Charles James Fox
ON REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE WITH BONAPARTE
Sir，we have heard tonight a great many most acrimonious invectives against Bonaparte，against all the course of his conduct，and against the unprincipled manner in which he seized upon the reins of government.I will not make his defense.I think all this sort of invective，which is used only to inflame the passions of this House and of the country，exceedingly illtimed，and very impolitic.But I say I will not make his defense.I am not sufficiently in possession of materials upon which to form an opinion on the character and conduct of this extraordinary man.
On his arrival in France，he found the government in a very unsettled state，and the whole affairs of the Republic deranged，crippled，and involved.He thought it necessary to reform the government；and he did reform it，just in the way in which a military man may be expected to carry on a reform.He seized on the whole authority for himself.It will not be expected from me that I should either approve or apologize for such an act.I am certainly not for reforming governments by such expedients；but how this House can be so violently indignant at the idea of military despotism，is，I own，a little singular，when I see the composure with which they can observe it nearer homenay，when I see them regard it as a frame of government most peculiarly suited to the exercise of free opinion，on a subject the most important of any that can engage the attention of a people.Was it not the system which was so happily and so advantageously established of late，all over Ireland，and which even now the government may，at its plea－sure，proclaim over the whole of that kingdom？Are not the persons and property of the people left，in many districts，at this moment，to the en－tire will of military commanders？
“It is not the interest of Bonaparte，”it seems，“sincerely to enter into a negotiation，or if he should even make peace，sincerely to keep it.”But how are we to decide upon his sincerity？By refusing to treat with him？Surely，if we mean to discover his sincerity，we ought to hear the propositions which he desires to make.“But peace would be unfriendly to his system of military despotism.”Sir，I hear a great deal about the short-lived nature of military despotism.I wish the history of the world would bear gentlemen out in this description of it.Was not the government erected by Augustus C4444$sar a military despotism？and yet it endured for six or seven hundred years.Military despotism，unfortunately，is too likely in its nature to be permanent，and it is not true that it depends on the life of the first usurper.Though half of the Roman emperors were murdered，yet the military despotism went on；and so it would be，I fear，in France.If Bonaparte should disappear from the scene，to make room perhaps，for Berthier，or any other general，what difference would that make in the quality of French despotism，or in our relation to the country？We may as safely treat with a Bonaparte，or with any of his successors，be they who they may，as we could with a Louis XVI.，a Louis XVII.，or a Louis XVIII.There is no difference but in the name.Where the power essentially resides，thither we ought to go for peace.
But，sir，if we are to reason on the fact，I should think that it is the interest of Bonaparte to make peace.A lover of military glory，as that general must necessarily be，may be not think that his measure of glory is fufl；that it may be tarnished by a reverse of fortune，and can hardly be in-creased by any new laurels？He must feel that，in the situation to Which he is now raised，he can no longer depend on his own fortune，his own genius，and his own talents，for a continuance of his success.He must be under the necessity of employing other generals，whose misconduct or incapacity might endanger his power，or whose triumphs even might affect the interest which he holds in the opinion of the French.Peace，then，would secure to him what he has achieved，and fix the inconstancy of fortune.
But this will not be his only motive.He must see that France also requires a respite—a breathing interval，to recruit her wasted strength.To procure her this respite，would be，perhaps，the attainment of more solid glory，as well as the means of acquiring more solid power，than anything which he can hope to gain from arms，and from the proudest triumphs.May he not，then，be zealous to secure this fame，the only species of fame，perhaps，that is worth acquiring？Nay，granting that his soul may still burn with the thirst of military exploits，is it not likely that he is disposed to yield to the feelings of the French people，and to consolidate his power by consulting their interests？I have a right to argue in this way when suppositions of his insincerity are reasoned upon on the other side.Sir，these aspersions are，in truth，always idle，and even mischievous.I have been too long accustomed to hear imputations and calumnies thrown out upon great and honorable characters，to be much influenced by them.
