you upon the indefenfible spirit and tendency of the demand now made by France. You will obferve that France, treating in conjunction with her allies, and in their name, cannot, with any pretence of juftice and fairness, oppofe her treaties with them as an obftacle in the way of any reasonable propofal of peace in which they are to be included. In a feparate negotiation, to which they were not parties, fuch a plea might, perhaps, have been urged; but in that cafe France would have been bound to offer, from her own means, that compenfation which she did not think herself at Jiberty to engage to obtain from her allies. And fuch was, in fact, as your lordship must remember, the principle on which his majefty offered to treat laft year, when he was really bound by engagements to Auftria fimilar to those which are now alleged by France. But it never can be allowed that France, Spain, and Holland, negotiating jointly for a peace with Great Britain, can fet up, as a bar to our juft demands, the treaties between themselves, from which they are at once able to release each other whenever they think fit. You will further remark, that even if, contrary to all reafon, fuch a principle could for a moment have been admitted on our part, ftill even that principle, iu admiffible as it is, could only apply to public treaties, known to thofe who agreed to be governed by them, and not to fecret articles, unknown even to the French plenipotentiaries, or concealed by one of them from the knowledge of the others. You will add in explicit, though not offenfive terms, that the whole of this pretence now fet up by France is inconteftably frivolous and illufory; being grounded on a : fuppofition of a state of things directly contrary to that which is known really to exift: it being. perfectly notorious that both Spain and Holland, fo far from withing to continue the war, were com pelled by France to engage in it, greatly againft their own wishes; and to undertake, without the means of fupporting it, a conteft in which they had nothing to gain, and every thing to lofe. It never, therefore, can be allowed to be. a queftion of any poffible doubt, but that the directory, if they really with it, must already have obtained, or could at any moment obtain, the confent of thofe powers to fuch terms of peace as have been proposed by his majefty. If, however, France, from any motive of intereft or engagement, is in truth defirous to procure for them the restitution of poffeffions which they were unable to defend, and have no means to re-conquer, the projet delivered by your lordship afforded an opening for this; those articles having been so drawn as to leave it to France to provide a compenfation to his majesty, either out of her colonies, or out of thofe of her allies, refpectively conquered by his majesty's arms. The choice between these alternatives may be left to the directory; but, to refuse both is, in other words, to refufe all compenfation. This is nevertheless exprefly declared not to be the intention of thofe with whom you treat. It is there fore neceffary that your lordship fhould demand from them a statement of the propofals which, as they informed you, they have to make, in order to do away this apparent contradiction, which the king's fervants are wholly unable to reconcile by any fuggeftions of (R 4) theirs, longation of war, will really de theirs, even if it were fitting and reasonable for them to bring forward any new propofals immedi ately after the detailed projet which (Signed) GRENVILLE. was delivered on the part of this Right Hon. Lord Malmefoury. Since the projet is not acceded to, we have evidently, and on every ground, a right to expect a counter projet, equally full and explicit on the part of the enemy. You will therefore state to the French minifters diftinétly, that the only hope of bringing this bufinefs to a fa vourable conclufion, is by their ftating at once plainly, and without referve, the whole of what they have to afk, inftead of bringing forward feparate points one after the other, not only contrary to the avowed principle of the negotia tion propofed by themselves, but, as it appears, even contrary to the expectation of the minifters themfelves who are employed on the part of France. There can be no pretence for refufing a compliance with this demand, if the plenipotentiaries of France are difpofed to forward the object of peace: and the obtaining fuch a statement from them is, as I have before ftted to your lordship, a point of fo much importance, in any courfe which this negotiation may take, that it is the king's pleasure that your lordfhip should use every poffible endeavour to prevent their eluding fo just a demand. After what has paffed it is, I fear, very doubtful whether fuch a counter projet would be framed on principles fuch as could be admitted here; but it would at all events place the bufinefs on its real iffue, and bring diftinctly into queftion the feveral points on which the conclufion of peace, or the pro (No. 24.)