Charles James Fox
ON REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE WITH BONAPARTE
February，1802
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.
查爾斯·詹姆斯·?？怂?BR> 論拒絕與波拿巴談判
1802年2月
先生們，今晚，我們聽(tīng)到連篇累牘的抨擊波拿巴的最尖刻的言辭，抨擊他的一切行為，抨擊他用不道德手段奪取執(zhí)政權(quán)。我不會(huì)為他辯護(hù)。我認(rèn)為所有這類通常只會(huì)激起下院和英國(guó)憤怒的抨擊，是特別不合時(shí)宜和非常失策的。但是，我說(shuō)我不為他辯護(hù)。我手頭尚未掌握足夠材料來(lái)形成對(duì)這位非凡人物的性格和行為的看法。
波拿巴到達(dá)法國(guó)時(shí)，發(fā)現(xiàn)政府搖搖欲墜，共和國(guó)全部事務(wù)紊亂不堪，殘缺不全，亟待解決。他認(rèn)為政府需要改革；他確實(shí)對(duì)政府進(jìn)行了改革，以人們可能期望于一個(gè)軍人的方式進(jìn)行了改革。他獨(dú)攬所有大權(quán)。不要指望我對(duì)這種行為表示贊同或者為它辯解。我當(dāng)然不贊成這樣不擇手段地改革政府；但是我承認(rèn)，我對(duì)我們這個(gè)下議院竟會(huì)對(duì)軍事專制思想如此強(qiáng)烈地憤慨覺(jué)得有點(diǎn)奇怪，因?yàn)槲铱吹剿麄冊(cè)u(píng)說(shuō)離家門口更近的軍事專制時(shí)又是十分鎮(zhèn)靜的——不，我看到的是他們把軍事專制看作特別適宜于實(shí)行言論自由的政府結(jié)構(gòu)，在某種問(wèn)題上看作能夠引起一國(guó)人民的注意力的任何政府結(jié)構(gòu)中最重要的一種。最近在整個(gè)愛(ài)爾蘭十分愉快而又揚(yáng)揚(yáng)得意地建立起來(lái)的不就是那種制度嗎？即使在目前，那個(gè)政府不是在那整個(gè)王國(guó)里可以隨意宣揚(yáng)那種制度嗎？難道此刻在許多地區(qū)不是把個(gè)人和人民的財(cái)產(chǎn)都交給了軍事長(zhǎng)官，聽(tīng)命于他們的意志嗎？
似乎有人說(shuō)：“波拿巴并不真心對(duì)媾和感興趣，或者即使媾和，也未必有誠(chéng)意維持和平。”然而，我們 怎樣確定他的誠(chéng)意？用拒絕媾和的方法？誠(chéng)然，若要確定他是否真心誠(chéng)意，就應(yīng)聽(tīng)聽(tīng)他想提出的建議?！暗?，和平對(duì)其軍事專制制度不利?！毕壬鷤儯衣?tīng)到了許多關(guān)于軍事專制生來(lái)*的說(shuō)法。我但愿世界歷史能證實(shí)這些先生的說(shuō)法。難道奧古斯都·愷撒建立的政府不實(shí)行軍事專制？然而它持續(xù)了六七百年。令人遺憾的是，軍事專制從本質(zhì)上講，似乎是能長(zhǎng)期存在的，但是，說(shuō)它取決于第一個(gè)篡位者的壽命是不對(duì)的。羅馬皇帝中雖有一半是被害身亡的，但軍事專制仍在延續(xù)；所以，我擔(dān)心法國(guó)也會(huì)這樣。波拿巴若從歷史舞臺(tái)消失，很可能讓位給貝蒂爾或其他將軍，那對(duì)法國(guó)專制主義的性質(zhì)或者我國(guó)與法國(guó)的關(guān)系會(huì)有什么影響呢？我們同樣可以與波拿巴或者任何波拿巴的繼承人簽約，不管他們是誰(shuí)，就像我們可以跟路易十六，路易十七，或者路易十八簽約一樣。除名義外，沒(méi)有任何不同之處。誰(shuí)掌握大權(quán)，就應(yīng)跟誰(shuí)去媾和。
