Russia? Is not the testimony of lord Yarmouth sufficient? But is not lord Yarmouth's understanding, that the proposal of France was such as he had described it, proved by the whole tenor of the papers on the table? In the first conversation lord Yarmouth had with Talleyrand, does the latter deny those points? No. He, indeed, by his silence admits them, and only says, that as circun stances had changed greatly, he did not consider himself bound to the extent of former proposals; that Russia was negotiating separately, and Sicily had been found indispensable to Naples. Such are the topics advanced by Talleyrand; but never does he deny what lord Yarmouth asserts. Nay, in a subsequent conference, when the acknowledgment of the French titles and establishments is waved, it is proposed that Sicily should be given up for Hanover; thus in substance recognising the basis of uti possidetis, by proposing that we should give up for an equivalent that which it was agreed should be ceded purely and simply. The fact was never denied, though the terms were often changed. There are, indeed, some expressions in one of the notes of the French plenipotentiaries, which indeed seem to contradict the fact of the basis of actual possession having been admitted. It is said that such a thing never could have entered Bonaparte's head; and that, if he had negotiated on such a basis, he must have continued in possession of Moravia, Austria, &c. forgetting that at the time of this negotiation the French were in possession of none of those objects, and their arguments are so absurd they betray the consciousness of a bad cause. Can any one doubt,

then, that the basis of actual possession was proposed by the French? Can it be denied at least that we understood that to be the basis? Is there any trace of our, at any period, having admitted another? Look at Mr. Fox's letter of the 5th of July, in which he instructs lord Yarmouth to put an end to the discussion, if the French government will not revert to its original proposals with which your lordship was charged.' Here I ought to take notice of a slight. omission in the papers, which escaped my notice till pointed out. I had thought that the words • nous ne cous demandons rien, which lord Yarmouth mentioned as used by Talleyrand, and which Mr. Fox says had been employed by M. Talleyrand in one of his letters to him, were actually in a letter among the papers on the table. It has been observed to me, however, that Mr. Fox was too accurate to quote words which had not been used, though the sentiment is found in substance in Talleyrand's second letter. In reality it has been discovered, that in the private letter of Talleyrand the latter uses the very words in question, accompanied with other expressions explanatory of them, such as that the emperor had now greatly changed his views of things, and was convinced that the greatness of England was compatible with the greatness of France, &c. Clear it is, however, that ministers acted upon the supposition that France offered the basis of actual possession."

His lordship then gave an his. torical account of the negotiation; and answered with great eloquence the charge that ministers had been duped by the French. Turning to the affairs of Europe, he said, that

from

ing the negotiation in which he had taken so considerable a share, for the purpose of refuting certain attempts to throw blame upon his conduct. After briefly touching upon the commencement of the negotiation, he proceeded to justify himself for what he had been censured, producing his full powers. He found D'Oubril in Paris; and it was a fact, that whoever had been sent from England, could not have remained in Paris twelve hours without exhibiting his full powers. His lordship saw the first minister of France at once, who told him that circumstances were materially changed. He repeated to Talleyrand the basis of actual possession, and he was almost certain that no objection would have been started against it, or that it would have received any other construction than its fair and obvious meaning, had it not been for the melancholy event of the death of Mr. Fox. It was also a fact that, upon one occasion, Talleyrand in a passion declared he had never proposed the uti possidetis; but lord Yarmouth said he was positive as to the fact of his having proposed that as the basis, at least as one of the bases, for the conclusion of peace. He was ordered not to produce his full powers till the basis of peace was acknowledged: but at that moment D'Oubril had arrived in Paris; but whether that minister was authorised or not to subscribe the treaty between Russia and France, was a thing to which he could not speak, having no knowledge of the instructions with which that minister was intrusted. When that treaty was signed, then began the difficulties of his lordship's situation. A paper of Saturday, in detailing the debate in the house of lords on Friday, had said,

"that so positive were ministers on this point, that lord Yarmouth had been desired not to produce his full powers, until he should have obtained a written document from the French government." His lordship answered to that, he had no such instructions; indeed, if he had, they would have been unavailing, as no minister can ne gotiate with a French minister without previously exhibiting his full powers; and it was impossible for him, in such circumstances, to refuse communicating his powers. His lordship next proceeded to notice the conduct of ministers in the terms they now seemed to adhere to in respect to peace with France. They had, in his opinion, thrown aside a peace offered them upon highly advantageous terms, and had resisted for two objects, neither of which could fairly be considered as genuine British ob jects. The first of these was the restitution of Sicily to its lawful sovereign; and the second was, the evacuation of Dalmatia by the French, an object more properly belonging to Russia. The noble lord enlarged upon these errors, and endeavoured to show their im policy. He, however, concluded by supporting the motion for the address.

