The New Hampshire Gazette Newspaper, October 17, 1760, Page 3

4§ L own Expance ; and the Fortifications, Harbours, Dykes and Sluices, never aftercoberefidred. Could Words be devifed in all the Extent of Laoguage to ftipulate, in a {tronger Manner; the effeftual and fpeedy Demolition of this Place 2 And yet all Europe faw with JAmazement, and England beheld with Indignation, the Peace of Utrecht violated, with Regard to thisimportant Condition, almoft as foon as it was figned. : ‘ ; : .- By the Article above-recited we fee that Dankirk wasto be demo- lithed within five Months after the figning of the Peace; and yet, near an Year after, I find Mr. Walpole, in our Houfé of Commons, infifting that the Peace had already been broken with Regard to Dunkirk: Since inflead of ruining the Harbosr, the French were then aftually repairing the Sluices, and working on a new Canal®. . And tho’ the pacific Inclinations of the Miniltryin 1713, when Mr. Walpole puthed this Affair, over ruled the Inquiry, the Falls on which it would have proceeded were certain. . The fpirited Remoftrances of Lord Stair at Paris,on the Acceffion of George-1. concerningthis Infraétion of the Peace, were the laft Inftances of Humiliation which Lewis XIV, faw him{elfexpofed to; and, perhaps, he would have found himfelf obiiged to do us that Juftice, by neceffity, which the Regent, who foon after came into Power, willingly agreed to from Views of private Intereft. Tho’ the Peace of Utrecht had obliged the Spanifb Branch of the Bourbon Family to renounce their Right of Succeffion to the Crown of France, the Duke of Orleans, who, by his Regulation, faw only an Infant’s Life between him and the Throne, knew well, that tho’ the Renunciation had been folemnly fworn to, the Doétrine ofits Inva- lidity, of its being an Aét, void ob initio, had been publickly avowed. Torcy, asappears by his§ Correfpondence with Lord Bolingbroke, very frankly made no Scruple of telling the Englifb before Hand, that this Expedient, which had been devifed to prevent the Uaion of France and Spain under one Monarch, would be of little Force, as being inconfiltent with the fundemental Laws of France ; by this Declaration giving us a very remarkable Inftance of the Weaknefs or of the Wickednefs of our then Minifters, who could build the Peace of Europe onfo fandy a Foundation, and accept of Terms which France itfelf was honelt enough to own were not to be kept. ‘However, the Regent was refolved to fupport his Claim to the Crown of France, in Exclufion to the Spanifb Branch; and as the Supportand Affiftance of England was neceflacy for this Purpole, it is notto be wondered at that he fhould court the Friendthip of a Nation from whom he had fo muchtoexpett; and, therefore, he was wife enough to do us Juftice, by carrying iato Execution, in fome Degree, the Article relating to Dunkirk. The perfonal Intereft of the Regent was the only Reafon for this Compliance : Rut fucceeding Adminiltrations in France not being influenced by the fame private Views to adhere toTreaties folemnly ratified, Dunkirk began gradually to rife from irs Rains; its Port again received Ships ;- its Trade flourithed ; England faw itfelf deprived of this favourite Advantage gained at Utrecht ; and fuch was the Afcendency of Fremch Councils over thofe of this Ifland, at the Period I fpeak of, that we were a€tually engaged in Alliances with France; while that Nation was thus openly infult- ing us, and infulting ‘us, without Obftruttion, in fo eflential an Article. We all remember what paflzd in Parliamentin 1733, re- lating to the Point now before us.---- Such was the tame Acquief- cence of the Britifb Adminiftration, that Dunkirk, by this Time, ftood upon our Cuftom-Heufe Books asa Port, from whence great Imports were made ; and when an Inquiry concerning this was propofed in the Houfe of Commons by a great Parliament Man 1, fince dead, the then Minifter bung his Head, in the Houfe, for Shame. And who could have believed it pofible, that the fame Perfon, who had been fo ready to promote a Parliamentary In- quiry into this Violation of the Peacein 1713, fhould obftraét fuch an Inquiry, when he himfelf was in Power, tho’ the Reafons for it had become much ftronger 2 Who could fee hiny, without In- dignation, fhut his Eyes to the Re-eftablifament of Dunkirk, and obftruét the propofed Inquiry, by getting from Cardinal Fleury(who then govern'd France, and Iblufh tofay it, Englandtoo) a delofive minifterial Letter, promifing what he knew would not be perform- ed ;---and obrained, perhaps, only becaufe the Cardinal was af- fured, that the Breach of the Promife would not be refented ? While England remained fo averfe to do itfelf Juftice, no Won- der that France improved the Opportunity. At the Time when that Minifter was obliged to retire from Power, the Re-eftablifh- ment of Dunkirk was completed. For, within a few Months, af- ---------------------------------------- ..................... @sesaseedratecasesassncetetoann P Chandler’s Debates, Vol. 8. P.69. § Seethe Report of the fecree Comumittec, P.13. The following Ex- traft froma Letter of Mon/. Torcy to Mr. St. John is remarkable. s b ) << Renunciation defired would be null and invalid by the fundamental « Laws of France; according to which Laws the moft near Prince to << tbe Crownis, of Neceffity, the Heir thereto...... This Law is Ihoked < ypon, as the Work of him who bath cftablifbed all Monarchies, and we < are perfuaded in France that GOD canonly abolifbis. No Renunsia- s¢ tion, thevefore, candefiroyit; andif the King