve this confederacy, and to defeat its purposes. Were not those objects obtained ? Had not the coali¬ tion been dissolved, and had not we maintained our ancient rights ? Those were the only questions which he thought the attention of the house should be then directed to. In ✓ ascertaining properly the value of these rights, it might be necessary to recollect that it was to her mari¬ time greatness this country was in¬ debted for the successful issue of the last war, and it was to the same cause that Europe was indebted for whatever it still retained of inde¬ pendence. This maritime greatness was itself in a great measure the ef¬ fect of that wise policy which dic¬ tated our navigation laws, and which always protected our maritime rights. The principle upon which Great Britain had always gone, was to ex¬ tend her navigation as much as pos¬ sible, and confine her commerce to her own shipping. In France the? system was different 3 their naviga- gation being far inferior to their commerce, they were content to allpw their commerce to be trans¬ acted by neutrals, that in time of war all their sailors might be em- ployed in their navy. The principle therefore for which we had con¬ tended, was of the utmost import¬ ance to us, for our individual inte¬ rests. At the same time it must be allowed, that we should make the exercise of our rights as little vexa¬ tious as possible. This was the ob¬ ject of the parties to, the treaty which had been signed. He denied that this treaty was at all to be con¬ sidered as a new code of maritime law. It was merely a settlement of disputes between this country and three of the Noi'thenqPowers. He E 2 divided

52 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1802.

divided into the following heads the points in dispute: 1st, the right of seizing enemy’s property in neu¬ tral ships 5 2d, the affair of contra¬ band ; 3d, the right of searching Vessels under convoy 3 4th, the right of blockade 3 5 th, the colonial and coasting trade. Of these he considered, that we had gained all that was essential. A to the 1st point, the Northern Powers ex¬ pressly abandoned the principle that free bottoms made free goods.” As to the 2d, no new general re¬ gulation was made on the subject, and the concession to Russia alone to be allowed to carry naval stores, was an object of trifling importance indeed. The right of search, with¬ out which the other rights were nugatory, was also maintained, though under some restrictions, and he would freely confess that this concession had been voluntarily of¬ fered by the British government, on condition that the Northern Powers would recede from other claims which were altogether inadmissible. In the exercise of this right of search, neither the law of nations, nor our most ancient treaties with Sweden and Denmark, ever war¬ ranted it, except under strong grounds of suspicion, and the cap¬ tain always exercised it at his own risk. As to the point respecting blockade, he maintained, that the present definition of it went as far as any approved writer on the law of nations had ever extended it. The opinions which had been op¬ posed to each other on this point were both in the extreme : this treaty he conceived held a due medium between them. As to the last head, that of the colonial and coasting trade : this subject he con¬ ceited hud always been regulated by

particular treaties, and not by the law of nations. Although he trusted that the house would generally give credit to his majesty’s ministers for doing all in their power to promote the interests of the country 3 yet in the present case, he wmuld say, if more was not gained, it was be¬ cause more was not asked or wished for. When the Northern Powers threatened to support their claims by force, this country, with proper magnanimity, resisted them 3 but as soon as there appeared on their side a wish for settling the dispute amicably, the government of this country had displayed equal modera¬ tion in requiring nothing but what was reasonable and necessary for the essential interests of the country. As to the wording of this treaty, there might, as in every other, be some little ambiguity 3 but what treaty was ever made which could not be found fault with by the discontented and the querulous. His lordship concluded by a pane¬ gyric on the conduct of this coun¬ try, in the dispute and its termina¬ tion.

Dr. Lawrence did not conceive the noble lord justifiable in the very triumphant manner in which he considered this question. He did not see that this country had ob¬ tained any important advantages by the treaty, but it was evident that it had made concessions, and re¬ ceded from its ancient claims : the right of search, for instance, which was restricted by the present treaty, had not been even called in question at the time of the armed neutrality in l/SO. We had also conceded a good deal in accepting the new de¬ finition of a blockaded port, and instead of weakening the power of Russia, we had strengthened it con¬ siderably.

53

HISTORY OF EUROPE.

siderably, by allowing her to treat for the other Northern Powers.

Lord Glenbervie said, that the learned gentleman (Dr. Lawrence) was mistaken in a point of fact. The Northern Powers had for a considerable time showed a dispo¬ sition to resist by force our claim to the right of search. A Danish ship had resisted by force, and a Swedish captain had been broke for not doing so.

Mr. Erskine cordially approved of the treaty. It had been called a judicious compromise, upon which he would observe, in the language of a man whose name would be always heard in that house with reverence (Mr. Burke), that " al¬ most every human benefit is found¬ ed on a compromise, and it is better that we should give and take than be too rigid with each other, for that if we would be wise, we should not endeavour to be too subtle dis¬ putants.” If we had endeavoured to impose harsh terms upon the late confederacy, those powers would have contested with us again, the first opportunity that offered-,* but by our moderation the business had been better set¬ tled. In every controversy between man and man, or nation and na¬ tion, that reconciliation is the sin- cerest where the honour and in¬ terest of both parties are attended to : had it not been for this arrange¬ ment with the Northern Powers, peace with France would have been perhaps unattainable. Mr. Erskine then very eloquently congratulated the country on its prospects of a se¬ cure and lasting peace, and con¬ cluded by giving his most hearty approbation of the conduct of his majesty’s ministers.

Sir William Scott expressed his

entire approbation of the sentiments expressed by the learned gentleman (Mr. Erskine), who had just sat down. He then briefly reviewed the treaty nearly on the same grounds as lord Hawkesbury had considered it, and concluded with voting for the address.

Mr. Tierney also concurred in the address, and expressed his ap¬ probation of the conduct of mi¬ nisters, in whom he began to place confidence.

The question was then called for, and the address was voted without a division.

However material to the real in¬ terests of the British empire the subject matter of the foregoing de¬ bate, with whatever ability the ques- ' tion had been discussed, or how ably soever the public law of Europe, as connected with our maritime dominion, had been laid down in the course of a long and animated opposition of sentiment 5 it excited very little sensation in the public mind. The result of the contest with the Northern Powers had been glorious 5 it was universally under¬ stood that concession would follow victory, and that, from the cha¬ racter and temper of the young sovereign with whom we had nego¬ tiated, every thing equitable and conciliatory wars to be expected. The known ability of lord St. Helen’s, who had conducted the convention on our part, and a wil¬ lingness to confide in the political skill and integrity of the ministers at home, who had concluded an un¬ hoped for peace with France, and who now claimed from the nation praises for having, in the words of the address, secured to us those essential rights for which we had contended,” and which all agreed E 3 were

I

54 A N N U A L RE

were inseparably connected with the existence of our naval power, precluded minute investigation ; and if we add to these causes the diffi¬ culty of the subject, and its remote¬ ness from the usual studies and pur¬ suits of the greater part of man¬ kind 5 we shall not be surprised at the apathy and indifference with which this important discussion was generally 'received. But it is the province of the historian, not only to detail fact? as they arise, but to place before his readers their causes, their relations, and their probable consequences. Separate this duty from his labours, and he becomes the useful annalist indeed, but for¬ feits all claim to the name and dig¬ nity of a writer of history. Impressed with these considerations we shall beg the indulgence of our readers, while we consider at some length the articles of this convention : a convention which at once abrogates what has always been considered and acted Upon as the received public law of Europe ; and esta¬ blishes an entire new code for the future regulation of the maritime affairs of all civilized nations. Nor can the disquisition be considered