My honorable and learned friend ［Mr.。Ers－kine］has paid this night a most just，deserved，and eloquent tribute of applause to the memory of that great and unparalleled character，who is so recently lost to the world.I must，like him，beg leave to dwell a moment on the venerable GEORGEWASHINGTON，though I know that it is impossible for me to bestow anything like adequate praise on a character which gave us，more than any other human being，the example of a perfect man；yet，good，great，and unexampled as General Washing-ton was，I can remember the time when he was not better spoken of in this House than Bonaparte is at present.The right honorable gentleman who opened this debate［Mr.。Dundas］may remember in what terms of disdain，or virulence，even of con-tempt，General Washington was spoken of by gentlemen on that side of the House.Does he not re-collect with what marks of indignation any member was stigmatized as an enemy to this country who mentioned with common respect the name of General Washington？If a negotiation had then been proposed to be opened with that great man，what would have been said？Would you treat with arable，a traitor！What an example would you not give by such an act！I do not know whether the right honorable gentleman may not yet possess some of his old prejudices on the subject.I hope not：I hope by this time we are all convinced that are publican government，like that of America，may exist without danger or injury to social order，or to established monarchies.They have happily shown that they can maintain the relations of peace and amity with other states.They have shown，too，that they are alive to the feelings of honor；but they do not lose sight of plain good sense and discretion.They have not refused to negotiate with the French，and they have accordingly the hopes of a speedy termination of every difference.We cry up their conduct，but we do not imitate it.
Where，then，sir，is this war，which on every side is pregnant with such horrors，to be carried？Where is it to stop？Not till we establish the House of Bourbon！And this you cherish the hope of doing，because you have had a successful campaign.So that we are called upon to go on merely as a speculation.We must keep Bonaparte for sometime longer at war，as a state of probation.Gracious God，sir！is war a state of probation？Is peace a rash system？Is it dangerous for nations to live in amity with each other？Are your vigilance，your policy，your common powers of observation，to be extinguished by putting an end to the horrors of war？Can not this state of probation be as well undergone without adding to the catalog of human sufferings？“But we must pause！”What！must the bowels of Great Britain be torn out—her best blood he spilled—her treasures wasted—that you may make an experiment？Put yourselves—oh！that you would put yourselves in the field of battle，and learn to judge of the sort of horrors that you excite！In former wars a man might，at least，have some feeling，some interest，that served to balance in his mind the impressions which a scene of carnage and of death must inflict.
If a man had been present at the Battle of Blenheim，for instance，and had inquired the motive of the battle，there was not a soldier engaged who could not have satisfied his curiosity，and eved，perhaps，allayed his feelings.They were fighting，they knew，to repress the uncontrolled ambition of the Grand Monarch.But if a man were present now at a filled of slaughter，and were to in-quire for what they were fighting—“Fighting！”would be the answer：“they are not fighting；they are pausing.”“Why is that man expiring？Why is that other writhing with agony？What means this implacable fury？”The answer must be：“You are quite wrong，sir；you deceive yourself—they are not fighting—do not disturb them—they are merely pausing！This man is not expiring with agony-that man is not dead—he is only pausing！Lord help you，sir！they are not angry with one another；they have no cause of quarrel；but their country thinks that there should be a pause.All that you see，sir，is nothing like fighting—there is no harm，nor cruelty，nor bloodshed in it whatever；it is nothing more than a political pause！It is merely to try an experiment—to see whether Bonaparte will not behave himself better than hereto－fore；and in the meantime we have agreed to a pause，in pure friendship！”And is this the way，sir，that you are to show yourselves the advocates of order？You take up a system calculated to uncivilized the world—to destroy order—to trample on religion—to stifle in the heart，not merely the generosity of noble sentiment，but the affections of social nature：and in the prosecution of this system，you spread terror and devastation all around you.
Sir，I have done.I have told you my opinion.I think you ought to have given a civil，clear，and explicit answer to the overture which was fairyland handsomely made you.If you were desirous that the negotiation should have included all your allies，as the means of bringing about a general peace，you should have told Bonaparte so.But I believe you were afraid of his agreeing to the proposal.