然而，先生們，如果用事實(shí)講話，我認(rèn)為波拿巴對(duì)媾和感興趣。這位將軍必定嗜好軍事榮耀，他會(huì)認(rèn)為榮耀尚不完美；碰到倒運(yùn)時(shí)，榮耀就會(huì)黯然失色；難道不可能再增添新的榮耀了嗎？在他現(xiàn)在所處的情況下，他必然感到不能再仰仗自己的命運(yùn)、天才和睿智來(lái)繼續(xù)獲得成功。他必定起用其他將領(lǐng)，將領(lǐng)們的胡作非為或者平庸無(wú)能可能會(huì)危及他的權(quán)力，將領(lǐng)們的勝利甚至?xí)淖兎▏?guó)人對(duì)他的看法。而和平將使他保住其既得的東西，穩(wěn)定住命運(yùn)中的變化。
但是，這并非波拿巴的目的。他必定知道法國(guó)需要短暫的喘息以恢復(fù)元?dú)?。使法?guó)得到喘息，也許能使他獲得比他希望從軍隊(duì)和最得意的軍事勝利中得到的一切更體面的榮耀和更牢固的權(quán)力。興許波拿巴不那么熱衷于保全那也許是值得獲得的名望？不，假定他靈魂深處依然燃燒著渴望軍功之焰，難道他會(huì)不愿意順從法國(guó)人民的感情，考慮人民的利益以鞏固自己的政權(quán)嗎？在從另一方面分析關(guān)于波拿巴沒(méi)有誠(chéng)意的推測(cè)時(shí)，我有權(quán)這樣爭(zhēng)辯。先生們，實(shí)際上這些誹謗總是無(wú)聊的甚至是有害的。長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)，我已習(xí)慣于聽(tīng)到對(duì)于偉大、高尚的人物的詆毀、中傷，已不再受其影響了。
今晚，我的尊敬的博學(xué)的朋友（厄斯金先生）公正地、恰如其分地、雄辯地稱頌了不久前謝世的那位偉大的、舉世無(wú)雙的人物。請(qǐng)?jiān)试S我也像厄斯金先生那樣對(duì)可敬的喬治·華盛頓羅唆幾句，盡管我知道自己不可能對(duì)這樣一位比其他任何人都更好地為我們樹(shù)立了完人榜樣的人物作出恰當(dāng)?shù)捻灀P(yáng)；然而，對(duì)于像華盛頓將軍這樣善良、偉大而的人，我還記得有人在這個(gè)下議院里談到他時(shí)，對(duì)他的評(píng)價(jià)并不比現(xiàn)在對(duì)波拿巴的評(píng)價(jià)好。發(fā)起我們現(xiàn)在這場(chǎng)辯論的可敬的議員（鄧達(dá)斯先生）也許會(huì)記得坐在下議院那一邊的議員們以什么樣的鄙視、惡意甚至輕蔑的言辭提到華盛頓將軍。他難道不記得如果有誰(shuí)以常人的敬重態(tài)度提到華盛頓將軍的名字，他就會(huì)以激昂慷慨的言辭把人家污蔑為國(guó)家的敵人嗎？假如提議與這位偉大的人物進(jìn)行談判，那又說(shuō)些什么呢？會(huì)不會(huì)說(shuō)成跟叛賊或賣國(guó)賊談判！你用這樣的行動(dòng)會(huì)樹(shù)立什么樣的榜樣？！我不知道這位可敬的議員對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題會(huì)不會(huì)還保留原有的一些偏見(jiàn)。但愿沒(méi)有：我希望如今我們都相信像美國(guó)這樣的共和制政府不會(huì)危及或損害社會(huì)秩序和已建立的君主政體。他們已愉快地表明可以與其他國(guó)家保持和平友好關(guān)系。他們還表明對(duì)榮譽(yù)感十分注意，但也不會(huì)忘記、丟掉理智和謹(jǐn)慎。他們沒(méi)有拒絕與法國(guó)談判，他們希望盡快終止所有分歧。我們稱贊他們的行為，但不加以仿效。
