have borne such continued insults, with the immoveable, stoical apathy of Lord Grenville & Co.? Would they who spurned at the idea of yielding one social privilege of their countrymen, have tamely and basely listened to the threats against the throne of their sovereign; to the idea of subjugating him to a salutary yoke; or the project of establishing a National Convention on the ruins of the venerable fabric of that Constitution, which had been raised by the collected wisdom of ages, and the generous struggles of many centuries? No! Sir, they are men of another stamp. They would never have thus crouched to the exterminating genius of anarchy; and if they had not instantly roused their country to arms, they would, at least, have sent out of its bosom,

LAND." On the 15th of December, the National Convention decreed that their system should be extended to all countries, on the ground of their being " faithful to the principles of the sovereignty of the people, which would not permit them to acknowledge any of the institutions militating against it." By the 11th article of this decree," the French nation declares that it will treat as enemies, the people, who, by refusing, or renouncing liberty and equality, are desirous of preserving their prince and priviledged casts." Lord Grenville stood this also with placid dignity.

2

the jacobin plenipotentiaries who dishonoured it by their presence. Never would they have de based the character of an English administration, by avowing that they had submitted to such outrages, and boasting of their exemplary mildness, when, at the same time, the most insidious intrigues were known to have been employed within these realms by those agents of anarchy.*

I am aware, that, to save appearances, Lord Grenville did in one instance shake off his lethargy, and with obsequious diffidence asked of M. Chauvelin an explanation of the fraternal or rather provocative decree to rebellion, issued on the 19th of November. The Frenchman laughing in his sleeve, pacified the noble Lord by one of the choicest and most delectable specimens of diplomatic mummery, ever presented from the hand of turpitude to the hand of credulity. But, scarcely had this safe poli

* "The government behaved with exemplary mildness to him (Chauvelin) while it was known, from undoubted authority, that he and others of his countrymen were employing every art and intrigue to wean the affections of the people from their loyalty, and to embroil this nation in the same misfortunes that had rendered France one scene of devastation, bloud, misery and massacre." Speech of Lord Grenville, February 4th, 1794.

tician returned to enjoy his slumber of security, when on the 24th of December, Baraillon, in consequence of the displeasure testified by our government at the decree in question, moved an amendment, in order todo away the unfavoura→ ble impression which it had caused. The national Convention, by way of contre-coup, instantly decreed, that "there was no room to deliberate," thus giving at one and the same time, the lie to their own ambassador, and a sound box on the ear to the Noble Secretary for his "exemplary mildness."

The ministers who tamely submitted to these repeated provocations, insults, and aggressions, should have been the last men upon the face of the earth, to complain of the moderation and want of firmness of their successors. But, Sir, although they have felt it necessary to shelter themselves from the inquiry of an offended nation, by cowering under a bill of Indemnity, yet, their criminal misconduct will be severely arraigned by posterity, who will ascribe to them and to them alone, the loss of the Austrian Netherlands of Holland, of Savoy, or all those countries, which have contributed to swell thevanity, and excite the insolence of France. Of this fact, I shall offer a few words in their proper place.

It will suffice for the present to remark, that in all their transactions with the anarchical government of France, they stooped to every species of insult; and, in their subsequent negociations with its more regular and efficient government, they employed the most vulgar abuse, accompanied by that species of haughty insolence, which distinguishes the hero of a mob, from the demeanour of a gentleman. Such conduct was not calculated to make the world enainoured with the justice and innocence of our cause, nor to inspire the enemy with respect for our counsels, or dread of our power.

If what has been recounted above were not plain indications of an hostile mind on the part of the French, how will the late ministers explain the following declaration of Monge, the French minister of Marine, in his circular Letter of December 31, 1792, respecting the disaffected in England. "We will fly to their aid; we will make a descent upon that island; we will pour in 50,000 caps of Liberty; we will plant there the sacred tree; we will stretch out our arms to Our republican brethren."-They who listened to this without flying to arms, must have laboured under the deepest infatuation of Pyrrhon

ism; and I am persuaded that ten years hence, men will reason more severely on their conduct who left the Empire at the time, wholly destitute even of the means of resistance. But, to complete this brief sketch of the jealous, circumspective vigilance of Lord Grenville, and his skill in diplomacy, it may be proper to observe, that, twenty-one days before Chauvelin was ordered to quit the Kingdom, instructions were sent to Genet, the French Minister in America, "to bring the United States into a war against Great Britain*!!!" Will any man after this fact too, assert that Lord Grenville was vigorous, prompt, vigilant, and high-minded! Will any man, with this unanswerable supplement to the details which had previous-/ ly taken place, hear, without dismay and affliction, that this nobleman is actually forming coalitions to force himself once more into the administration of our affairs? And is not every individual who confederates with him for this purpose; (so justly alarming to every loyal subject) implicated with him in the responsibility which attaches to his past misconduct ?

However, not at all this mass of evidence, this

See the pamphlet of Mr. Harper, a member of Congress, P. 95.