It might be asked, From whence did these opinions of our insincerity and

ill faith arise? It was because the British ministry (leaving to the

Directory, however, to propose a better mode) proposed a _congress_ for

the purpose of a general pacification, and this they said "would render

negotiation endless." From hence they immediately inferred a fraudulent

intention in the offer. Unquestionably their mode of giving the law

would bring matters to a more speedy conclusion. As to any other method

more agreeable to them than a congress, an alternative expressly

proposed to them, they did not condescend to signify their pleasure.

This refusal of treating conjointly with the powers allied against this

republic furnishes matter for a great deal of serious reflection. They

have hitherto constantly declined any other than a treaty with a single

power. By thus dissociating every state from every other, like deer

separated from the herd, each power is treated with on the merit of his

being a deserter from the common cause. In that light, the Regicide

power, finding each of them insulated and unprotected, with great

facility gives the law to them all. By this system, for the present an

incurable distrust is sown amongst confederates, and in future all

alliance is rendered impracticable. It is thus they have treated with

Prussia, with Spain, with Sardinia, with Bavaria, with the

Ecclesiastical State, with Saxony; and here we see them refuse to treat

with Great Britain in any other mode. They must be worse than blind who

do not see with what undeviating regularity of system, in this case and

in all cases, they pursue their scheme for the utter destruction of

every independent power,--especially the smaller, who cannot find any

refuge whatever but in some common cause.

Renewing their taunts and reflections, they tell Mr. Wickham, "that

_their_ policy has no guides but openness and good faith, and that their

conduct shall be conformable to these principles." They say concerning

their government, that, "yielding to the ardent desire by which it is

animated to procure peace for the French Republic and for all nations,

it will not _fear to declare itself openly_. Charged by the Constitution

with the execution of the _laws_, it cannot _make_ or _listen_ to any

proposal that would be contrary to them. The constitutional act does not

permit it to consent to any alienation of that which, according to the

existing laws, constitutes the territory of the Republic."

"With respect to the countries _occupied by the French armies, and which

have not been united to France_, they, as well as other interests,

political and commercial, may become the subject of a negotiation, which

will present to the Directory the means of proving how much it desires

to attain speedily to a happy pacification." That "the Directory is

ready to receive, in this respect, any overtures that shall be just,

reasonable, and compatible _with the dignity of the Republic_."

On the head of what is _not_ to be the subject of negotiation, the

Directory is clear and open. As to what may be a matter of treaty, all

this open dealing is gone. She retires into her shell. There she expects

overtures from _you_: and you are to guess what she shall judge just,

reasonable, and, above all, _compatible with her dignity_.

In the records of pride there does not exist so insulting a declaration.

It is insolent in words, in manner; but in substance it is not only

insulting, but alarming. It is a specimen of what may be expected from

the masters we are preparing for our humbled country. Their openness and

candor consist in a direct avowal of their despotism and ambition. We

know that their declared resolution had been to surrender no object

belonging to France previous to the war. They had resolved that the

Republic was entire, and must remain so. As to what she has conquered

from the Allies and united to the same indivisible body, it is of the

same nature. That is, the Allies are to give up whatever conquests they

have made or may make upon France; but all which she has violently

ravished from her neighbors, and thought fit to appropriate, are not to

become so much as objects of negotiation.

In this unity and indivisibility of possession are sunk ten immense and

wealthy provinces, full of strong, flourishing, and opulent cities, (the

Austrian Netherlands,) the part of Europe the most necessary to preserve

any communication between this kingdom and its natural allies, next to

Holland the most interesting to this country, and without which Holland

must virtually belong to France. Savoy and Nice, the keys of Italy, and

the citadel in her hands to bridle Switzerland, are in that

consolidation. The important territory of Liege is torn out of the heart

of the Empire. All these are integrant parts of the Republic, not to be

subject to any discussion, or to be purchased by any equivalent. Why?

Because there is a law which prevents it. What law? The law of nations?

The acknowledged public law of Europe? Treaties and conventions of

parties? No,--not a pretence of the kind. It is a declaration not made

in consequence of any prescription on her side,--not on any cession or

dereliction, actual or tacit, of other powers. It is a declaration,

_pendente lite_, in the middle of a war, one principal object of which

was originally the defence, and has since been the recovery, of these

very countries.

This strange law is not made for a trivial object, not for a single port

or for a single fortress, but for a great kingdom,--for the religion,

the morals, the laws, the liberties, the lives and fortunes of millions

of human creatures, who, without their consent or that of their lawful

government, are, by an arbitrary act of this regicide and homicide

government which they call a law, incorporated into their tyranny.

In other words, their will is the law, not only at home, but as to the

concerns of every nation. Who has made that law but the Regicide

Republic itself, whose laws, like those of the Medes and Persians, they

cannot alter or abrogate, or even so much as take into consideration?

