88] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1800. 



to which I have alluded, tliey have, 

 in consequence of her hostile con- 

 duct and aggression, been under 

 the necessity of recalling their am- 

 bassadors ? This, then, being the 

 strong feature of the revolution, the 

 peculiar character of the Jacobinical 

 government of France, and it being 

 clear and manifest that a principle 

 hostile to peace, and in opposition 

 to the spirit of peace and treaties, 

 has characterized the French revo- 

 lution, the question, at this present 

 day, resolves itself simply into this, 

 whether that constitution, such as I 

 have described it, does or does not 

 exist ? In arguing this point, 1 

 have no occasion to resort to ab- 

 stract reasoning. I have only to 

 state the authority of the supporters 

 and advocates of the late revolution, 

 every one of whom is of opinion,- 

 that it was impossible, from the na- 

 ture and constitution of the French 

 government, that it would present 

 any thing but continual war to all 

 nations within its sphere of action. 

 This is no description of mine ; it is 

 the account given of it by those 

 who have lived under it, who have 

 taken an active part in its admi- 

 nistration, and judge, from a ten 

 years experience, of its merits. 

 Having thus ascertained, from the 

 testimony of the French themselves, 

 what the government of France 

 was, I am led, by the natural pro- 

 gress of discussion, to inquire what 

 it is now. Are the practices of 

 which all other nations have com- 

 plained, now reprobated by France ? 

 Are the principles of aggression and 

 ambition, on which she has acted, 

 laid aside ? Have nq any positive 

 proof of these changes, or any rea- 

 sonable cause to presume that such 

 have taken place ? It is a mistake 

 to suppose, that these principles 



were essentially connected with 

 the Jacobinical form of government, 

 and therefore must stand or fall 

 with such form ; but, in substance, 

 all the other qualities of the revo- 

 lutionary government are as much 

 in force at this moment as they 

 were in the days of Barrere and 

 Robespierre. 



What, then, the peculiar nature 

 ofthe change that has recently taken 

 place may be, or whether it be for 

 the better or for the worse, with 

 respect to the people of France 

 themselves, I shall leave others to 

 decide. But if we consider the 

 change, in relation to other govern- 

 ments, and the degi'ee of confidence 

 which they ought to place in the 

 future conduct of France, the only 

 difference that I see between the 

 present and any of her former go-" 

 vernments is this, that the others 

 were derived from republican as- 

 semblies representing the people; 

 and though the people always, and 

 these assemblies often> werenothing 

 but the blind instruments of the 

 executive, the appearance of the 

 constitution was still preserved,' 

 whereas all this is now at an end. 

 Form and substance are all now 

 concentrated and consolidated in the 

 hands of Buonaparte, and the go- 

 vernment now stands, with a mili- 

 tary despot at its head, with unli- 

 mited power and authority to revive 

 the practice of forced loans and re- 

 quisitions, to wield the force of the 

 state as he pleases, and resort to all 

 the resources of the revolutionary 

 government. Upon this question I 

 may expect to hear it asked, if, as I 

 have stated upon the authority ofthe 

 French themselves, there was no 

 security afforded by the government 

 of France for a faithful observance 

 of treaties with other nations, pre- 



