increase
his popularity; for the French were weary of war. In this case he
probably spoke the truth. Be this as it may, he certainly would not have
agreed to such terms as would have given to England and to Europe the
security for which England was fighting. His letter was answered by
Grenville, who said that the king could not enter into negotiations
unless he had a satisfactory assurance that France would abandon the
system of aggression, that while he did not prescribe the form of
government she should adopt, no assurance would be so satisfactory as
the restoration of the monarchy, and that her present government
afforded no evidence either of a change of system or of stability.
George thought this letter "much too strong," but suggested no
alteration. Talleyrand, then French minister of foreign affairs, wrote
in favour of a negotiation between the two powers, and was told by
Grenville that if the king could see the security of his own dominions
and of Europe assured, he would gladly negotiate "in concert with his
allies". The position taken by the ministers was sound and honourable,
but the tone of their answer to Bonaparte was unwise, for it played his
game by uniting the French in a determination to resist foreign
dictation with respect to their domestic affairs.

An address to the crown on the French overtures was moved in the lords
by Grenville, and was carried by 92 votes to 6. In the commons it was
supported by George Canning, already one of the ablest speakers on the
government side, and by Pitt who, in one of his finest speeches,
reviewed the relations of France with other states from 1792 onwards, as
proving that the proposed negotiations would have been illusory; he
urged that the exhausted state of France held out hope of a permanent
peace, and declared that as a lover of peace he would not sacrifice it
by grasping at a shadow. The address was opposed by Fox, who returned to
parliament for the occasion. He effectively ridiculed Pitt's
oft-repeated assurances that France was exhausted; but his main
contention, that if France as a republic had been aggressive, so she had
been when under Louis XIV., that she had not acted worse than the allies
of Great Britain, and that there was therefore no reason to refuse to
negotiate with her, seems academic and feeble. The opposition mustered
in full strength, but was defeated by 265 to 64. The divisions prove
that the position of the government was unimpaired in parl