-
Articles/Ads
Article MONTHLY CHRONICLE. ← Page 2 of 20 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Monthly Chronicle.
rial Majesty . They do not seem in any manner to come under the description contained in the Sixth Article ofthe Preliminaries between Austria and France , respecting mortgages upon the soil of the Netherlands , on which ground alone France could have any pretence to interfere in the business . Nor is this subject , one which appears to be in any manner a ( it point of'discussion between his Majesty and ihe Republic ; the King neither forms nor lus any intention of forming any demand on the French Government for the payment of any part either of the interest or capital of those loans . It is to the Emperor alone that his Majesty
fooks for the performance of" his Imperial Majesty ' s engagements to him , and it is upon the Austrian Government , and upon its revenues , that individuals concerned in those loans have claims of private right ; and means of personal demand secured to them by the Convention . ' On the other two points I have nothing to add to the observations which your Lordship has already made upon them : and we can therefore only wait with impatience for the answer to the Projet delivered by your Lordship , which will enable us to forma judgment on the intentions of the Government with whom we are treating . '
No . 18 Contains an extract of a dispatch from Lord Malmesbury to Lord Grenville , dated Lisle , jfiih July , 1797 , to the following effect : ' It was at the express invitation of the French Plenipotentiaries that I met them on Thursday the . 13 th inst . One of them stated their motive for wishing to confer with me , not to be in consequence " of any answer they had received from Paris on the subject of the Projet , which he observed could not be expected so soon , but to resume the discussion on the article which he had objected to on my first reading the Projet , and on which they conceived it was possible , and even
expedient to argue before we entered on the most important branches ofthe Negociation . It was Article II . that he referred to . He objected to the renewal of the Treaties therein mentioned , from various reasons ; first , That many and even most of them were irrevelant to that we were now negociatiitg ; secondly , That they were in contradiction to the new order of things established in France , as they seem to imply an acknowledgment that a portion of the regal authority is still existing ; thirdly , That they might be supposed to apply to conventions and stipulationsin direct contradiction to their . present form of Governmentand he
, , quoted the Convention of Pilnitz in particular . I was about to reply to him , and I trust in a way that would have done away his apprehensions on Ihis point , when another interposed by saying , That their sincere ami only desire was , that the Treaty we were now entering upon might be so framed , as to secure , permanently the object for which it was intended ; that no article likely to produce this end might be omitted , nor any doubtful one inserted ; but that the whole , as well with
regard to the past as to the future , ' might be so clearly and distinctly expressed that no room for cavil might be ie ' t . This , he assured me , in the name of his colleagues , was all that was meant by their objection to renew so' many Treaties , in which such various interests were blended , and so many points discussed foreign to the present moment . Their renewing them in a lump , and without examining carefully to what we were pledged by them , might involve us in difficulties much better to be avoided . I replied , that I admitted most certainly all he said , and that it was with this view , and on this principle solely , that the renewal
of these Treaties was proposed by his Majesty ; and that if he recollecled ( as he undoubtedly did ) the different wars which were terminated by'these Treaties , and the many important ' regulations stipulated by them , he would admit that the allowing them to remain in their full force was simply an acknowledgment ofthe tenure by which all the Sovereigns of Europe , and particularly the French Republic , held their dominions up to this day . That these Treaties were become the law of nations , and that infinite confusion would result from their not being renewed .
' He replied , that our object was evidently the same , that we only differed as to She manner . I thought the renewing these Treaties in toto would the best contribute to it ; while they were inclined to think , that extracting from them every thing ivhieh immediately related to the interests of the two countries , and stating
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Monthly Chronicle.
rial Majesty . They do not seem in any manner to come under the description contained in the Sixth Article ofthe Preliminaries between Austria and France , respecting mortgages upon the soil of the Netherlands , on which ground alone France could have any pretence to interfere in the business . Nor is this subject , one which appears to be in any manner a ( it point of'discussion between his Majesty and ihe Republic ; the King neither forms nor lus any intention of forming any demand on the French Government for the payment of any part either of the interest or capital of those loans . It is to the Emperor alone that his Majesty
fooks for the performance of" his Imperial Majesty ' s engagements to him , and it is upon the Austrian Government , and upon its revenues , that individuals concerned in those loans have claims of private right ; and means of personal demand secured to them by the Convention . ' On the other two points I have nothing to add to the observations which your Lordship has already made upon them : and we can therefore only wait with impatience for the answer to the Projet delivered by your Lordship , which will enable us to forma judgment on the intentions of the Government with whom we are treating . '
No . 18 Contains an extract of a dispatch from Lord Malmesbury to Lord Grenville , dated Lisle , jfiih July , 1797 , to the following effect : ' It was at the express invitation of the French Plenipotentiaries that I met them on Thursday the . 13 th inst . One of them stated their motive for wishing to confer with me , not to be in consequence " of any answer they had received from Paris on the subject of the Projet , which he observed could not be expected so soon , but to resume the discussion on the article which he had objected to on my first reading the Projet , and on which they conceived it was possible , and even
expedient to argue before we entered on the most important branches ofthe Negociation . It was Article II . that he referred to . He objected to the renewal of the Treaties therein mentioned , from various reasons ; first , That many and even most of them were irrevelant to that we were now negociatiitg ; secondly , That they were in contradiction to the new order of things established in France , as they seem to imply an acknowledgment that a portion of the regal authority is still existing ; thirdly , That they might be supposed to apply to conventions and stipulationsin direct contradiction to their . present form of Governmentand he
, , quoted the Convention of Pilnitz in particular . I was about to reply to him , and I trust in a way that would have done away his apprehensions on Ihis point , when another interposed by saying , That their sincere ami only desire was , that the Treaty we were now entering upon might be so framed , as to secure , permanently the object for which it was intended ; that no article likely to produce this end might be omitted , nor any doubtful one inserted ; but that the whole , as well with
regard to the past as to the future , ' might be so clearly and distinctly expressed that no room for cavil might be ie ' t . This , he assured me , in the name of his colleagues , was all that was meant by their objection to renew so' many Treaties , in which such various interests were blended , and so many points discussed foreign to the present moment . Their renewing them in a lump , and without examining carefully to what we were pledged by them , might involve us in difficulties much better to be avoided . I replied , that I admitted most certainly all he said , and that it was with this view , and on this principle solely , that the renewal
of these Treaties was proposed by his Majesty ; and that if he recollecled ( as he undoubtedly did ) the different wars which were terminated by'these Treaties , and the many important ' regulations stipulated by them , he would admit that the allowing them to remain in their full force was simply an acknowledgment ofthe tenure by which all the Sovereigns of Europe , and particularly the French Republic , held their dominions up to this day . That these Treaties were become the law of nations , and that infinite confusion would result from their not being renewed .
' He replied , that our object was evidently the same , that we only differed as to She manner . I thought the renewing these Treaties in toto would the best contribute to it ; while they were inclined to think , that extracting from them every thing ivhieh immediately related to the interests of the two countries , and stating