-
Articles/Ads
Article MONTHLY CHRONICLE. ← Page 5 of 9 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Monthly Chronicle.
rests to be treated of , being , after this event , neither so extensive nor so complicated as they were before . ' The Court of London , always desirous of employing such mean ' s as are best calculated to contribute to this object , so interesting to the happiness ofthe two nations , is unwilling to omit renewing to the French Government the assurance of the continuance of its dispositions on this subject . And the undersigned is authorized to propose to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to enter without delay , and in such manner . as shall be judged the most expedient , upon the discussion of
the views and pretensions of each party for the regulation of the Preliminaries of a Peace , which may be definitr . ely arranged at the future Congress . ' As soon as the form of this negociation shall have been agreed upon , the British Government will be ready to concur in it , by taking on its part such measures as are Ihe most proper for accelerating the re-establishment of tne public tranquility . IVesiminster , June I , 1797 . GRENVILLE . ' No . 2 . —M . Delacroix in his answer proposed that the Neghciatiohs should be set on foot at once for a Definitive Treaty . This proceeding appears to the
Directory preferable to a Congress , of which the result must be remote , and which does not correspond with the ardent desire that il has lo re-establish , as quickly as possible , Peace between the two Powers . ' June 4 . No . 3 . —Lord Grenville desired to know the wish of the Directory as to the place of the Negociation ; and requested the necessary passports , that no time might be lost in sending a Plenipotentiary . ' No . 4 . —M . Delacroix fixes Lisle as the place of meeting , dated Junenth . No . 5 . —Contains the passport . No . 6 , 7 8 9 10 ncontains only
reci-, , , , , procal explanations and information on points of little interest . No . 12 . contains extracts of a dispatch from Lord Malmesbury to Lord Grenville , dated Lisle , July 11 , 1797 , to the following effect : ' . On Sunday evening I received the inclosed note ( C ) from the French Plenipotentiaries , and in consequence of it went to the proposed conference yesterday . ' One of the French Plenipotentiaries informed me on the subject of the Projet
I had given them , and the note with which I had accompanied it , that as these papers contain many points on which their instructions did not enable them to answer , they had , after haying given them a very serious attention , sent them , with such observations as they thought it their duty to make on them , to the Directory , and that the moment they received an answer , they would communicate it to me . But that in the meanwhile , not to delay the progress ofthe negociation , they wished that several points which he termed insulated , but which , though not referred to in our Projet , were , he said , inseparably connected with
the general subject of peace , might be discussed and got rid of now , if I had no objection , and that it was with this view they had requested me to meet them . On my not expressing any disapprobation to this mode of proceeding , one of the French Plenipotentiaries began by saying , that in the preamble of the treaty , the title of King of France was used ; that this title , they contended , couid no longer he insisted on ; the abolition o \ ' it was in a maimer essential to thefacknowlerigment of the French Republic , and that as it was merely titular , as far as it related to his Majestvbut quite otherwise in the sense in which it applied to them
, , he hoped it would not be considered as an important concession . ' I informed him , that on all former occasions a separate article had been agreed to , which appeared to me to answer every purpose they required , and which it was my intention , as the Treaty advanced , 10 have proposed , as proper to make part of this . The article ( the first ofthe separate ones in the Treaty of 1783 ) was then read , but they objected to it , as not fully meeting their views . It was to the title itself , as well as to any right which might be supposed to arise from itthat they objected . I could scarcely allow myself to treat this mode of
, reasoning seriously . I endeavoured to make them feel that it was cavilling for a mere word ; that it was creating difficulties where none existed ; and that if all the French Monarch's , in the course of three centuries , had allowed this to stand in the preamble of all treaties and transactions between the two countries , I could not conceive how it could now affect either the dignity , security , or importance of the Republic ; that in fact such titles , have ever been considered $ 3 VOL . IX . „ . 3 K
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Monthly Chronicle.
rests to be treated of , being , after this event , neither so extensive nor so complicated as they were before . ' The Court of London , always desirous of employing such mean ' s as are best calculated to contribute to this object , so interesting to the happiness ofthe two nations , is unwilling to omit renewing to the French Government the assurance of the continuance of its dispositions on this subject . And the undersigned is authorized to propose to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to enter without delay , and in such manner . as shall be judged the most expedient , upon the discussion of
the views and pretensions of each party for the regulation of the Preliminaries of a Peace , which may be definitr . ely arranged at the future Congress . ' As soon as the form of this negociation shall have been agreed upon , the British Government will be ready to concur in it , by taking on its part such measures as are Ihe most proper for accelerating the re-establishment of tne public tranquility . IVesiminster , June I , 1797 . GRENVILLE . ' No . 2 . —M . Delacroix in his answer proposed that the Neghciatiohs should be set on foot at once for a Definitive Treaty . This proceeding appears to the
Directory preferable to a Congress , of which the result must be remote , and which does not correspond with the ardent desire that il has lo re-establish , as quickly as possible , Peace between the two Powers . ' June 4 . No . 3 . —Lord Grenville desired to know the wish of the Directory as to the place of the Negociation ; and requested the necessary passports , that no time might be lost in sending a Plenipotentiary . ' No . 4 . —M . Delacroix fixes Lisle as the place of meeting , dated Junenth . No . 5 . —Contains the passport . No . 6 , 7 8 9 10 ncontains only
reci-, , , , , procal explanations and information on points of little interest . No . 12 . contains extracts of a dispatch from Lord Malmesbury to Lord Grenville , dated Lisle , July 11 , 1797 , to the following effect : ' . On Sunday evening I received the inclosed note ( C ) from the French Plenipotentiaries , and in consequence of it went to the proposed conference yesterday . ' One of the French Plenipotentiaries informed me on the subject of the Projet
I had given them , and the note with which I had accompanied it , that as these papers contain many points on which their instructions did not enable them to answer , they had , after haying given them a very serious attention , sent them , with such observations as they thought it their duty to make on them , to the Directory , and that the moment they received an answer , they would communicate it to me . But that in the meanwhile , not to delay the progress ofthe negociation , they wished that several points which he termed insulated , but which , though not referred to in our Projet , were , he said , inseparably connected with
the general subject of peace , might be discussed and got rid of now , if I had no objection , and that it was with this view they had requested me to meet them . On my not expressing any disapprobation to this mode of proceeding , one of the French Plenipotentiaries began by saying , that in the preamble of the treaty , the title of King of France was used ; that this title , they contended , couid no longer he insisted on ; the abolition o \ ' it was in a maimer essential to thefacknowlerigment of the French Republic , and that as it was merely titular , as far as it related to his Majestvbut quite otherwise in the sense in which it applied to them
, , he hoped it would not be considered as an important concession . ' I informed him , that on all former occasions a separate article had been agreed to , which appeared to me to answer every purpose they required , and which it was my intention , as the Treaty advanced , 10 have proposed , as proper to make part of this . The article ( the first ofthe separate ones in the Treaty of 1783 ) was then read , but they objected to it , as not fully meeting their views . It was to the title itself , as well as to any right which might be supposed to arise from itthat they objected . I could scarcely allow myself to treat this mode of
, reasoning seriously . I endeavoured to make them feel that it was cavilling for a mere word ; that it was creating difficulties where none existed ; and that if all the French Monarch's , in the course of three centuries , had allowed this to stand in the preamble of all treaties and transactions between the two countries , I could not conceive how it could now affect either the dignity , security , or importance of the Republic ; that in fact such titles , have ever been considered $ 3 VOL . IX . „ . 3 K