104] ANiNUAL REGISTER, 1800. 



thatit wasseairily against a danger 

 the greatest that ever threatened 

 the world. 



Mr. Windham said, that the ex- 

 planation of the grounds of the war, 

 and its continuance, had heen so 

 often repeated, that it was folly to 

 dwell any longer upon them. It 

 must be intelligible to all mankind, 

 if we could not gain all we wished 

 by the war, we must obtain all that 

 we could. 



Where the best thing was unat- 

 tainable, the second best must be 

 had; but there was one question 

 that deserved a definitive answer. 

 " Will you, it was said, fight for 

 the restoration of that monarchy in 

 France, which was always hostile 

 to this country, and the occasion of 

 our wars and debt.'*" This, he said, 

 was a matter of calculation. The 

 monarchy of France existed eight 

 hundred years; and, if we consi- 

 dered the evils it had occasioned to 

 us in that time, not by their num- 

 bers but weight, we should find 

 them far inferior to those accumu- 

 lated on us by the unprovoked ag- 

 gressions, the plots, and the arts of 

 France, in the short course of her. 

 eight years revolution. 



On a division of the house, Mr. 

 Pitt's motion was carried by l62 

 against 19- 



On various other subjects, that 

 drew the attention of parliament 

 in the course of this, as in so many 

 of the preceding sessions, the origin 

 and the necessity, or expediency, of 

 continuing the war was brought 

 incidentally on the canvass. But 

 the present seems no improper 

 place for just mentioning that this 

 question was, at three different 

 times, made a subject of regular 

 aad formal motion in the house of 



commons. On the twenty-eighth 

 of February, 



Mr. Tierney moved, "That it was 

 the opinion of that house, that it 

 was both unjust and unnecessary to 

 carry on the war, for the purpose of 

 restoring monarchy in France." — 

 This motion was seconded by Mr. 

 Johnes, and supported also by Mr. 

 W. Bouverie, and Mr. William 

 Smith. It was opposed by Mr. El- 

 liot, lord Hawkesbury, Mr. Yorke, 

 sir G. P. Turner, lord Belgrave, 

 colonel El ford, and Mr. H.Browne. 



Mr. Smith argued, that though 

 lord Hawkesbury had, in terms, de- 

 nied that the restoration of monar- 

 chy in France was the object for 

 which we now contended, he had 

 stated his own wishes for its ac- 

 complishment so strongly, and had 

 laboured so much to prove those 

 wishes to be just, wise, politic, and 

 humane, that if he were himself 

 minister, no one could doubt what 

 his own system of measures would 

 be : let then this language be com- 

 bined with that of the court, and 

 it would appear impossible to doubt 

 that this restoration was the point 

 now in view, the object for which 

 the present campaign, at least, was 

 to be persevered in. On what 

 ground, he said, was this denied, 

 but that of the qualifying clause in 

 lord Grenville's note, which de- 

 clared that " his majesty did not 

 limit the possibility of secure and 

 solid pacification to this mode only." 

 Giving then the fullest credit to this 

 declaration, it allowed only a bare 

 possibility, that at some future time 

 a peace might be concluded with- 

 out this restoration, while the pre- 

 ceding paragraph stated in express 

 terms, that, for want of it, we could 

 not at this time even commence a 



