HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
1n the coalition. Neither the for. 
fune nor the power of the French 
were objects so formidab’e as re- 
presented. Their prosperous ca- 
Teer was incontrovertibly owing 
to peculiar circumstances, which 
would have enabled any enemy to 
be victorious. Their means of re- 
sistance had, however, been stretch- 
éd to such a degree, that it was 
highly improbable they would bear 
much more-extension. It was, 
therefore, incumbent on the coa, 
[ition to remain firmly determined 
to improve the circumstances of 
their interior pressures to the utmost. 
Notwithstanding the French had 
_ displayed uncommon firmness Jin 
bearing the many calamities they 
had brought upon themselves, yet 
it was clear that their patience was 
almost exhausted. This was the 
favourable moment for exerting our 
Strength: our means were unim. 
paired, and with unanimity and reso- 
lution we yet had it in our power to 
compel the enemy, if not to submit 
to our own terms, at least to treat 
with us on a footing of equality. 
_ The earl of Mansfeld insisted on 
the right of a’nation to interfere in 
the government of another that 
aéted on principles dangerous to its 
neighbours : the French having in- 
disputably adopted such principles, 
those against whom they were lc- 
velled, might justly challenge their 
renunciation, and till this were pro- 
cured, to the satisfaction of all the 
parties concerned, the latter could 
net be censured for exerting all the 
means in their powcr to accomplish 
an object they had the clearest title 
to look upon as their indubitable 
claim. 
The duke of Bedford, and the 
marquis of Lansdowne, "coincided 
with carl Stanhope’s motion, though 
=< 
[183 
they did not approve his manner of 
expressing it. ‘he earl replied to 
the animad versions of his opponents 
with much accuracy, asserting, 
among other particulars, that the 
cbnoxious decree of the rgth of 
November, 1792, was erroneously 
attributed to the convention, by 
which it had never been regularly 
adopted. His motion was rejected 
by a majority of sixty-two, himself 
standing alone against all his op~ 
ponents. 
In the house of commons, a mo. 
tion of a like tendency was made 
by Mr. Grey, onthe 26th of Februa. 
ry. The direét purport of it was, that 
the present government of France 
ought not to be considered as 
precluding a negotiation for peace, 
‘Two years of a most bloody and 
expensive war had, he observed, 
now elapsed without bringing us 
nearer to the obje¢t proposed, than 
at its commencement. It was a 
war which, from the ministerial Jan- 
guage, could only terminate with 
the destruétion of one of the com- 
batants. He asked whether the 
house seriously approved this dread. 
fal determination? The nation had 
aright toknow the minister's mind: 
on sO important a question. ‘The 
French themselves had a right tode- 
mand from the English, what the ob. 
ject was for which they were con- 
tending. He noticed that, prior to 
the commencemenr of the war, the 
king had received the thanks of the 
house for his prudence in abstaining 
from interference in the affairs of 
France ; and yet the people of that 
country had dethroned their king at 
that time, and abolished the, mo- 
narchy. Hence it plainly appeared, 
that we did not consider the repub-, - 
lican form of government they had 
soe as incompatitle with, the 
[N4] safety 