那么，先生們，這場(chǎng)對(duì)雙方來(lái)說(shuō)都充滿恐怖的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)將在哪里進(jìn)行呢？在什么時(shí)候停止呢？不會(huì)等到我們建立起波旁王朝吧！你們之所以懷有打的希望，是因?yàn)槟銈兇蛄藙僬獭Ｋ?，所謂要我們繼續(xù)打仗僅僅是一種猜測(cè)。就像處于試驗(yàn)狀態(tài)，我們必須使波拿巴再打一個(gè)時(shí)期。天哪！先生們！戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是一種試驗(yàn)狀態(tài)嗎？和平是個(gè)不成熟的體制嗎？國(guó)與國(guó)之間和睦相處危險(xiǎn)嗎？隨著戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)所導(dǎo)致的恐怖的終結(jié)，你們的警惕性，你們的政策乃至通常的觀察力就會(huì)喪失殆盡嗎？而此種試驗(yàn)狀態(tài)不會(huì)增添人們的苦難嗎？“我們必須暫停！” 什么？難道必須把大不列顛的內(nèi)臟挖出來(lái)，讓她流出寶貴的血液，糟蹋她的財(cái)富，以便你進(jìn)行一項(xiàng)試驗(yàn)嗎？你們自己上戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)去學(xué)會(huì)評(píng)價(jià)你們所引起的種種恐怖吧！在從前的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，人至少可以有某種感情、某種興趣愛(ài)好，它們?cè)谌说念^腦里起到了對(duì)屠殺和死亡的場(chǎng)面所必然造成的各種印象進(jìn)行平衡的作用。
比如，有人若到過(guò)布萊尼姆戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)，并且詢問(wèn)戰(zhàn)斗動(dòng)機(jī)，每一個(gè)參戰(zhàn)的士兵都會(huì)滿足他的好奇心，也許甚至使他的情緒平靜下來(lái)。他們知道自己正在為抑制那從不克制自己的偉大的君主的野心而戰(zhàn)斗。但是現(xiàn)在若有人來(lái)到戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)，并詢問(wèn)戰(zhàn)斗的目的，回答將是“戰(zhàn)斗！”“他們不在戰(zhàn)斗；他們?cè)跁和＃ 薄澳莻€(gè)人為什么死去？為什么另一個(gè)人感到極大的苦惱？這種無(wú)法平息的狂怒意味著什么？”回答必然是：“先生，你大錯(cuò)特錯(cuò)了；你在騙自己——他們并不在打仗——不要去打攪他們——他們只是在暫停！這個(gè)人并非因苦惱而斷氣——那個(gè)人沒(méi)有死——他僅僅在暫停！先生，愿上帝保佑你！他們彼此并不生氣；他們沒(méi)有理由爭(zhēng)吵；但他們的國(guó)家認(rèn)為必須暫停。先生，你所見(jiàn)到的根本不像是打仗，沒(méi)有傷害，也沒(méi)有殘暴，更沒(méi)有流血；僅僅是政治上的暫停！這僅僅是進(jìn)行一個(gè)試驗(yàn)，看波拿巴今后會(huì)不會(huì)更規(guī)矩些；同時(shí)，我們出于純粹的友誼已同意暫停！”先生們，這就是你們?cè)诒砻髯约菏菗碜o(hù)秩序的人時(shí)所用的方法嗎？你們采用了一種專門為了使世界變得野蠻而精心設(shè)計(jì)的制度：破壞秩序，踐踏宗教；不僅把寬宏大度的崇高感情，而且把對(duì)社會(huì)固有的感情扼殺；為推行這種制度，你們?cè)谧约褐車⒉伎植篮推茐摹?BR> 先生們，我講完了。我已談了我的觀點(diǎn)。我想你們對(duì)于那公正而恰當(dāng)?shù)靥岢龅慕ㄗh應(yīng)已作出合乎情理的、明確而詳盡的回答。你們?nèi)粝胨忻藝?guó)都參加和談，作為實(shí)現(xiàn)全面和平的手段，那末就應(yīng)把它告訴波拿巴。但是我相信你們是害怕他同意這個(gè)建議的。
ON REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE WITH BONAPARTE
February，1802
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.
