$30 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1T94, 



tion of a treaty, should insist on the 

 disbanding of" our armies but irt 

 the same pro]3ortion as their own, ■ 

 did tlie motion in ply the leat ac- 

 quiescence on our part in so un- 

 reasonable and insultint a proposal. 

 The trea!n:ent of the Frrnch by 

 tlie associated po-\versin Geinianyj 

 at the beginning of hostilities, had 

 given birth io the - outrageous 

 speeches in the Convention. These 

 iiever would have taken place, had 

 not the Duke of Brunswick's pio- 

 flamation been published. If 

 Jhe had previously communicr-tcd it 

 to our ministry, tjiey oOght to have 

 .prevented its appearance j and if 

 tliis comnumicatlon had not beep 

 made, it nrgr.ed great want of re- 

 spect in the Austrian and Prussian 

 jTiinistrici lor ti:e court of Great 

 Britain. 



After thus expatiating on the 

 danger and expence that would in- 

 evitably attend the continuance «f 

 tlie war, the Duke concluded, by 

 declaring his persuasioh, trat it 

 threatnied not only the prospesity 

 pf the British nation, but the verv 

 safety of government apd of the 

 British throne. 



The speech of the Duke of Graf- 

 ton was represented by the Eavi of 

 Caernarvon as calculated to render 

 us suspecled by our confedtrntes. 

 The motives of the war, he said, 

 were just, and fully authorised us 

 to undertake it. The motivifs im- 

 puted to ministry were unfound- 

 ed ; but had they explicitly decla- 

 red for a ri^storation of monarchy in 

 Trance asa necessary step to forw nrd 

 their measures, hewould hnvtgiven 

 them his cordial appiubaiion. 



In reply to t! e preceding, and 

 jsther allegations on the niinisteriai 

 jide, Lord Guildford stated, that, 

 alicwing all the invcCtives against 



the present govprncf? of France tq 

 have weight, stiil ih'' tormer con- 

 duct of its rulers while a monarchy 

 was noless deserving of censure; — : 

 the French court w;'s equally am- 

 bitious at least; and as li tie faith 

 could he placed in it as in the Con- 

 vention. Keace, it was affirmed^ 

 <i'as inconsistent with the treaties 

 \Ve hSid made with foreign powers. 

 But he wou'd also afHrm, that no 

 treaties were so binding as to inva-- 

 lidale the privilege of the legisla- 

 ture, to ff monstrate against them, 

 and to require, if contrary to their 

 sense, that those treaties should be 

 animlled. The designs of France 

 were inscribrd as inveterately hosr 

 lile to this country ; but while we 

 constantly spoke the language of aa 

 enemy, how could wc expect that 

 the French should speak any other? 

 Could any thing be mwe inimical 

 than to prorcribe to them a syst« ir\ 

 of government which thej had so- 

 lemnly pronounced odious to them J 

 What foundation had we for the 

 exercise of such a prf rogalive over 

 •F'rance, after forbearing it on oc- 

 casions that afforded us equal 

 right? Did Great Britain interpose 

 when Russia, Austria, and I'russia, 

 disniembered Poland ? But the 

 French had actually compiifd with 

 our demands , they had formally 

 retracted that decree at which thy 

 British gdvcrnnjent had taken such 

 umbrage. The d:ingers so often 

 prct''nded, to laws and to religion, 

 were nierc declamations for the 

 purpos''- of inflaming the minds of 

 theigiK rantand the vulgar. Liberty 

 of ponscieiicc would ^^Clt destroy 

 religion; and thelaws of one coun- 

 try v^ ould not subvert those of an- ■ 

 other. But exaggeration seenjed 

 the maxim generally adopted by 

 those who hated the F^encliTj as if 



it 



