HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
left alone to contend with France. 
Was it probable, that if we were 
to abandon the contest, the French 
would alter their present system? 
Would their immense armies be 
peaceably disbanded? Would not 
the French government find it ne- 
cessary to give them employment, 
and what other could be found, 
than to complete the ruin of the 
royal party, which still remained 
in sufficient force to afford us a 
powerful co operation? Could the 
Jow countries: be giyen up 
France, consistently with our safe~ 
ty? Should the French islands, 
in the West Indies, be restored 
to them; not only those who had 
placed themselves under our pro- 
teétion would be ruined, but our 
_ own. possessions would soon be 
thrown into confusion. The real, 
losses of the French far exceed- 
ed those of the coalition, and the 
resources of the latter were 
“greatly superior to those of the 
former. The pecuniary strength 
‘of France arose from the immense 
extortion of money and property 
from all ranks of people ; a me- 
thod of procuring supplies that 
could only be supported by ter- 
ror and violence, and could not, 
in the nature of things, be lasting. 
_ France had expended, since the 
revolution, no Jess than three hun- 
_ dred and twenty millions sterling. 
The paper money they had, cre- 
ated, had hitherto supported this 
prodigious expenditure. But pa- 
credit was at an end, and 
it was evident, by the debates 
in the convention, that they did 
not dare to venture on farther 
_ €missions. 
_ A reply was made to this 
speech by Mr. Fox. Had the 
minister, he said, avowed that his 
to. 
[155 
design was to destroy. the French 
government, he well koew thas 
he vwrould not have been so. nws 
merously supported; bat his des 
termination, to procufe approvers 
of his plan, led him to disguise 
it; and what was the consequence ? 
a scries of the most astonishing 
successes on the part of the enes 
my, and of the most mortifying 
disasters on that of the coalition. 
He might be reproached for this 
favourable representation of- the 
exploits of an ancient and. invetes 
rate foc; but he felt. himselt 
bound to speak truths, however, 
disagreeable, from which’ only, 
motives of condu&t..could be 
formed. Folly, not fortune, was 
the cause of our disasters. If 
other nations. could live peaces 
ably with France, why could nots 
Britain? Denmark, -Swedea, and 
North America, had stood aloof 
from the contest without detris 
ment; and so we-~might have 
done. Could. England,- with ho. 
nour, it had been asked, submit 
to treat with France? But in 
what consisted this submission’? in 
no more than allowing.the French 
to havea bad government. But 
had we not treated with govern. 
ments as bad? Had the governs 
ment of France been better for 
a century past? . Had we not 
tamely submitted to-the infamous 
treatment of Poland? Could we, 
without disgracing ourselves, at 
was said, sue for peace. to the 
French? He would answer this 
question by another. Were. na. 
tions, at war, bound, in honour, 
to exterminate each other? for 
such must be the issue to one, 
if neither were to request @ 
peace. The royalists had been 
mentioned, as standing through 
our 