Without the least ceremony or compliment, they have sent out of the

world whole sets of laws and lawgivers. They have swept away the very

constitutions under which the legislatures acted and the laws were made.

Even the fundamental sacred rights of man they have not scrupled to

profane. They have set this holy code at nought with ignominy and scorn.

Thus they treat all their domestic laws and constitutions, and even what

they had considered as a law of Nature. But whatever they have put their

seal on, for the purposes of their ambition, and the ruin of their

neighbors, this alone is invulnerable, impassible, immortal. Assuming to

be masters of everything human and divine, here, and here alone, it

seems, they are limited, "cooped and cabined in," and this omnipotent

legislature finds itself wholly without the power of exercising its

favorite attribute, the love of peace. In other words, they are powerful

to usurp, impotent to restore; and equally by their power and their

impotence they aggrandize themselves, and weaken and impoverish you and

all other nations.

Nothing can be more proper or more manly than the state publication,

called a _Note_, on this proceeding, dated Downing Street, the 10th of

April, 1796. Only that it is better expressed, it perfectly agrees with

the opinion I have taken the liberty of submitting to your

consideration. I place it below at full length,[25] as my justification

in thinking that this astonishing paper from the Directory is not only a

direct negative to all treaty, but is a rejection of every principle

upon which treaties could be made. To admit it for a moment were to

erect this power, usurped at home, into a legislature to govern mankind.

It is an authority that on a thousand occasions they have asserted in

claim, and, whenever they are able, exerted in practice. The

dereliction, of this whole scheme of policy became, therefore, an

indispensable previous condition to all renewal of treaty. The remark of

the British Cabinet on this arrogant and tyrannical claim is natural and

unavoidable. Our ministry state, that, "_while these dispositions shall

be persisted in, nothing is left for the king but to prosecute a war

that is just and necessary_."

It was of course that we should wait until the enemy showed some sort of

disposition on his part to fulfil this condition. It was hoped, indeed,

that our suppliant strains might be suffered to steal into the august

ear in a more propitious season. That season, however, invoked by so

many vows, conjurations, and prayers, did not come. Every declaration of

hostility renovated, and every act pursued with double animosity,--the

overrunning of Lombardy,--the subjugation of Piedmont,--the possession

of its impregnable fortresses,--the seizing on all the neutral states of

Italy,--our expulsion from Leghorn,--instances forever renewed for our

expulsion from Genoa,--Spain rendered subject to them and hostile to

us,--Portugal bent under the yoke,--half the Empire overrun and

ravaged,--were the only signs which this mild Republic thought proper to

manifest of her pacific sentiments. Every demonstration of an implacable

rancor and an untamable pride were the only encouragements we received

to the renewal of our supplications.

Here, therefore, they and we were fixed. Nothing was left to the British

ministry but "to prosecute a war just and necessary,"--a war equally

just as at the time of our engaging in it,--a war become ten times more

necessary by everything which happened afterwards. This resolution was

soon, however, forgot. It felt the heat of the season and melted away.

New hopes were entertained from supplication. No expectations, indeed,

were then formed from renewing a direct application to the French

Regicides through the agent-general for the humiliation of sovereigns.

At length a step was taken in degradation which even went lower than all

the rest. Deficient in merits of our own, a mediator was to be

sought,--and we looked for that mediator at Berlin! The King of

Prussia's merits in abandoning the general cause might have obtained for

him some sort of influence in favor of those whom he had deserted; but I

have never heard that his Prussian Majesty had lately discovered so

marked an affection for the Court of St. James's, or for the Court of

Vienna, as to excite much hope of his interposing a very powerful

mediation to deliver them from the distresses into which he had brought

them.

If humiliation is the element in which we live, if it is become not only

our occasional policy, but our habit, no great objection can be made to

the modes in which it may be diversified,--though I confess I cannot be

charmed with the idea of our exposing our lazar sores at the door of

every proud servitor of the French Republic, where the court dogs will

not deign to lick them. We had, if I am not mistaken, a minister at that

court, who might try its temper, and recede and advance as he found

backwardness or encouragement. But to send a gentleman there on no other

errand than this, and with no assurance whatever that he should not

find, what he did find, a repulse, seems to me to go far beyond all the

demands of a humiliation merely politic. I hope it did not arise from a

predilection for that mode of conduct.

The cup of bitterness was not, however, drained to the dregs. Basle and

Berlin were not sufficient. After so many and so diversified repulses,

we were resolved to make another experiment, and to try another

mediator. Among the unhappy gentlemen in whose persons royalty is

insulted and degraded at the seat of plebeian pride and upstart

insolence, there is a minister from Denmark at Paris. Without any

previous encouragement to that, any more than the other steps, we sent

through, this turnpike to demand a passport for a person who on our part

was to solicit peace in the metropolis, at the footstool of Regicide

itself. It was not to be expected that any one of those degraded beings

could have influence enough to settle any part of the terms in favor of

the candidates for further degradation; besides, such intervention would

be a direct breach in their system, which did not permit one sovereign

power to utter a word in the concerns of his equal.--Another repulse. We

were desired to apply directly in our persons. We submitted, and made

the application.

