200 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1797. 
fay a few words to your Lordthip, 
in addition to the inftruétions in 
my other difpatch, on the general 
fubjeét of the negotiation. 
‘The firft relates to the affertion 
of one of the French minifters, 
that the Portuguefe fhips and troops 
were at Toulon. The fact is very 
immaterial as to any conclufion 
that could be drawn from it to af- 
fect the fituation or juft claims of 
the court of Lifbon;*becaufe your 
Lordihip well knows’ that it is a 
principle univerfally recognized in 
the public:law of Europe, that, 
when one of the parties, in a de- 
fenfive alliance, furnifhes to his al- 
ly the ftipulated: fuccours, thofe 
fuccours remain entirely at the dif- 
pofal of *ie requiring party, to be 
employed wherever he fhall judge 
proper, fubject only to the limita- 
tions of the treaty which before ex- 
ifted; and if the amount of thofe 
fuccours is not increafed beyond 
that engaged for, nor the means of 
ufing them extended by new faci- 
Yities, the party furnifhing the fti- 
ulate! affiftance is not underftood | 
to violate the laws of neutrality. 
But the fact, in this cafe, would 
not bear out the affertion, even if 
the argument to be drawn from it 
were more conclufive ; the troops 
of her Moft Faithful Majefty hav- 
ing been, as { apprehend, no other- 
wife employed than in the two cam- 
paigns carried on by land upon the 
fouthern part of the frontiers of 
France and Spain, we wwkl voi 
The other point relates to what 
the treaty of Pilnitz. . It. would 
certainly not require much argv- 
ment to prove that the renewal of 
feveral treatiesenumerated by name 
and date; and the lateft of which © 
was concluded in 1783, does not 
imply a renewal of another treaty, - 
fuppofed to be concluded in 1791. 
But what is more material to the 
prefent cafe is, that your Lordfhip 
fhould take this opportunity to ex- 
plain, in the moft diftiné and une- , 
quivocal terms, that if- any fecret 
treaty was in fa&t concluded at the © 
interview at Pilnitz, between the 
late Emperor and the King of Pruf- 
fia (which is, to fay the leaft, very 
doubtful in point of faét) this at 
leaft is certain, that his Majefty 
was no party to fuch treaty; and 
not only was not then included in 
it, but has riever fince adhered to it, 
nor even been apprifed of its con- 
tents. The public declaration 
which was made at that interview, 
fhews on the face of it that his Ma- 
jefty was no party to it; and it is, 
indeed, notorious that it applied to 
circumftances which were done a- 
way long before the war broke out 
between Anftria and France; and 
that the fubfequent negotiations for 
the maintenance of peace between 
thofe powers turned on points whol- 
ly diftinét from thofe fuppofed to 
have been referred to in the pre- 
tended treaty of Pilnitz. 
This explanation, however little 
conneéted with the prefent nego- 
tiation, feems to be called for by 
the allufion made to you upon the 
fubje&; and, indeed, on a point on 
which fo much mifreprefentation 
has prevailed, it is ufeful not to o-. 
mit the opportunity of ftating the 
facts as they_really are. Iam, &c. 
(Signed) GRENVILLE. 
‘Right Hon. Lord Malmefbury. 
was faid to your Lprdfhip about “ Beer si it pia 
Vv 
ret ON 
Extra& of a Difratch from Lord 
Malmefbury to Lord Grenville, dated 
Lifle, 25th July, L797. 
‘My Lord, 
Ihave ihe honour to acknow- 
ledge 
