transmitting to the French National Convention an address ... to
assure that suffering nation that we sympathize with them in
their misfortunes; that we view their exertions with admiration;
that we wish to give them all such contenance [_sic_] and
support as individuals unsupported and oppressed themselves can
afford; and that, should those in power here dare (in violation
of the nation's pledged faith of neutrality and in opposition to
the well-known sentiments of the people at large) to join the
German band of despots united against Liberty, we disclaim all
concurrence therein, and will to a man exert every justifiable
means for counteracting their machinations against the freedom
and happiness of mankind.

I am ordered by the Committee to acquaint the Society for
Constitutional Information therewith, in order to be favoured
with their opinions thereon, and in hopes that, if they approve
the idea and recommend its adoption to the different societies,
the publication of such a respectable number of _real_ names
will greatly check the hostile measures which might otherwise be
put in execution.

On 5th October the Society for Constitutional Information agreed to the
plan, and ordered the drafting of a joint address to the French
Convention. By this time the news of the successful stand of the French
troops against the Allies at Valmy and the subsequent retreat of the
latter greatly encouraged the English democrats; and a more militant
tone appears in their addresses. Thus in that meeting of 5th October a
letter was read from Joel Barlow containing these sentences: "A great
Revolution in the management of the affairs of nations is doubtless soon
to be expected through all Europe; and in the progress of mankind
towards this attainment it is greatly to be desired that the convictions
to be acquired from rational discussion should precede and preclude
those which must result from physical exertion."

Why "precede and preclude"? The two expressions are incompatible. It
seems that some more moderate member must have added the latter word as
a sop to the authorities. In any case the last words of the sentence
were clearly intended as a threat. On 26th October, John Frost being in
the chair, the same Society framed the following resolution:

That the Secretary do procure correct copies of the Manifesto
published by the late General Burgoyn