HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
Jabyrinth of despotic arrogance ; 
“a principle on which,”’ said his 
grace, ‘* I shall make no comment, 
but leave it to your conscience to 
decide.” 
The earl Spencer denied that lord 
Malmesbury, in his conversation 
with de la Croix, had proposed any 
ultimatum. ‘The last note of the 
directory was actually the begin- 
ning of negociation on their part. 
And, what was their proposal ? 
** You shall accept the basis of our 
new-forme. constitution, which 
engrafts a conquered country into 
an integral part of our territories.” 
The principle advanced by force, 
would go to subvert all the ac- 
knowledgedlawsof nations. Whilst 
the directory were requiring an xl- 
timatum from us, they were in fact 
giving one themselves. . 
_ The lord chancellor said, that the 
amendment in detail was nothing 
else than an exaggeration of the 
power of the enemy, encouraging 
to them, and depressing to the ins 
terests of this country. The infers 
ence to be drawn from it was, that 
this country must submit to what- 
ever terms the enemy chose to im- 
pose. He denied the earl of Guild- 
yrd’s assertion, that the memorial 
presented to the French directory, 
was of asophistical nature: forwhat 
could contain, in plainer terms, a 
more ingenuous declaration of what 
England was disposed to surrender, 
and what to demand in behalf of her 
allies ? But whatever might be the 
relative value of the compensations 
roposed, they had never, in fact, 
a brought under discussion. 
The proposal of England towards 
the enemy was generous and libe- 
[151 
quests made by that power, only on 
condition of her making suitable 
returns of the conquests made from 
the emperor. His lordship remark- 
ed, that the government of France 
had made no reply to the memorial 
which had been presented; the 
question of reciprocal compensations 
had never been fairly discussed: in- 
stead of this they required an uiti- 
matum within twenty-four hours 5 
and,in the veryact of doing so, they 
recalled the very basis of the nego- 
ciation, to which they had previously 
agreed. He would pat out of view. 
the insolence and arrogance of the 
language they had used,and content 
himself with observing that their 
whole conduct and: language disco- 
vered, on their part, a determination 
to avoid all discussion. Thus, said 
his lordship, have the government of 
France barred and double-barred 
the doorof negociation against you. 
He proceeded to illustrate, what he 
called, the “ immensity of our na- 
tional wealth and prosperity.””: He 
concluded his speech, by a repeti- 
tion of an observation he had made. 
in the outset of it, that, at no fors 
mer period of English history, 
when negociations were broken off, 
as at Gertruydenburg, in the reign 
of queen Anne, did those who thea 
opposed the ministry ever think of 
bringing forward a motion like 
that thing which ‘he held in his 
hand. 
On a division. of the house, the 
amendment, proposed by the earl 
of Guildford, was rejected, by 86 
against 8. . 
The earl Fitzwilliam, after a. 
brief recapitulation of some of the 
arguments he had, on sundry occa- 
sions, urged before, for irreconcile- 
able hostility to the French repub- 
lic, moved an amendment to the ad- 
(L4] dress $ 
ral: though France had made no 
© conquests trani us, yet England pro- 
posed te surrenderack all the con 