Mr. Montague could not assent to the address, on the principles advanced by ministers, in justification of their conduct in the recent discussions with France. He thought the negotiation should noɛ have been commenced or carried on as it had been. The enemy had, in limine, a great advantage in the known predilection of Mr. Fox for peace. It was on this principle avowed, at the most unfavourable periods of hostility, that the French minister built his hopes

of

of cajoling him into terms. He was, in fact, practising on the weak side of Mr. Fox. However he might have endeavoured, with this view, to impress the British minister with a notion of his being ready to treat on the basis of the uti possidetis, there was nonothing in the papers to show that he had ever been distinctly brought to admit it. The only thing which appeared on the face of them was, that Mr. Fox, from his extreme anxiety to bring about a peace, was labouring throughout to bring the French government to some such basis. We had been duped and bamboozled by Talleyrand, who, whenever he chose, on a pretence of his going to St. Cloud to the emperor, stuck up the British negotiator, like a pin, to be stared at. The situation of lord Lauder dale, between Messrs. Clarke, Talleyrand, and their master, could be compared only to that of the man who was lately attacked in Bondstreet by some prostitutes, two of whom held him fast while a third rifled his pockets. He was there only to give effect to the views of

the enemy.

Sir T. Turton was of opinion, that the negotiation did not commence in the most dignified manner; but on looking at the papers on the table, he was convinced that it was too hastily broken off.

Mr. Whitbread, after making a few remarks on the extraordinary speech of Mr. Montague, proceeded to observe, that he could not without experiencing the bit terest anguish, entertain a difference of opinion on this negotiation, commenced by one sincere friend, and conducted by others for whom he felt the greatest esteem. When he read the documents which were lying on the table of the house,

and perused them most attentively, he found in them parts of which he highly approved, and others of which he greatly disapproved. All that part which preceded the political death, as it had been called, of that illustrious man (Mr. Fox) claimed his approbation and support; but when death closed the eyes of his ever-to-be-lamented friend, he saw, between the beginning and the end of the negotiation, obvious characters which distinguished them. The honourable member opposite (Mr. Montague) had censured the letter of Mr. Fox respecting the assassin; but he was sure, that if any part of the conduct of his departed friend deserved to be held up to the view of his country more than another, it was that proof of his noble mind and characteristic humanity. When such a circumstance came to his knowledge, it was his duty to communicate it:-he, who knew Mr. Fox, would not suspect him of having made such a communica tion with a view of bringing about a negotiation, but must take it to be what it really was, the warm effusion of a manly disposition and most exalted feelings towards an enemy in such circumstances. It was this communication, however, which brought about the negotiation. Here he could willingly cease to trespass on the indulgence of the house, but should, even against his inclination, proceed to consider its progress. It would be perceived, from perusing the documents laid before parliament, that it was the first endeavour of that great man to get rid of all forms as much as possible; and, secondly, to stipu late that the terms should be honourable for the allies of both parties, &c. There was a jealousy in his mind respecting the part which

this country should take in continental affairs: he was apprehensive that it was the intention of France to exclude England from interference on the continent; but his fears wore removed on this head by the declaration of the French government, and the readiness with which the continental connections of Great Britain were allowed in the most unequivocal terms. The head of the French empire acceded to this general proposition, the instant it was submitted. The next question was respecting negotiation conjointly with Russia; on this the diference and difficulty arose; for on our part it was declared, that if France did not admit Russia as a party, the negotiation could not proceed. The house would observe, during this whole time there was no mention of the unfortunate words uti possidetis. The real ground, in the first instance, was the stipulation of honourable terms for our allies; and next, that Russia should be admitted to the negotiation, conjointly with this country. He had listened with the utmost attention to the speech of his noble friend; and either from perversion of understanding, or some extraordinary misapprehension, he could not make out that any thing more had been meant. He had also carefully read the papers, and they confirmed him in the opinion, that this was the outline or basis proposed in the beginning. He did not mean to say that his majesty's ministers did not wish for peace; on the contrary, he believed that every one of them was sincerely desirous of it; he knew it was the object nearest the heart of his illustrious friend, now no more; and he felt convinced that the rest of the ministers were equally anxious

for its attainment: he should state at the same time, that he had no doubt of the sincerity of France in all her professions for the same blessing; he did not give any credit to the duplicity charged against the enemy on this subject; he conceived that all the assertions made respecting the tergiversation and deception of the French government were founded in error and misrepresentation of the fact. There was an obvious reason for his believing this to have been the case, namely, that France could gain nothing by protracting the war with this country. His noble friend contended, that our negotiation had not produced the smallest injury to the affairs of the continent. In this, however, he differd from him in every respect. Were we to suppose that the continuance of this negotiation, and the shape which it assumed, had not produced any of those events which caused the late disasters? Could it be said that it had not considerably influenced the confederation of the Rhine, and its consequences? In fine, if the negotiation had produced any thing, it was the war between France and Prussia; for the latter stated in its declaration, that France was negotiating to take from her the pos session of Hanover, which she had guarantied already. This, in fact, was one of the essential points on which the war broke out between them. He did not blame ministers for that event. They had been placed between two evils, and they chose what they thought the lesser :-but to come to the negotiation itself. Here the honourable member went through the history of the business as it concerned lord Yarmouth. In this state of things, it was deemed proper to

send