查爾斯·詹姆斯·?？怂?BR> 論拒絕與波拿巴談判
1802年2月
先生們，今晚，我們聽(tīng)到連篇累牘的抨擊波拿巴的最尖刻的言辭，抨擊他的一切行為，抨擊他用不道德手段奪取執(zhí)政權(quán)。我不會(huì)為他辯護(hù)。我認(rèn)為所有這類通常只會(huì)激起下院和英國(guó)憤怒的抨擊，是特別不合時(shí)宜和非常失策的。但是，我說(shuō)我不為他辯護(hù)。我手頭尚未掌握足夠材料來(lái)形成對(duì)這位非凡人物的性格和行為的看法。
波拿巴到達(dá)法國(guó)時(shí)，發(fā)現(xiàn)政府搖搖欲墜，共和國(guó)全部事務(wù)紊亂不堪，殘缺不全，亟待解決。他認(rèn)為政府需要改革；他確實(shí)對(duì)政府進(jìn)行了改革，以人們可能期望于一個(gè)軍人的方式進(jìn)行了改革。他獨(dú)攬所有大權(quán)。不要指望我對(duì)這種行為表示贊同或者為它辯解。我當(dāng)然不贊成這樣不擇手段地改革政府；但是我承認(rèn)，我對(duì)我們這個(gè)下議院竟會(huì)對(duì)軍事專制思想如此強(qiáng)烈地憤慨覺(jué)得有點(diǎn)奇怪，因?yàn)槲铱吹剿麄冊(cè)u(píng)說(shuō)離家門口更近的軍事專制時(shí)又是十分鎮(zhèn)靜的——不，我看到的是他們把軍事專制看作特別適宜于實(shí)行言論自由的政府結(jié)構(gòu)，在某種問(wèn)題上看作能夠引起一國(guó)人民的注意力的任何政府結(jié)構(gòu)中最重要的一種。最近在整個(gè)愛(ài)爾蘭十分愉快而又揚(yáng)揚(yáng)得意地建立起來(lái)的不就是那種制度嗎？即使在目前，那個(gè)政府不是在那整個(gè)王國(guó)里可以隨意宣揚(yáng)那種制度嗎？難道此刻在許多地區(qū)不是把個(gè)人和人民的財(cái)產(chǎn)都交給了軍事長(zhǎng)官，聽(tīng)命于他們的意志嗎？
似乎有人說(shuō)：“波拿巴并不真心對(duì)媾和感興趣，或者即使媾和，也未必有誠(chéng)意維持和平。”然而，我們 怎樣確定他的誠(chéng)意？用拒絕媾和的方法？誠(chéng)然，若要確定他是否真心誠(chéng)意，就應(yīng)聽(tīng)聽(tīng)他想提出的建議?！暗?，和平對(duì)其軍事專制制度不利?！毕壬鷤儯衣?tīng)到了許多關(guān)于軍事專制生來(lái)*的說(shuō)法。我但愿世界歷史能證實(shí)這些先生的說(shuō)法。難道奧古斯都·愷撒建立的政府不實(shí)行軍事專制？然而它持續(xù)了六七百年。令人遺憾的是，軍事專制從本質(zhì)上講，似乎是能長(zhǎng)期存在的，但是，說(shuō)它取決于第一個(gè)篡位者的壽命是不對(duì)的。羅馬皇帝中雖有一半是被害身亡的，但軍事專制仍在延續(xù)；所以，我擔(dān)心法國(guó)也會(huì)這樣。波拿巴若從歷史舞臺(tái)消失，很可能讓位給貝蒂爾或其他將軍，那對(duì)法國(guó)專制主義的性質(zhì)或者我國(guó)與法國(guó)的關(guān)系會(huì)有什么影響呢？我們同樣可以與波拿巴或者任何波拿巴的繼承人簽約，不管他們是誰(shuí)，就像我們可以跟路易十六，路易十七，或者路易十八簽約一樣。除名義外，沒(méi)有任何不同之處。誰(shuí)掌握大權(quán)，就應(yīng)跟誰(shuí)去媾和。
