192 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1794. 



and of oppression to the bulk of the 

 community. It was therefore no 

 subject of wonder that the opulent 

 so warmly patronized the war, any 

 more than that the indigent and 

 the industrious reprobated it, and 

 \t*ere continually expressing their 

 wishes for its' termination. But 

 then the question, so often repeat- 

 ed, and so often answered, still re- 

 curred. Who are th« men in France 

 with whom we arc to treat ? Could 

 any other reply be made more appo- 

 site than that which plain sense dic- 

 tated? With those who govern that 

 country. Pride and affectation 

 alone could prevent a negociation 

 , with those who had shewn them- 



selves our equals in war ;^d with 

 whom to refuse treating^ was to 

 declare an everlasting war. 



Mr. Sheridan was vigorously se- 

 conded by Mr. Fox. To assc;;t tlfat, 

 while the Jacobin system existed, 

 no peace could take place with 

 France, was, he affirmed, to pledge 

 ■the natioa for the performance of 

 what dear-bought e.^pcrience had 

 fully proved we could not accom- 

 plish. Never wouldtthe efforts of 

 the coalition eradicate the opinions 

 ftow so tenaciously rooted in 

 France: they were sown before the 

 revolution ; they had produced it ; 

 the French gloried in them. But it 

 Was not in these opinions that the 

 causes of the enormities perpetra- 

 ted by the French werejo be found : 

 the mt?naces and insulf; contained 

 - in the manifestos and prociamations 

 issued against them by tlieir ene- 

 mies, ivere the real causes of the 

 <t* - rage and indignation that impelled 

 • ^ the French to those excesses that 

 had disgraced the cause of freedom, 

 and done it the highest injury, by" 

 enabling its enemies to involve it 

 Li. tine tommoa accusation ajrain'st 



its pervcrters, and to deceive th# T 

 undiscerning into a suspicion of its 

 real excellence. But whatever 

 guilt and disgrace the French had 

 incurred by their atrocious conduct, 

 it was no valid reason for declininsf 

 a negocration with them. The 

 rulers of that country, whether 

 monarchical or republican, ought 

 to be considered in the same light 

 respecting this country. France 

 had in the last century pursued the 

 same ambitious system as in the 

 present; yet our ancestors, however 

 jiistly.exasperated at her endeavours 

 to deprive them of their civil and 

 religious rights, and assisting in 

 that attempt the deluded monarch 

 when on the British throne, did 

 not, after they had expelled him 

 and abjured, Ids family, carry their 

 resentment"^ so far as to refuse ne- 

 gociating with the perfidious court 

 that Iiad abetted, him. By the same 

 rule, prudence dictated a pacifica- 

 tion with tlxe present rulers of 

 France, however cruel and anibi- 

 tious.^' Those evil qualities were 

 unhappily too frequent smong men, 

 to be urged as just impediments to 

 a cessatiws of wai-. It was the duty 

 of minitterjS to provide against them ; .i 

 not to plunge a nation nito endless 1] 

 hostilities, on the pretence of extir- 

 pating those who acted under their 

 iwHuence.' But were the efforts of 

 coalition to succeed in the restora- 

 tion of monarchy, would the prince 

 <jrestored rest satisfied with a muti- 

 lated kingdom, on a supposition of 

 cessions being made to the mem- ! 

 bers of the confederacy ? Would ^| 

 he not, conformably to the usual 'I 

 course of politics, carefully watch | 

 and eagerly seize the first favoura- ' 

 ble occasion to re-annex them to 

 his dominions ? Thus it appeared, 

 that with whomsoever we treated, 



i 



