HIST &% Y 



•, -r f 



OF 



EU ROPfc. t\\ 



WTsh for an opportunity to re-esta- 

 blish peace. It disclaimed ;i!l right 

 of inferfering in the settlements of 

 the former governaieiit in France. 

 But if promised friendship snd pro- 

 lection to all Frenchmen who, by 

 declaring for a moharchical govern- 

 ment, should ih-ike offtlic yoke of 

 anarchy. ' •, '"'' 



l^he French 'Answer' to this de- 

 cJaration; charged it with a mani-, 

 fts't avowal of a design to restore 

 despotism in France, andofcoun-> 

 feriancins; k in the rest of Europe^ 

 by inviting the French to co-ope- 

 rateinrc-establishingthe monarchy, 

 and by acknowledging that Great 

 E'itain fought (br the preservation 

 of riiat civii state of society already 

 established. But the monarchy to 

 be restored had undeniably been 

 despotic, and the stateof society to 

 be preserved was almost every- 

 wkere absolute slavery. In order 

 to attain these cuds, France was to 

 be reduced by trre and sword, to 

 the slavish condition from which it 

 had been emancipated. The asser- 

 tion that the return of monarchy 

 was desired by moifof the French 

 w'as groundless. In La Vendee, 

 Lyons, and Toulon, the insurgents 

 were' crushed by the supeiior 

 strength of tlieir opponents, though 

 supported with money, and sup- 

 plied witli arms by the English — 

 These opi>oncnts were all French- 

 men, and rouslituted an indubi- 

 table majority of the nation. I'he 

 protestation of ihe British mini- 

 iffry, t})at they ardently desired 

 peace, were mere pretences. Peace 

 vas at (heir option whenever they 

 chose ir. They had only to recal 

 their fleets and armies, and leave 

 (he French to settle their internal 

 affair* a$ they thought prop»ir, 

 waho'.if jssaminf that interlerencu 



to which they could not help ac- 

 knowledging ihey had no ric,ht. — 

 But; contrarily to these pretences, 

 tliey bboored to fouicnt the' qu;ir- 

 re'ls between the supporters of the 

 estirblLshed form of government* 

 and its"opposers ; who were evi- 

 Jently the minority of 'the people 

 in France, Wiih v,hat face, after 

 this, could the British ministry de- 

 ny their aversenesa to the employ- 

 ment of vif)lence, in. order to corn- 

 pel the French to submit to their 

 dictates ? France was noiv in the 

 ferment of a revolution, making a 

 continual and violent progress to- 

 wards liberty. In such a situation 

 laws arose from the necessity and 

 impulse of the moment j and lenity 

 or rigour, recompense or punish- 

 ment, were applied to the demand 

 and conveniency of existing cir- 

 cumstances only. It was not equi- 

 table, therefore, to require tlm 

 same precision and regularity ia 

 the concluctori of such a state, as 

 in those who had chilly to manage 

 the affairs of a countiy in a state of 

 tranquillity. Great Britain knew 

 from experience the vast difference 

 between these two situations. \x. 

 had also undergone 1:, revolutions, 

 and was now enjoying a cairn afier 

 a storm.. But it was not }'tft ar- 

 rived at that degree of irnpvove- 

 nient which opportunities- had af- 

 forded the mean; of obtaining. It 

 Iiad not profited by the seveic les- 

 sons that had been so nepeatedlr 

 held out. 'I'he laws ot' F.ngland, 

 notwiih.standing the struggles that 

 ought to Inve ameliorated them, 

 still continue barbarous and tyran- 

 nical. T.hey were full of inconsist- 

 ency anti inipru])rjetics, and, their 

 uncertainty was so notorious, tba: 

 it was a national complaint : it w.;9 

 1)61 for tlR- rulcrj of such a state t .• 



cond«'[a:i 



