mines of
Silesia for the repayment of the principal. These devolved to the king
of Prussia with this incumbrance, and he continued to pay the interest
punctually till this juncture, when the payment was stopped; and
he published a paper, entitled, "An Exposition of the Motives which
influenced his Conduct on this occasion." In his memorial to the
ministry of Great Britain, he alleged, that eighteen Prussian ships,
and thirty-three neutral vessels, in which the subjects of Prussia were
concerned, had been unjustly seized by English privateers; his account
of damages amounted to a very considerable sum; and he demanded, in the
most dogmatic terms, that the affair should be finally discussed in the
term of three months from the date of his remonstrance. The exposition
and memorial were subjected to the examination of the ablest civilians
in England, who refuted every article of the charge with equal precision
and perspicuity. They proved, that captures by sea fell properly under
the cognizance of those powers under whose jurisdiction the seizures
were made; and therefore his Prussian majesty could not, consistent with
the law of nations, determine these disputes in his own tribunals. They
demonstrated, by undoubted evidence, the falsity of ma-ny facts alleged
in the memorial, as well as the fairness of the proceedings by which
some few of the Prussian vessels had been condemned; and made it appear,
that no insult or injury had been offered to the subjects of Prussia.
Finally, they observed, that the Silesia loan was a private transaction
of such a nature, that, even if a war had happened between the emperor
Charles VI. and his Britannic majesty, this must have been held sacred
and inviolable; that when the empress-queen ceded Silesia to the king
of Prussia, this monarch charged himself with the repayment of the loan,
which, being a private debt, and transferable, was now diffused into
different countries, and become the property of many others besides the
subjects of Great Britain. They wound up their chain of reasoning by
observing, that, according to agreement with the emperor, the whole of
this loan should have been repaid in the year one thousand seven
hundred and forty-five; whereas the complaints specified in the Prussian
memorial were founded on facts posterior to that period. Whether his
Prussian majesty was convinced by these reasons, and desisted from
principle, or thought proper to give up his claim upon other pol