188 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1'794. 



♦aincd;^ in their manifestoes, h^d 

 impelled the French to threaten, 

 on their side., to espouse the cause 

 of tliose nations that rose against 

 their oppres-^ors*: but at whom w as 

 this declaration levelled ? Was it 

 not m;mifcstly against t)ie Enipevor 

 and the King of Prussia : On the 

 first signification that Great Bri- 

 tain disapproved of this declara- 

 tion, was it net explained in such 

 a manner as to remove all cause 

 of otfence ? Was nothing to be al- 

 lowed to the' momentary rage of 

 a people loaded from a'l parts with 

 the most unqualilicd oblocjuy, and 

 held out to -the world as the out- 

 casts of mankind ? It was nugatory 

 to assert that this was no more than 

 truth : — it was not a language to 

 be bome by individuals, much less 

 by nations. We ought to have 

 reflected, that public insults could 

 not fail to provoke public indigna- 

 tion, and create national quarrels. 

 Were the French ever so guilty, 

 who costituted us their judges ? 

 Private opinions, doubtless, were 

 free, and individuals bad a right 

 to deliver their sentiments in con- 

 versation upon all public occur- 

 rences, both in their own and in 

 foreign countries ; but no nation 



. was entitled to sit publicly in judg- 

 ment on the concerns of auoihrr, 

 unless manifestly aftected bythem. 

 ,l}ut in what manner did thealten- 



Vf'tion of government in Fiance af- 

 fect Great Britain, unless by meet- 

 ing with its disapprobation ? This, 

 howevei', was no just ground for 

 dispute. England liad, in the last 

 century, set th( precedent of many 

 a deed highly disapproved of by 

 its neighbours, without being called 

 to account by any of them, it was 

 a law held sacred by nations, that 

 the disavowal of any act or pre^ 



tenfions injurious to another, v as 

 a .suflicitnt atcnencnt. I'he French • 

 having disavowed all right to in- 

 terpose in thealTairsofcthcrnations 

 ^lad therefore just reavon to expect 

 lliatGreatBritaiuwouldabsiaintrom 

 interposition in tlieirs. It ill be«J 

 came us, Iiowcvfr, to ^prob;t eT 

 the French for their conduct in 

 this respect. We bad carried cur 

 interference as far as we durst. If 

 the French had acted with in. r- 

 lence in the Netherlands, by intnv 

 ducing foicibly their principles and 

 furm.s of goveriuiur.ts, had not Bri- 

 tain used compuKive measures to- 

 wards the Swias Cantons, nnd ihosc 

 Italian states she thought herself 

 able to intimidate? Did she, not, 

 as soon as she had thro\\n oil the 

 mask of iicutrality, insist, in the 

 most arrogant manner, that others 

 should cease to be neuter ? \Vas not 

 this acting precisely upon \hc jirin- 

 ciple she so bitterly repmbHted ? 

 The French had been justly re- 

 proached tor their perfidy towards 

 those whom, under the pretenc; 

 of emancipation from slavery, they 

 had reduced to the meanest sub- 

 jection. But had England act- 

 ed othei"\\ise, in threatening the 

 severest treatment to those who 

 had expressed air unwillingness to 

 adopt her vie\^s and measures, and 

 to join the coalition, whatever dan- 

 ger they might Incur by their com-r 

 pliancc? The hostile intentions of 

 France to this country had been 

 repeatedly urged, as fully sufJicient 

 motives to treat the French as 

 avowed e: emies. But Iiad not the 

 British ininistry, from the very 

 C(^mmencement of the revolution, 

 expressed the most decided enmity ' 

 to all revolutionary proceedijigs ? 

 What occasioned the recall of the 

 BriliUi minister ftoni Paris, the 



expulsion 



