THE KING OF ENGLAND’S MEMORIAL.
We have already hinted at a decree of the Aulic council of the empire, published in the month of August, enjoining all directors of circles, all imperial towns, and the noblesse of the empire, to transmit to Vienna an exact list of all those who had disobeyed the avocatoria of the empire, and adhered to the rebellion raised by the elector of Brandenburgh; that their revenues might be sequestered, and themselves punished in their honours, persons, and effects. As the elector of Hanover was plainly pointed out, and, indeed, expressly mentioned in this decree, the king of Great Britain, by the hands of baron Gemmegen, his electoral minister, presented a memorial to the diet of the empire in the month of November, enumerating the instances in which he exerted himself, and even exposed his life, for the preservation and aggrandizement of the house of Austria. In return for these important services, he observed, that the empress-queen had refused him the assistance stipulated in treaties against an invasion planned by France, whose hatred he had drawn upon himself by his friendship to that princess; and his imperial majesty even denied him the dictatorial letters which he solicited; that the court of Vienna had signed a treaty with the crown of France, in which it was stipulated that the French troops should pass the Weser, and invade the electorate of Hanover, where they were joined by the troops of the empress-queen, who ravaged his Britannic majesty’s dominions with greater cruelty than even the French had practised; and the same duke of Cumberland, who had been wounded at Dettingen in the defence of her imperial majesty, was obliged to fight at Hastenbeck against the troops of that very princess, in defence of his father’s dominions; that she sent commissaries to Hanover, who shared with the crown of France the contributions extorted from that electorate; rejected all proposals of peace, and dismissed from her court the minister of Brunswick-Lunenbourg; that his imperial majesty, who had sworn to protect the empire, and oppose the entrance of foreign troops destined to oppress any of the states of Germany, afterwards required the king of England to withdraw his troops from the countries which they occupied, that the French army might again have free passage into his German dominions; that the emperor had recalled these troops, released them from their allegiance to their sovereign, enjoined them to abandon their posts, their colours, and the service in which they were embarked, on pain of being punished in body, honour, and estate: and that the king of England himself was threatened with the ban of the empire. He took notice, that, in quality of elector, he had been accused of refusing to concur with the resolutions of the diet taken in the preceding year; of entering into alliance with the king of Prussia; joining his troops to the armies of that prince; employing auxiliaries belonging to the states of the empire; sending English forces into Germany, where they had taken possession of Embden; and exacting contributions in different parts of Germany. In answer to these imputations, he alleged that he could not, consistent with his own safety or the dictates of common sense, concur with a majority in joining his troops, which were immediately necessary for his own defence, to those which, from the arbitrary views of the court of Vienna, were led against his friend and ally the king of Prussia, by a prince who did not belong to the generality of the empire, and on whom the command had been conferred without a previous conclusion of the Germanic body; that, with respect to his alliance with the king of Prussia, he had a right, when deserted by his former allies, to seek assistance wheresoever it could be procured; and surely no just ground of complaint could be offered against that which his Prussian majesty lent, to deliver the electoral states of Brunswick, as well as those of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel, Hesse, and Ruckebourg, from the oppressions of their common enemy. Posterity, he said, would hardly believe, that at a time when the troops of Austria, the Palatinate, and Wirtemberg, were engaged to invade the countries of the empire, other members of the Germanic body, who employed auxiliaries in their defence, should be threatened with outlawry and sequestration. He owned, that, in quality of king, he had sent over English troops to Germany, and taken possession of Embden; steps for which he was accountable to no power upon earth, although the constitutions of the empire permit the co-estates to make use of foreign troops, not indeed for the purpose of invasion or conquest in Germany, but for their defence and preservation. He also acknowledged that he had resented the conduct, and chastised the injustice, of those co-estates who had assisted his enemies, and helped to ravage his dominions; inferring, that if the crown of France was free to pillage the estates of the duke of Brunswick and the landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, because they had supplied the king of England with auxiliaries; if the empress-queen had a right to appropriate to herself half of the contributions raised by the French king in these countries; surely his Britannic majesty had an equal right to make those feel the burden of the war who had favoured the unjust enterprises of his enemies. He expressed his hope, that the diet, after having duly considered these circumstances, would, by way of advice, propose to his imperial majesty that he should annul his most inconsistent mandates, and not only take effectual measures to protect the electorate and its allies, but also give orders for commencing against the empress-queen, as archduchess of Austria, the elector Palatine, and the duke of Wirtemberg, such proceedings as she wanted to enforce against his Britannic majesty, elector of Brunswick-Lunenbourg. For this purpose the minister now requested their excellencies to ask immediately the necessary instructions for their principals. The rest of this long memorial contained a justification of his Britannic majesty’s conduct in deviating from the capitulation of Closter-Seven; with a refutation of the arguments adduced, and a retortion of the reproaches levelled against the king of England, in the paper or manifesto composed and published under the direction of the French ministry, and intituled, “A parallel of the conduct of the king of France with that of the king of England, relative to the breach of the capitulation of Closter-Seven by the Hanoverians.” But to this invective a more circumstantial answer was published; in which, among other curious particulars, the letter of expostulation, said to have been written by the Prussian monarch to the king of Great Britain after the defeat of Kolin is treated as an infamous piece of forgery, produced by some venal pen employed to impose upon the public. The author also, in his endeavours to demonstrate his Britannic majesty’s aversion to a continental war, very justly observes, that “none but such as are unacquainted with the maritime force of England, can believe, that, without a diversion on the continent, to employ part of the enemy’s force, she is not in a condition to hope for success, and maintain her superiority at sea. England, therefore, had no interest to foment quarrels or wars in Europe; but, for the same reason, there was room to fear that France would embrace a different system; accordingly, she took no pains to conceal her views, and her envoys declared publicly that a war upon the continent was inevitable, and that the king’s dominions in Germany would be its principal object.” He afterwards, in the course of his argumentation, adds, “That they must be very ignorant indeed, who imagine that the forces of England are not able to resist those of France, unless the latter be hindered from turning all her efforts to the sea. In case of a war upon the continent, the two powers must pay subsidies; only with this difference, that France can employ her own land-forces, and aspire at conquests.” Such were the professed sentiments of the British ministry, founded upon eternal truth and demonstration, and openly avowed, when the business was to prove that it was not the interest of Great Britain to maintain a war upon the continent; but afterwards, when this continental war was eagerly espoused, fostered, and cherished by the blood and treasure of the English nation, then the partisans of that very ministry, which had thus declared that England, without any diversion on the continent of Europe, was an overmatch for France by sea, which maybe termed the British element; then their partisans, their champions, declaimers, and dependents, were taught to rise in rebellion against their former doctrine, and, in defiance of common sense and reflection, affirm that a diversion in Germany was absolutely necessary to the successful issue of England’s operations in Asia, Africa, and America. Notwithstanding all the facts and arguments assembled in this elaborate memorial, to expose the ingratitude of the empress-queen, and demonstrate the oppressive measures adopted by the imperial power, it remains to be proved, that the member of a community is not obliged to yield obedience to the resolutions taken, and the decrees published, by the majority of those who compose this community; especially when reinforced with the authority of the supreme magistrate, and not repugnant to the fundamental constitution on which that community was established.