It might be thought that here, at length, we had touched the bottom of

humiliation; our lead was brought up covered with mud. But "in the

lowest deep, a lower deep" was to open for us still more profound

abysses of disgrace and shame. However, in we leaped. We came forward in

our own name. The passport, such a passport and safe-conduct as would be

granted to thieves who might come in to betray their accomplices, and no

better, was granted to British supplication. To leave no doubt of its

spirit, as soon as the rumor of this act of condescension could get

abroad, it was formally announced with an explanation from authority,

containing an invective against the ministry of Great Britain, their

habitual frauds, their proverbial _Punic_ perfidy. No such state-paper,

as a preliminary to a negotiation for peace, has ever yet appeared. Very

few declarations of war have ever shown so much and so unqualified

animosity. I place it below,[26] as a diplomatic curiosity, and in

order to be the better understood in the few remarks I have to make upon

a peace which, indeed, defies all description. "None but itself can be

its parallel."

I pass by all the insolence and contumely of the performance, as it

comes from them. The present question is not, how we are to be affected

with it in regard to our dignity. That is gone. I shall say no more

about it. Light lie the earth on the ashes of English pride! I shall

only observe upon it _politically_, and as furnishing a direction for

our own conduct in this low business.

The very idea of a negotiation for peace, whatever the inward sentiments

of the parties may be, implies some confidence in their faith, some

degree of belief in the professions which are made concerning it. A

temporary and occasional credit, at least, is granted. Otherwise men

stumble on the very threshold. I therefore wish to ask what hope we can

have of their good faith, who, as the very basis of the negotiation,

assume the ill faith and treachery of those they have to deal with? The

terms, as against us, must be such as imply a full security against a

treacherous conduct,--that is, such terms as this Directory stated in

its first declaration, to place us "in an utter impossibility of

executing our wretched projects." This is the omen, and the sole omen,

under which we have consented to open our treaty.

The second observation I have to make upon it (much connected,

undoubtedly, with the first) is, that they have informed you of the

result they propose from the kind of peace they mean to grant you,

--that is to say, the union they propose among nations with the view of

rivalling our trade and destroying our naval power; and this they

suppose (and with good reason, too) must be the inevitable effect of

their peace. It forms one of their principal grounds for suspecting our

ministers could not be in good earnest in their proposition. They make

no scruple beforehand to tell you the whole of what they intend; and

this is what we call, in the modern style, the acceptance of a

proposition for peace! In old language it would be called a most

haughty, offensive, and insolent rejection of all treaty.

Thirdly, they tell you what they conceive to be the perfidious policy

which dictates your delusive offer: that is, the design of cheating not

only them, but the people of England, against whose interest and

inclination this war is supposed to be carried on.

If we proceed in this business, under this preliminary declaration, it

seems to me that we admit, (now for the third time,) by something a

great deal stronger than words, the truth of the charges of every kind

which they make upon the British ministry, and the grounds of those foul

imputations. The language used by us, which in other circumstances would

not be exceptionable, in this case tends very strongly to confirm and

realize the suspicion of our enemy: I mean the declaration, that, if we

do not obtain such terms of peace as suits our opinion of what our

interests require, _then_, and in _that_ case, we shall continue the war

with vigor. This offer, so reasoned, plainly implies, that, without it,

our leaders themselves entertain great doubts of the opinion and good

affections of the British people; otherwise there does not appear any

cause why we should proceed, under the scandalous construction of our

enemy, upon the former offer made by Mr. Wickham, and on the new offer

made directly at Paris. It is not, therefore, from a sense of dignity,

but from the danger of radicating that false sentiment in the breasts of

the enemy, that I think, under the auspices of this declaration, we

cannot, with the least hope of a good event, or, indeed, with any

regard to the common safety, proceed in the train of this negotiation.

I wish ministry would seriously consider the importance of their seeming

to confirm the enemy in an opinion that his frequent use of appeals to

the people against their government has not been without its effect. If

it puts an end to this war, it will render another impracticable.

Whoever goes to the Directorial presence under this passport, with this

offensive comment and foul explanation, goes, in the avowed sense of the

court to which he is sent, as the instrument of a government dissociated

from the interests and wishes of the nation, for the purpose of cheating

both the people of France and the people of England. He goes out the

declared emissary of a faithless ministry. He has perfidy for his

credentials. He has national weakness for his full powers. I yet doubt

whether any one can be found to invest himself with that character. If

there should, it would be pleasant to read his instructions on the

answer which he is to give to the Directory, in case they should repeat

to him the substance of the manifesto which he carries with him in his

portfolio.