-Copy of a Dispatch from Lord Grenville to Lord Malmefoury, dated Downing-Street, July 20, 1797. My Lord, There are two feparate points on which it is neceffary for me to fay a few words to your lordship, in addition to the inftructions in my other dispatch, on the general fub ject of negotiation. The first relates to the affertion of one of the French ministers, that the Portuguese ships and troops were at Toulon. The fact is very immaterial as to any conclufion that could be drawn from it, to affect the fituation or juft claims of the court of Lifbon; because your lordfhip well knows, that it is a princi. ple univerfally recognized in the public law of Europe, that when one of the parties in a defenfive alliance furnishes to his ally the ftipulated fuccours, thofe fuccours remain entirely at the difpofal of the requiring party, to be employed wherever he thall judge proper, fubject only to the limitations of the treaty which before exifted; and if the amount of thofe fuccours is not increafed beyond that engaged for, nor the means of ufing them extended by new facilities, the party furnishing the ftipulated affittance is not understood 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 most Faithful majesty hav ing been, as I apprehend, no other wife employed than in the two campaigns carried on by land upon the fouthern part of the frontiers of France and Spain. The other point relates to what was faid to your lordship about the treaty of Pilnitz. It would certainly not require much argument to prove that the renewal of feveral treaties enumerated by name and date, and the latest 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 lordship fhould take this opportunity to explain, in the most diftinct and unequivocal terms, that if any fecret treaty was in fact concluded at the interview at Pilnitz, between the late emperor and the king of Pruffia (which is, to fay the leaft, very doubtful in point of fact), this at leaft is certain, that his majesty was, no party to fuch treaty; and not only was not then included in it, but has never fince adhered to it, nor even been apprifed of its contents. The public declaration which was made at that interview fhows, on the face of it, that his majesty was no party to it; and it is, indeed, notorious, that it applied to circumstances which were done away long before the war broke out between Auftria and France, and that the fubfequent negotiations for the maintenance of peace between those powers turned on points wholly distinct from those fupposed to have been referred to in the pretended treaty of Pilnitz. This explanation, however little connected with the prefent negotiation, feems to be called for by the allufion made to you upon the fubject; and, indeed, on a point on which fo much misreprefentation has prevailed, it is useful not to omit the opportunity of stating the facts as they really are. I am, &c. (Signed) GRENVILLE. Right Hon. Lord Malmesbury. (No. 25.)-Extract of a Dispatch from Lord Malmesbury to Lord Grenville, dated Lifle, 25th July, 1797. My Lord, I have the honour to acknowledge your lordship's dispatches, Nos. 19 and 20, of the 20th inft. which were delivered to me on Saturday the 22d inft. by the messenger Major. It was impoffible that the claim brought forward in the note inclofed in my No. 9, could have. produced on your lordship's mind. any impreffion different from that which you defcribe, and I am happy to find that the conduct I obferved when it was first delivered to me, was fuch as put it in my power to execute with great confiftency the fpirited inftructions your lord hip now fends me. Immediately on the arrival of the meffenger, I propofed an interview with the French plenipotenti aries, and we met on Sunday the 23d, at one P. M. I could not obey his majesty's orders in a manner more likely to command attention, and to im prefs those who heard me with a juft fenfe of the mixture of firmnefs and moderation with which his majefty was pleased to conduct this important negotiation, than by employing not only the fubftance, but, as far as was practicable in converfation, the very words of your lordship's dispatch, No. 19; and if I fhould attempt to relate minutely what I myself faid in this conference, conference, it would in fact be lit tle more than a repetition of them. I began by obferving, that I was certain the French plenipotentiaries must be fully prepared for what I now had it in command to fay: I reminded them that I had taken upon me to affirm, when we were laft affembled, and immediately before I dispatched my meffenger, that the requiring fuch a preliminary as that propofed in the note, was putting an end at once to all negotiation, and that I was fure peace on fuch terms would not be heard of; that the orders I was then about to communicate to them would prove that I had not made this affertion lightly, or in confequence of any hafty opinion of my own, at the fame time that it would alfo appear that my royal mafter was as anxioufly and as fincerely inclined to liften to all reasonable and admiffible conditions, as he was determined to repel and reject all fuch as were of an oppofite de fcription. I then, my lord, took up my arguments on the precife grounds fet forth in your lordship's No. 19. I neither omitted any thing, nor inferted any thing of my own, which could at all alter its fpirit; and I only varied from the letter in as much as was necefary to make it applicable to a conference. My first object was to ftate, in as forcible a way as poffible, the utter inadmiffibility of the pretenfion fet forth in the note, the frivolous and illufory reasons alleged for bringing it