STATE PAPERS. 
of lunacy, and of all other similar 
cases wherein the welfare of a nation 
is concerned: 
The neutral powers, therefore, 
cannot, without contradicting their 
own conduct, break off or interrupt 
the connexions with France, on the 
pretext of the King’s suspension, and 
the convocation of a National Con- 
vention: for those two are consti- 
tutional cases, and the constitution 
they have acknowledged; so that 
to make a rupture on account of 
those two measures, is to interfere 
with the government of France, 
while all such interference is at the 
same time disavowed. 
By the French constitution the 
King is the first public functionary, 
the organ of the nation in respect to 
foreign powers. In himself he is a 
mere citizen, like another: he is 
raised above other citizens by being 
appointed the nation’s representa- 
tive: but even in that quality he 
can never be considered as above 
the nation. To pretend that, be- 
cause he is suspended from his func- 
tions, all political relations are to be 
interrupted with the nation, is to 
suppose that he is either the supe- 
rior or the equal of the nation, or 
that he is the naticn collected in 
himself; it is to suppose that fo- 
reign relations are entered into for 
the king, and not for the nation: 
a doctrine incompatible with the 
people’s sovereignty, and independ- 
ence on foreigners. Foreign poten- 
tates ought to be informed, that 
the rights of people, and the tran- 
quillity of Europe, do essentially 
stand on this basis; that each state 
is respectively independent, and that 
this independence is guaranteed to 
each one by all the others; the 
which, however, must be oyerturn- 
275: 
ed, if any foreign power claim: a: 
right to’ interfere with the interior 
changes a neighbouring people may 
think it convenient to adopt. 
France, long before her own re- 
volution, had condemned one of her 
kings who obstructed so passionate- 
ly that Jast’ revolution, to which 
England owes: her liberty, and the 
house of Hanover her crown. What 
right had a French King to oppose 
the exercise of an inalienable right 
in the English people to change their 
own government, and to alter the 
line of succession to their crown? 
And how comes it to pass that the 
cabinet of St. James should at: pre- 
sent adopt the principles which it: 
reprobated not a century ago? If 
France has not a right to change her’ 
constitution, nor to suspend her ex- 
ecutive power, we must then con- 
clude that the English are rebels, 
and the house of Hanover usurpers: 
But assuredly no Englishman, no 
well-informed man, will maintain 
such a doctrine; and, indeed, the 
French nation is far from apprehend= 
ing any hostile dispositions on the 
side of England, the assurances of 
whose government are solid, -and 
the friendship and loyalty of whose 
people may be firmly depended. on. 
When the cabinet of St. James: has, 
more calmly compared the conduct 
of the French with the’ true: prin- 
ciples of policy, it will clearly see 
that the French nation: has alone 
the right to decide, by its repre- 
sentatives, whether the first public 
functionary has incurred forfeiture, 
and whether the constitution is to 
be the exclusive mode of the go- 
vernment of the nation, in whose 
decisions on these points no earthly 
power has any right to interfere, 
The representatives of the Freneh 
$2 people 
