which are his sine qua non of peace.  But passing by contradictions, as no fair objections to reasoning, this state of things would naturally, at other times, and in other governments, have produced a disposition to peace, almost on any terms.  But, in that state of their country, did the Regicide government solicit peace or amity with other nations, or even lay any specious grounds for it, in propositions of affected moderation, or in the most loose and general conciliatory language?  The direct contrary.  It was but a very few days before the noble writer had commenced his Remarks, as if it were to refute him by anticipation, that his France thought fit to lay out a new territorial map of dominion, and to declare to us and to all Europe what territories she was willing to allot to her own empire, and what she is content (during her good pleasure) to leave to others.

This their law of empire was promulgated without any requisition on that subject, and proclaimed in a style and upon principles which never had been heard of in the annals of arrogance and ambition.  She prescribed the limits to her empire, not upon principles of treaty, convention, possession, usage, habitude, the distinction of tribes, nations, or languages, but by physical aptitudes.  Having fixed herself as the arbiter of physical dominion, she construed the limits of Nature by her convenience.  That was Nature which most extended and best secured the empire of France.

I need say no more on the insult offered not only to all equity and justice, but to the common sense of mankind, in deciding legal property by physical principles, and establishing the convenience of a party as a rule of public law.  The noble advocate for peace has, indeed, perfectly well exploded this daring and outrageous system of pride and tyranny.  I am most happy in commending him, when he writes like himself.  But hear still further and in the same good strain the great patron and advocate of amity with this accommodating, mild, and unassuming power, when he reports to you the law they give, and its immediate effects:—­“They amount,” says he, “to the sacrifice of powers that have been the most nearly connected with us,—­the direct or indirect annexation to France of all the ports of the Continent from Dunkirk to Hamburg,—­an immense accession of territory,—­and, in one word, THE ABANDONMENT OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF EUROPE!” This is the LAW (the author and I use no different terms) which this new government, almost as soon as it could cry in the cradle, and as one of the very first acts by which it auspicated its entrance into function, the pledge it gives of the firmness of its policy,—­such is the law that this proud power prescribes to abject nations.  What is the comment upon this law by the great jurist who recommends us to the tribunal which issued the decree?  “An obedience to it would be” (says he) “dishonorable to us, and exhibit us to the present age and to posterity as submitting to the law prescribed to us by our enemy.”