然而，先生們，如果用事實(shí)講話，我認(rèn)為波拿巴對(duì)媾和感興趣。這位將軍必定嗜好軍事榮耀，他會(huì)認(rèn)為榮耀尚不完美；碰到倒運(yùn)時(shí)，榮耀就會(huì)黯然失色；難道不可能再增添新的榮耀了嗎？在他現(xiàn)在所處的情況下，他必然感到不能再仰仗自己的命運(yùn)、天才和睿智來(lái)繼續(xù)獲得成功。他必定起用其他將領(lǐng)，將領(lǐng)們的胡作非為或者平庸無(wú)能可能會(huì)危及他的權(quán)力，將領(lǐng)們的勝利甚至?xí)淖兎▏?guó)人對(duì)他的看法。而和平將使他保住其既得的東西，穩(wěn)定住命運(yùn)中的變化。
但是，這并非波拿巴的目的。他必定知道法國(guó)需要短暫的喘息以恢復(fù)元?dú)?。使法?guó)得到喘息，也許能使他獲得比他希望從軍隊(duì)和最得意的軍事勝利中得到的一切更體面的榮耀和更牢固的權(quán)力。興許波拿巴不那么熱衷于保全那也許是值得獲得的名望？不，假定他靈魂深處依然燃燒著渴望軍功之焰，難道他會(huì)不愿意順從法國(guó)人民的感情，考慮人民的利益以鞏固自己的政權(quán)嗎？在從另一方面分析關(guān)于波拿巴沒(méi)有誠(chéng)意的推測(cè)時(shí)，我有權(quán)這樣爭(zhēng)辯。先生們，實(shí)際上這些誹謗總是無(wú)聊的甚至是有害的。長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)，我已習(xí)慣于聽(tīng)到對(duì)于偉大、高尚的人物的詆毀、中傷，已不再受其影響了。
今晚，我的尊敬的博學(xué)的朋友（厄斯金先生）公正地、恰如其分地、雄辯地稱頌了不久前謝世的那位偉大的、舉世無(wú)雙的人物。請(qǐng)?jiān)试S我也像厄斯金先生那樣對(duì)可敬的喬治·華盛頓羅唆幾句，盡管我知道自己不可能對(duì)這樣一位比其他任何人都更好地為我們樹(shù)立了完人榜樣的人物作出恰當(dāng)?shù)捻灀P(yáng)；然而，對(duì)于像華盛頓將軍這樣善良、偉大而的人，我還記得有人在這個(gè)下議院里談到他時(shí)，對(duì)他的評(píng)價(jià)并不比現(xiàn)在對(duì)波拿巴的評(píng)價(jià)好。發(fā)起我們現(xiàn)在這場(chǎng)辯論的可敬的議員（鄧達(dá)斯先生）也許會(huì)記得坐在下議院那一邊的議員們以什么樣的鄙視、惡意甚至輕蔑的言辭提到華盛頓將軍。他難道不記得如果有誰(shuí)以常人的敬重態(tài)度提到華盛頓將軍的名字，他就會(huì)以激昂慷慨的言辭把人家污蔑為國(guó)家的敵人嗎？假如提議與這位偉大的人物進(jìn)行談判，那又說(shuō)些什么呢？會(huì)不會(huì)說(shuō)成跟叛賊或賣國(guó)賊談判！你用這樣的行動(dòng)會(huì)樹(shù)立什么樣的榜樣？！我不知道這位可敬的議員對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題會(huì)不會(huì)還保留原有的一些偏見(jiàn)。但愿沒(méi)有：我希望如今我們都相信像美國(guó)這樣的共和制政府不會(huì)危及或損害社會(huì)秩序和已建立的君主政體。他們已愉快地表明可以與其他國(guó)家保持和平友好關(guān)系。他們還表明對(duì)榮譽(yù)感十分注意，但也不會(huì)忘記、丟掉理智和謹(jǐn)慎。他們沒(méi)有拒絕與法國(guó)談判，他們希望盡快終止所有分歧。我們稱贊他們的行為，但不加以仿效。
