610 
tions, they were about to enjoy a 
long interval of peace, these events, 
have every where produced agi- 
tation, as well as the burthens 
and sacrifices inseparable from a 
general arming. It is impossible 
so soon to efface from the minds 
ofcotemporaries the recollection 
of such a convulsion. That which 
was sufficient to satisfy them in 
1814, cannot content them in 
1815. The line of demarcation 
which appeared to guarantee the 
security of the States bordering 
on France at the Epoch of the 
treaty of the 30th of May, can no 
longer satisfy the just pretensions 
which they now prefer. 
It is indispensable that France 
should offer some new pledge of 
security. She ought to take this 
step, as well from sentiments of 
justice and expediency, as from 
her own interest well understood. 
For, in order that the French 
may be happy and tranquil, it is 
absolutely necessary that their 
neighbours should be happy and 
tranquil also. 
Such are the powerful consi- 
derations that have induced the 
AlliedPowersto demand of France 
some territorial cessions. The 
-inconsiderable extent of these ces- 
sions, and the selection of the 
points upon which they bear, suf- 
ficiently prove, that they have 
nothing in common with views 
of aggrandizement and conquest, 
and that the security of bordering 
nations is their only object. These 
cessions are not of a nature to 
compromise the substantial integ- 
rity of France. They embrace 
only detached districts or points 
remote from her territory; they 
cannot really weaken her in any 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1815. 
relation either administrative or 
military, nor can her defensive 
system be affected by them. France 
will remain not the less one of the 
best rounded and best fortified 
States of Europe, as well as one 
of the richest in means of every 
description for resisting the dan- 
ger of invasion. 
Without entering into these 
higher considerations, the Pleni- 
potentiaries of France admit, 
however, the principle of territo- 
rial cession, as far as respects the 
points added to old France by the 
treaty of Paris. 
The undersigned find it difficult 
to understand upon what this dis- 
tinction can be founded, or, under 
the point of view adopted by the 
Allied Powers, in what the essen- 
tial difference between ancient 
and recent territory consists. It 
is impossible to suppose, that the 
Plenipotentiaries of France wish 
to revive in the actual state of 
affairs the doctrine of the pre- 
tended inviolability of the French 
territory. They too well know 
that this doctrine, put forward by . 
the chiefs and apostles of the 
revolutionary system, formed one 
of the most revolting chapters in 
that arbitrary code which they 
wished to impose on Europe. It 
would be to destroy entirely — 
idea of equality between the dif- 
ferent Powers, if it were once 
established as a principle, that 
France may without difficulty ex- 
tend her limits, acquire new pro- 
vinces, and unite them to her 
territory, either by conquest or 
treaty, whilst she alone shall en- 
joy the privilege of never losing 
any of her ancient possessions, 
either by the misfortunes of war, 
