France did not attempt, in the first instance, to take advantage of our situation to extort from us any humiliating or injurious concessions, as the price of her assistance; nor afterwards in the progress of the war, to impose hard terms as the condition of particular aids.
Though this course was certainly dictated by policy; yet it was a magnanimous policy, such as always constitutes a title to the approbation and esteem of mankind; and a claim to the friendship and acknowledgment of the party in whose favour it is practised.
But these sentiments are satisfied on the part of a nation, when they produce sincere wishes for the happiness of the party from whom it has experienced such conduct, and a cordial disposition to render all good and friendly offices, which can be rendered without prejudice to its own solid and permanent interests.
To ask of a nation so situated, to make a sacrifice of substantial interest; to expose itself to the jealousy, ill will, or resentment of the rest of the world; to hazard, in an eminent degree, its own sefety, for the benefit of the party who may have observed towards it the conduct which has been described; would be to ask more than the nature of the case demands, more than the fundamental maxims of society authorize, more than the dictates of sound reason justify.
A question has arisen, with regard to the proper object of that gratitude, which is so much insisted upon: whether it be the unfortunate prince by whom the assistance received was given; or the nation of whom he was the chief or the organ? It is extremely interesting to the national justice, to form right conceptions on this point.
The arguments which support the latter idea, are as follows:
"Louis the XVI. was but the constitutional agent of the French people. He acted for and on behalf of the nation; it was with their money and their blood he supported our cause. It is to them, therefore, not to him, that our obligations are due. Louis the XVI. in taking our part, was no doubt actuated by state