of Spain fbouldrenounce < it for the Sake of Peace, and in Obedience to the King bis Grandfather, "¢ they would deceive themfelues that received it asa Jufficiens Expedient «¢'to preucnt the Mifchief we propofe to avoid.” | 8ir William Windham. " enter into, when cheg@fi‘»rd us foftrong, ter **, we find 3 Memoriul prefented By Lord Stair to the Durch, complaining of this Violation of the Pescs of Uirecht, and urging thisasa Reafon for theirjoining us againdt France. And as it is for thel]unqurpf the, Adminiftration then entering into Office, that they began with Meafures fo fpirited and nadonal, itis eqallvr - markable, that the fame Perfon, who had threatened Lewis XiV. ig his own Palace, for hisSlownefs in demolithing Dunkirk, lived to be again employed by his'Country at the Diftance of near thirty Years, when the Reltoration of Duskirk became an Objeét of nati- . onal Refeptment. The two Nations had not, as yet,begun thelate War, when we faw, in One Inftance, both a Proof that Dunkirk was again a Pors, and a Port which may be made Ufe of, to endanger the Safety of Britain. Atthe Timel now fpeakof {, we beheld the Harbourof Dunkirk crowded with “Tranfports to embark Count Saxe and the Pretender to invade us. And, if that Invafion had then taken Ef- fet, from that very Port which was to be no Pore (happily the Winds were contrary to the Fleets from Breft) the infinite Mifchief which this Nation may fuffer fromits Re-eftablifhment, would have been fatally experienced. _ : Though we haveno great Reafon to brag of the Treaty made at the Couclufion of the laft War (which I am athamed to calla Peace, asit fettled nothitag that wasbefore in Doubt bétween the: two Nations) the Peace of Urrecht concerning Dunkirk, was never- thelefs in its moft efTential Parc, reftored to its full Force. Ifay,ia its moft Effential Part 5 becaufe, though the 17th Article of the Treaty of Aix laChapelle left Dunkirk in the Stateic then was, wich Regard to its Fortifications to the'Land; thefame Arsicle revived our Right to the Demolition of its Port, by {tipulating That ancien: Treaties are to be obferved in Regardtothe Port, and wbe Iorks onithe Sea fide. Little or nothing was done between the Conclufion of che Peace, and the breaking outof the prefent War, towards carryirginto Ex- ecation this freth Promife. On the Contrary, the eilarging of the Fortifications of Dunkirk, is mentioned in his Majc(ty’s Declaration of War, three Yearsago, as one of the freth Heads of [njury offered to England. And whoever refleéts upon the Tranfattions, fince that Period, will fee that Dunkirk is reltored toits original Import- ance. Its Privateers have done infinite Mifchief to our Trade; a Squadron of his Majefty’s Navy, in vain blocked up its Harbour lately, to prevent the failing of Thurat’s Fleet ; and, itis well known, that the long threatened lnvafion of thefe Kingdoms, which France, in Defpair, certainly meditated, would have been attempted from this Place, if the Deftraétion of their Ships of War by Hawke, had not taught them the Abfurdity of invading us in their much cele- brated Aat bottom Boais, which, we may well fuppofe, will bardly be tried, when their Fleets, really formidable, have beea deltroyed in the Attempt. ] ‘I'he above Enumeration of French Infidelities, in general, and in particular their Behaviour to England with Regard to Dunkirk, and with Regard to North America, fo naturally points out the Expediency, and Neceffity of the Hints I fhall now offer, thar, in propofing them, 1 may well hope not to have them ridiculed as the Reveries of a chimerical St. Pierre, but rather attended to as the fober Diétates of Prudence, and of a Zeal not altogether devoid of Knowledge. : Firft then, my Lord, and Sir, before you enter upon any new Treaty, or liften to any plaufible Propofals whatever, infift thac Juftice may be done this Nawon, with regard to former Treaties. Shew France the ftrong, the folemn Engagement fhe entered into at Utrecht to demolith Dunkirk; put her in Mind of the amazing Perfidy with which fhe, from Time to Time, eluded the Pegfor- mance of that Engagement ; and demand immediate Juftich on the. Ariicle, as a preliminary Proof of her Sincerity in the en- fuing Negociatio e not deceived any longer in thic Matter. The French will no dou:, allure you that the Demolition of Dunkirk thall be au Article in the New ! m knov 1 are not be Jf» impofed apon. ecomes x new Article, reckon it a uc. peét fomething in retura for it,----pesua; - e fuch Trifle, as they will call it. But tell chem with ¢ nnefs of wife Conquerors, that the Demolition of Dunkirk is what you are intitled to by Treaties made long ago, and violated ; and that it thall not be fo much as mentioned in the enfuing Negociation, but complied with, before that Negociation fhall commence. Or, admitting that no Concefiion fhould be required by Francein the New T'reaty, in Confideration of a New Article to demolith Dunkirk, place to them, ir "he firongeft Light, the unanfwerable Reafons we haveagainft pucting any Confidence in them, that fuch an Article would be better executed, than that in the Treaty of Utrecht has been. ; ; ore R If they refufe doing us this immediate” Juftice, previous to :lwc Peace ;ask them how they can expett that we fhould haveaony Re- liance on their Sincerity to fulfil the New Engagements they mav fo glaring an ' Inftance of Infidelity, inan Artigle of fuch Confequence, made fo.many Years ago ¥ [ ‘Ta be Contioued. ] .........................................................................................