So much for the _first_ manifesto of the Regicide Court which went along

with the passport. Lest this declaration should seem the effect of

haste, or a mere sudden effusion of pride and insolence, on full

deliberation, about a week after comes out a second. This manifesto is

dated the 5th of October, one day before the speech from the throne, on

the vigil of the festive day of cordial unanimity so happily celebrated

by all parties in the British Parliament. In this piece the Regicides,

our worthy friends, (I call them by advance and by courtesy what by law

I shall be obliged to call them hereafter,) our worthy friends, I say,

renew and enforce the former declaration concerning our faith and

sincerity, which they pinned to our passport. On three other points,

which run through all their declarations, they are more explicit than

ever.

First, they more directly undertake to be the real representatives of

the people of this kingdom: and on a supposition, in which they agree

with our Parliamentary reformers, that the House of Commons is not that

representative, the function being vacant, they, as our true

constitutional organ, inform his Majesty and the world of the sense of

the nation. They tell us that "the English people see with regret his

Majesty's government squandering away the funds which had been granted

to him." This astonishing assumption of the public voice of England is

but a slight foretaste of the usurpation which, on a peace, we may be

assured they will make of all the powers in all the parts of our vassal

Constitution. "If they do these things in the green tree, what shall be

done in the dry?"

Next they tell us, as a condition to our treaty, that "this government

must abjure the unjust hatred it bears to them, and at last open its

ears to the voice of humanity." Truly, this is, even from them, an

extraordinary demand. Hitherto, it seems, we have put wax into our ears,

to shut them up against the tender, soothing strains, in the

_affettuoso_ of humanity, warbled from the throats of Reubell, Carnot,

Tallien, and the whole chorus of confiscators, domiciliary visitors,

committee-men of research, jurors and presidents of revolutionary

tribunals, regicides, assassins, massacrers, and Septembrisers. It is

not difficult to discern what sort of humanity our government is to

learn from these Siren singers. Our government also; I admit, with some

reason, as a step towards the proposed fraternity, is required to abjure

the unjust hatred which it bears to this body of honor and virtue. I

thank God I am neither a minister nor a leader of opposition. I protest

I cannot do what they desire. I could not do it, if I were under the

guillotine,--or, as they ingeniously and pleasantly express it, "looking

out of the little national window." Even at that opening I could receive

none of their light. I am fortified against all such affections by the

declaration of the government, which I must yet consider as lawful, made

on the 29th of October, 1793,[27] and still ringing in my ears. This

Declaration was transmitted not only to all our commanders by sea and

land, but to our ministers in every court of Europe. It is the most

eloquent and highly finished in the style, the most judicious in the

choice of topics, the most orderly in the arrangement, and the most rich

in the coloring, without employing the smallest degree of exaggeration,

of any state-paper that has ever yet appeared. An ancient writer

(Plutarch, I think it is) quotes some verses on the eloquence of

Pericles, who is called "the only orator that left stings in the minds

of his hearers." Like his, the eloquence of the Declaration, not

contradicting, but enforcing, sentiments of the truest humanity, has

left stings that have penetrated more than skin-deep into my mind and

never can they be extracted by all the surgery of murder; never can the

throbbings they have created be assuaged by all the emollient cataplasms

of robbery and confiscation. I _cannot_ love the Republic.

The third point, which they have more clearly expressed than ever, is of

equal importance with the rest, and with them furnishes a complete view

of the Regicide system. For they demand as a condition, without which

our ambassador of obedience cannot be received with any hope of success,

that he shall be "provided with full powers to negotiate a peace between

the French Republic and Great Britain, and to conclude it _definitively_

between the TWO powers." With their spear they draw a circle about us.

They will hear nothing of a joint treaty. We must make a peace

separately from our allies. We must, as the very first and preliminary

step, be guilty of that perfidy towards our friends and associates with

which they reproach us in our transactions with them, our enemies. We

are called upon scandalously to betray the fundamental securities to

ourselves and to all nations. In my opinion, (it is perhaps but a poor

one,) if we are meanly bold enough to send an ambassador such as this

official note of the enemy requires, we cannot even dispatch our

emissary without danger of being charged with a breach of our alliance.

Government now understands the full meaning of the passport.

Strange revolutions have happened in the ways of thinking and in the

feelings of men; but it is a very extraordinary coalition of parties

indeed, and a kind of unheard-of unanimity in public councils, which can

impose this new-discovered system of negotiation, as sound national

policy, on the understanding of a spectator of this wonderful scene, who

judges on the principles of anything he ever before saw, read, or heard

of, and, above all, on the understanding of a person who has in his eye

the transactions of the last seven years.

The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. 05 (of 12) · 第 17 / 34 段