in fact, to declare war, he ought to do it frankly and openly; but while war is not declared, he ought not to permit violations of territory and of flag. The conduct of the First Consul, during the fortnight in which he has received every kind of provocation, has been full of candour and good faith, and extreme moderation; but they will be strangely deceived, who suppose that this moderation can be carried so far as to view coolly any violations of territory or flag.

Ch. Mau. Talleyrand.

means in their power, to inform themselves of the circumstances to which such an interpretation has been given; and, in order to facilitate these inquiries, the undersigned requests that M. Talleyrand will have the goodness to communicate to him the particulars which have reached the French Government upon this subject. As to the English frigates which are supposed to be cruizing before the ports of the Batavian Republic, his Britannic Majesty does not conceal that there are several ships of war in the seas adjoining those A new circumstance soon demanded a new ports; but if the officers who command them remonstrance. It was known that the first have made any movements, or held any lanorders which were transmitted for the evacu-guage which can be regarded as hostile, their ation of the Cape, had been revoked; that the evacuation had not taken place; and that, in a state of perfect peace, a capitulation had been concluded between the English and Dutch troops: whence it resulted, that the latter were only tolerated at the Cape, while the English troops preserved the possession of it. The Minister for foreign affairs addressed the following note upon this subject, to Lord Whitworth:

conduct, in that respect, has been directly
opposite to their instructions.
The King
relies with entire confidence in the assurances
given him by the French Government, that
the troops destined for Louisiana will not sait
in the present circumstances. The under-
signed can only repeat, what he has often
declared to M. de Talleyrand, on the subject
of the articles which have appeared in the
English journals; that is, that the British Mi-
nistry cannot be responsible, except for what
appears in the paper which is published by their
authority, under the title of the London Ga-
zette. The undersigned refers to the modera-
tion and the candour which have distinguished
the conduct of the British Government during
the course of the present discussions, to prove
with what sincerity it desires to avoid every
thing that might give rise to animosity be-
tween the two nations. The undersigned
entreats M. de Talleyrand to accept the as-
surance of his high consideration.

Whitworth.

Paris, 9th Germinal, Year 11. The newspapers have just published a pretended capitulation between the English and Dutch troops; whence it would result, that the Cape of Good Hope is still in the possession of the English. Though the First Consul has not been able to give any credit to the news of so extraordinary a violation of the treaty of Amiens, the reports which are circulated on this subject are so strongly accredited, particularly in London, and the details of the capitulation are so explicit, that the undersigned is charged to demand from the Ambassador of England such explanations as Paris, April 7, 1803. may dissipate every doubt on so serious a The undersigned Ambassador Extraordifact. The undersigned entreats the Ambas-nary and Plenipotentiary of his Britannic sador of England to accept the assurance of Majesty, is charged by his Court to commuhis high consideration. nicate to the French Government, in answer to the note which M. de Talleyrand, Minister for foreign affairs, addressed to him on the subject of the occupation of the Cape of Good Hope by the British troops, that orders were dispatched on the 20th November last, to cause that colony to be evacuated forthwith by his Majesty's forces; and consequently that there is no doubt that that estab lishment is already restored to the Batavian Republic. The undersigned entreats his Excellency M. de Talley rand to accept the assur ance of his high consideration. Whitworth.

Ch. Mau. Talleyrand. The answers of the English Ambassador, dated the 15th and 17th Germinal, relative to the cruizers, and the non-evacuation of the Cape, are thus expressed:

Paris, April 5th, 1803. The undersigned Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty, having transmitted to his Court the copy

of the note communicated to him the 25th of the last month by M. de Talleyrand, Minister for foreign affairs, has it in charge to communicate to his Excellency, that the British Government has no knowledge of the facts which are therein represented as a viclation of the territory of France. The Ministers of his Britannic Majesty have never theless thought it their duty to use all the VOL. III.

The answer of Lord Hawkesbury to the note of the 7th Germinal was received at the same time, and on the same day the British Ambassador transmitted the subjoined note. These two papers were conceived in the following terms: * M m m

[For the first of these, see a note from Lord | reduce to writing, and sign those propositions Hawkesbury to General Andreassi, dated which contained the final decision of his Downing-street, April 3, 1803, which court. Lord Whitworth refused; alledging note is the second inclosure in No. 49 of that his instructions did not permit him to the papers laid before Parliament on the comply with this request. A mode of pro18th of May. See page 1057, of this ceeding so totally new, as the exhibition of volume.] a verbal ultimatum, when the rupture of a formal treaty was in question, excited the greatest surprise: and it was for some days expected that the English ambassador would at last consent to present his propositions in writing: but the French minister applied to him in vain to do so; and no solicitation could induce him to depart from a course which he considered to be irrevocably traced out for him. The First Consul still persisted in giv ing a new testimony of the uniformity of his desire for peace; and, after some days spent in fruitless expectation, he ordered that the verbal propositions of Lord Whitworth should be replied to, in the same manner as if they had been regularly made under the official signature of the ambassador. The following is a copy of the answer :—

[For the second, see a note from Lord Whitworth to M. Talleyrand, which was enclosed in No. 52 of the papers presented on the 18th of May, and which may be found at page 1061 of this volume.] After the delivery of these notes, a long conference took place, on the 18th of Germinal, between the Minister for foreign affairs and the English Ambassador; in consequence of which, Lord Whitworth agreed to write the following letter to his Govern

ment:

[This letter is the inclosure referred to, in No. 53 of the papers presented on the 18th of May, and may be found at page 1063 of this volume."]

