GENERAL HISTORY. 



[21 



in giving: effect to the engage- 

 ments entered into. 



Lord Grenville expressed his 

 entire concurrence with the noble 

 earl on many points connected 

 with the treaties before the House, 

 but said, that there were others 

 on which his difference of opi- 

 nion had remained unaltered. 

 On our right, in concurrence 

 with our allies, to interfere in 

 the affairs of France for the pur- 

 pose of securing the repose of 

 Europe, he spoke in the most de- 

 termined manner ; following up 

 his argument with a comprehen- 

 sive view of the reasons which 

 should have urged the allies ma- 

 terially to abridge the territory of 

 France upon the conclusion of 

 the peace. The security against 

 French power ought to have been 

 sought in depriving her of those 

 territories on her northern fron- 

 tier, which had been gained by 

 the unjust aggressions of Louis 

 XIV. As things now stood, the 

 king of the Netherlands was left 

 in so unprotected a state, that his 

 very capital could be taken by a 

 French army in a few days. In 

 answer to the objection, that to 

 exact such cessions would inflict 

 an injury that would never be 

 forgotten by the French people, 

 his lordship argued, that quar- 

 tering foreign troops in the heart 

 of their country for five years, to 

 be maintained at their expence, 

 was a condition equally himii- 

 liating, and at the same time more 

 burthensoine. This policy led 

 him to the consideration of the 

 great evil now prevailing in Eu- 

 rope of keeping up vast standing 

 armies, which deprived the people 

 of the benefits to be expected 

 frqm tl^e restoration of peace, in 



which evil we were now involv- 

 ing ourselves to a dangeious and 

 ruinous degree. The conclusion 

 of his speech was a motion for an 

 amendment to the proposed ad- 

 dress, in which, at considerable 

 length, a strong sense of disap- 

 probation, was expressed at the 

 vast military establishment with 

 wliich it was intended that this 

 country should be burthened. 



The original address was sup- 

 ported by the Earl of Harrowhy, 

 who argued against the policy of 

 demanding from France the ces- 

 sion of all French Flanders, 

 which the army of the Nether- 

 lands would be in no capacity of 

 occupying. 



Several other speakers joined 

 in the debate, which was at 

 length terminated by a division, 

 in which the amendment was re- 

 jected by 104 votes aga.inst 40. 

 The original address was then 

 agreed to. Lord Holland entering 

 his protest of disapproval. 



The same subject was tak.en 

 up in the House of Commons on 

 Feb. 19th ; when the order of 

 the day being read. Lord Castle- 

 reagh rose, and after a long poli- 

 tical narrative, moved an address 

 to the Prince Regent in appro- 

 bation of the treaties, of exactly 

 the same import with that moved 

 in the House of Lords. It was 

 met by a similar motion for an 

 aniendmentj introduced by Lord 

 Milton; and the sequel was a 

 debate continued to the second 

 day. In the speeches, all the 

 eloquence and ingenuity of the 

 House in political discussion was 

 employed, and the final result was 

 a rejection of the amendment, and 

 adoption of the address, by a not 

 less decisive majoxity than that 



in 



