Uk 



HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



1S3 



ductors were so frequently chan- 

 ging : but this was the case in all 

 popular governments ; and yet it 

 did not appear that treaties with 

 these were either worse observed, 

 or less durable than those con- 

 tracted with such as had been lately 

 dignified with the title of legal and 

 regular governrrients. 



The Marquis of Lansdown, in 

 addition to the arguments adduced 

 by lord Guildford, observed, that 

 .the similitude of some transactions 

 during the American war, to some 

 during the present, was striking. 

 Britain had, in an evil hour, spurn- 

 ed the humble remonstrances of 

 her colonists : but the calamities 

 that followed had punished her ar- 

 rogance without curing it. She , 

 had lately been guilty of astill grea- 

 ter act of temerity, in rejecting the 

 solicitations of a much more for- 

 midable power than America. The 

 proffers of that power might have 

 proved the basis of a pacification 

 advantageous to all the parties, but 

 especially to Britain : but those 

 solicitations weretreatedwith scorn, 

 and the consequence was a war ; 

 the dreadful nature of which was 

 increased by the motives alleged 

 forits continuation on the one side; 

 and by the rage and indignation 

 those motives excited on the 

 other. To say that no fixed go- 

 vernment subsisted in France, was 

 daily contradicted by facts. Or- 

 dinances were enacted, which no 

 man dared to disobey j taxes vfet<e: 



France had a government ? Could 

 Spain deny it, or the unhappy in- 

 surgents of La Vendee, and of 

 Lyons ? The commanders of the 

 allied armies in the Netherlands 

 would hardly doubt the existence 

 of such a government. But the 

 fact was, that the resistance to that 

 government, and the massacres of 

 those unfortunate Frenchmen who 

 ventured to opposeit, originated on- 

 ly in their fatalexpectationsof assis- 

 tance from the British government. 

 Such were the chief allegations 

 of these, and of other members of 

 opposition in the House of Lords. 

 On moving the address, it had been 

 proposed, as an amendment, that 

 his Majesty should be requested to 

 seize the earliest opportunity to 

 conclude an honourable peace ; and 

 in case the prosecution of the war 



to 

 to 

 skilful ministers. Ninety- 

 seven voted against the amendment, 

 and only twelve for it. . 



The arguments in- the Lower 

 House, on moving the address t9 

 the King, resembled, in many par- 

 ticulars, those that had been 

 brought forward in the Upper. 

 It was alleged by Sir Peter Burrel, 

 in support of the measures of go- 

 vernment, that Great Britain had 

 been forced into the war by the 

 most cogent motive that could have 

 impelled her to such a step, — the 

 evident necessity of repelling the 

 designs that were forming to sub- 



should be thought necessary, 

 commit the management of it 

 more 



imposed, which were paid as far asV.vcrt the constitutional establish' 

 the people were able ; and armies 



were raised, that resisted all the ar- 

 mies of Europe. If this were not a 

 government, in what country wasit 

 to be found ? Would General 

 Wurmser, the Duke of Brunswick, 

 or tie King of Prussia, deny that 



ment m church and state. Hav- 

 ing formed engagements with other 

 powers for the counteracting of 

 one that was become the common 

 enemy of all, it was equally the 

 duty and interest of Britain to per- 

 severe in those connexions. Nor 

 iV 4 