forward; and I obferved that, if it was perfevered in, it must lead to this neceffary conclufion, that there did exist, when it was framed, an intention on the part of the directory to break off the negotiation in the outfet. My fecond object in point of reasoning, though a very primary one in point of import ance, was either to prevent the negotiation breaking off at all, or, if this was not to be prevented, to endeavour to be fo clear and explicit in my language, and to draw the line fo diftinctly between fuch fa crifices as his majefty might be inclined to make in order to reftore fo great a bleffing as peace, and thofe to which the dignity of his crown and intereft of his fubjects would never allow him to attend, as to make it impoffible that by any future cavil or fubterfuge the interruption of the treaty, if unfortu nately it fhould be interrupted, could be imputed to any other caufe than the exorbitant demands of the French government; and the better to infure this purpofe, I explained to them that his majefty having already in a detailed projet stated freely and fully his conditions, and thefe conditions having been at once rejected by a fweeping claim on the part of the French government, it was not fitting or reasonable, neither could it be expected, that any new propofals fhould originate with his majefty: and that on every ground the king had a right to expect a contre-projet from them, ftating at once plainly and without referve, the whole of what they had to ask, instead of bringing forward feparate points, one after another, directly contrary to the principle on which we had agreed to begin the negotiation, and which, from their being infulated, could only tend to protract and im pede its progrefs. On the first point, on the inad miffibility of the preliminary conditions as proposed by the French government, one of the French plenipotentiaries faid, it was impoffible for them to do more than to take it for reference; that the inftructions they had received when the the directory fent them the note, were precife and pofitive, and that they had received none fince. He therefore had on that point fimply to request of me, that I would ftate in writing the feveral grounds on which his majefty rejected this propofition, in order that the report tranfmitted by them to the directory might be correct; and he affured me, that if I did not think it proper to put in writing all the arguments I had ufed to them in the conference, they would have no fcruple of employing those I omitted in fuch a way as was the beft calculated to give them weight, and, to use the French minifter's own expreffion, to place the negotiation once more on its legs. In regard to the second point, he had no hesitation in agreeing with me, that the best method, and indeed the only one, which could accelerate the whole of the bufinefs, was for them to give in a contreprojet; neither did he attempt to difprove our perfect right to expect one from them before we made any new propofals. But he faid, that it was not neceffary for him to obferve, that as long as they were bound by their inftructions not to give way on the propofition I had now fo decidedly rejected, that it was impoffible for them to move a ftep without new orders from the directory: that they would afk for thefe orders immediately, and lofe no time in acquainting me when they were received. Í obferved, that in our laft conference he had intimated to me they were empowered to come to fome explanation with me on the fubject of compenfation to be made to his majefty for the great ceffions he was difpofed to make; that, at the time, I conceived thefe explana tions were of a nature to qualify the wide claim stated in the note, and that if I had abftained from preffing him further at the moment, it was from perceiving a reluctance on their part to bring them forward; that, however, if they really had fuch proposals to make me, and if they were of a nature to meet in fubftance and effect the bafis laid down in the projet I had given, I fhould be well disposed to liften to them. One of the French minifters, after fome hesitation and a fort of filent reference to one of his colleagues, faid he thought, as matters now ftood, it would be much better to wait their answer from Paris; that it was a very important period, a crifis in the negotiation, the refult of which probably would be conclufive as to its fate, and that it seemed to be of more con⚫ fequence to make this refult as conformable to what he hoped I was convinced were as much their withes as mine, than to waste our time in difcuffions which were use. lefs, not to fay more, till this was afcertained. I confined myself in my reply to faying, I had no objection whatever to giving to the French plenipotentiaries a paper, ftating the trong motives on which his ma jefty rejected the propofition made in their note of the 15th; and that as I, on my part, had confidered it a duty to make my reports as conciliatory as was confiftent with truth and correctnefs, fo I heard with great pleasure the affurances he gave me of their intending to obferve the fame line of conduct. That as we feemed perfectly agreed as to the propriety of their producing a contre-projet, I had no thing to fay on that point, except to exprefs my moft fincere with that it would foon appear, and when |