那么，先生們，這場(chǎng)對(duì)雙方來(lái)說(shuō)都充滿恐怖的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)將在哪里進(jìn)行呢？在什么時(shí)候停止呢？不會(huì)等到我們建立起波旁王朝吧！你們之所以懷有打的希望，是因?yàn)槟銈兇蛄藙僬獭Ｋ?，所謂要我們繼續(xù)打仗僅僅是一種猜測(cè)。就像處于試驗(yàn)狀態(tài)，我們必須使波拿巴再打一個(gè)時(shí)期。天哪！先生們！戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是一種試驗(yàn)狀態(tài)嗎？和平是個(gè)不成熟的體制嗎？國(guó)與國(guó)之間和睦相處危險(xiǎn)嗎？隨著戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)所導(dǎo)致的恐怖的終結(jié)，你們的警惕性，你們的政策乃至通常的觀察力就會(huì)喪失殆盡嗎？而此種試驗(yàn)狀態(tài)不會(huì)增添人們的苦難嗎？“我們必須暫停！” 什么？難道必須把大不列顛的內(nèi)臟挖出來(lái)，讓她流出寶貴的血液，糟蹋她的財(cái)富，以便你進(jìn)行一項(xiàng)試驗(yàn)嗎？你們自己上戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)去學(xué)會(huì)評(píng)價(jià)你們所引起的種種恐怖吧！在從前的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，人至少可以有某種感情、某種興趣愛(ài)好，它們?cè)谌说念^腦里起到了對(duì)屠殺和死亡的場(chǎng)面所必然造成的各種印象進(jìn)行平衡的作用。
比如，有人若到過(guò)布萊尼姆戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)，并且詢問(wèn)戰(zhàn)斗動(dòng)機(jī)，每一個(gè)參戰(zhàn)的士兵都會(huì)滿足他的好奇心，也許甚至使他的情緒平靜下來(lái)。他們知道自己正在為抑制那從不克制自己的偉大的君主的野心而戰(zhàn)斗。但是現(xiàn)在若有人來(lái)到戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)，并詢問(wèn)戰(zhàn)斗的目的，回答將是“戰(zhàn)斗！”“他們不在戰(zhàn)斗；他們?cè)跁和＃ 薄澳莻€(gè)人為什么死去？為什么另一個(gè)人感到極大的苦惱？這種無(wú)法平息的狂怒意味著什么？”回答必然是：“先生，你大錯(cuò)特錯(cuò)了；你在騙自己——他們并不在打仗——不要去打攪他們——他們只是在暫停！這個(gè)人并非因苦惱而斷氣——那個(gè)人沒(méi)有死——他僅僅在暫停！先生，愿上帝保佑你！他們彼此并不生氣；他們沒(méi)有理由爭(zhēng)吵；但他們的國(guó)家認(rèn)為必須暫停。先生，你所見(jiàn)到的根本不像是打仗，沒(méi)有傷害，也沒(méi)有殘暴，更沒(méi)有流血；僅僅是政治上的暫停！這僅僅是進(jìn)行一個(gè)試驗(yàn)，看波拿巴今后會(huì)不會(huì)更規(guī)矩些；同時(shí)，我們出于純粹的友誼已同意暫停！”先生們，這就是你們?cè)诒砻髯约菏菗碜o(hù)秩序的人時(shí)所用的方法嗎？你們采用了一種專門為了使世界變得野蠻而精心設(shè)計(jì)的制度：破壞秩序，踐踏宗教；不僅把寬宏大度的崇高感情，而且把對(duì)社會(huì)固有的感情扼殺；為推行這種制度，你們?cè)谧约褐車⒉伎植篮推茐摹?BR> 先生們，我講完了。我已談了我的觀點(diǎn)。我想你們對(duì)于那公正而恰當(dāng)?shù)靥岢龅慕ㄗh應(yīng)已作出合乎情理的、明確而詳盡的回答。你們?nèi)粝胨忻藝?guó)都參加和談，作為實(shí)現(xiàn)全面和平的手段，那末就應(yīng)把它告訴波拿巴。但是我相信你們是害怕他同意這個(gè)建議的。