The English Ambassador received instructions from his Court in answer to this dispatch, in consequence of which, he sent the following note, without signature or date, on the 27th Germinal.

[This note is the inclosure referred to in No. 58 of the papers presented on the 18th of May; and may be found at page 1068 of this volume.]

that the communication might prove of such
a nature as to change the ambassador's reso
lution. His resolution, however, remained
unchanged; and he persisted in his demand
for passports by the following note, in answer
to that which had been transmitted to him.
[See the second inclosure referred to in No.

[See the first inclosure, referred to in No. 66 of the papers presented on the 18th of May, at page 1078 of this volume.] When the preceding note was on the point of being transmitted to the English ambassador, the minister received an official demand from him for passports to leave France. He, therefore, accompanied the note with This proposition was preceded by an over-a letter, in which he expressed his hopes ture, still more unreasonable, which required that Malta should be ceded in full sovereignty, and in perpetuity, to the British government. But neither the first nor the Second of these propositions could be made the subject of serious discussion, because they were both in complete contradiction to the treaty of Amiens, and consequently to 66 of the papers presented on the 18th of the basis of the negotiation proposed by May, at page 1079 of this volume.] France, and on which Lord Whitworth, Notwithstanding the positive manner in himself, founded the discussion, by the let- which Lord Whitworth demanded his pass ter he wrote to his court after the conference ports, the First Consul, who had constantly of the 18th Germinal. Such was the state of reflected on the means of avoiding a rupture, affairs on the 6th Floreal, when Lord Whit- resolved to make a last effort, and accordworth read the last instructions he had re-ingly directed the minister for foreign affairs ceived, and in consequence of which he re- to transmit the following note to the English quired, 1st, That his Britannic Majesty ambassador :should retain his troops at Malta for ten years: 2dly, That the island of Lampedosa should be ceded to him in full possession: 3dly, That the French troops should evacuate Holland. Lord Whitworth added, that in case convention was not concluded upon the above basis within the course of seven days, hig4ders were to leave Paris, and return to England. He therefore presented these conditions as the ultimatum of his government. The minister for foreign affairs then thought proper to require, that Lord Whitworth would

the

[See a note from M. Talleyrand to Lord Whitworth, being the inclosure referred to in No. 67 of the papers presented on 18th of May, at p. 1080 of this volume.] The English minister took this note ad referendum, and determined to send a messen. ger to his court. By the return of this courier, who was the bearer of a new and important overture, Lord Whitworth re ceived instructions, in consequence of which he presented the note and plan of convention which are here subjoined:

[This note is the first inclosure referred to | persisted in demanding his passports. His

OBSERVATIONS ON THE MANIFESTO OF THE KING OF ENGLAND. [From the Moniteur of the 7th of June, 1803.]

“Si la vérité était bannie de la terre, elle devrait se réfugier dans le cœur des rois."

"Though good faith were banished from the rest of the earth, she ought still to retain her habitation in the breasts of princes*."

IF we may judge from the false allegations | a war purely ministerial? Or, rather, is it which abound in his various messages to par- not the shameful violation of the sworn faith liament, as well as in the solemn declara- of nations, that his Britannic Majesty has tion which has recently been issued from a undertaken to disguise? Is it not the evident throne, which peace only could render se- dispositions of the letter and spirit of the it is not, assuredly, in the breast of the treaties of pacified Europe that he has atKing of Great-Britain that good faith has tempted to misconstrue? Is it not to palliate found this asylum. Is it Europe that this long-premeditated depredations on the commonarch attempts to impose upon by this mercial and maritime powers of the contiturbulent manifesto? Is it France he wishes nent, that deceitful messages and faithless to mislead or divide by his groundless accu-communications have been made to the Brisations? Is it the allies of the republic whose tish parliament; that, with an alarming ostenconfidence he hopes to alienate, by a hypo-tation, and in the moment of profound peace, critical interest in their past situation? Is it his own subjects he is desirous of plunging into error, for the purpose of engaging them in

he has organized military preparations in all his ports, a simultaneous aggression upon every ocean without motive, and rapacious hostilities without shame? But, if the causes of his complaints were legitimate, why force * M m m 2

the negotiations? Why, by an act of des- possession. Such are the measures wh potism, irrevocably close the door of recon- has adopted for "effectually consolidating t ciliation? Why oppose the interference of a general tranquillity of Europe!" In mediating power? Why mutilate official then, does this new method of "consetica papers? Why deceive the national repre- the general tranquillity of Europe" consi sentation? Why conceal the truth from a In declaring war against one of its princ. powerful people? Why change, in an un- powers, and in seizing upon every mart accountable manner, the constitutional pub-position, calculated to secure to Great E licity of their parliamentary deliberations? an universal tyranny. Are the King of England and his ministers ac- “The same motives," continues the Kings customed to imagine, that armed injustice is England, “by which his Majesty was admi the power alone worthy of governing the uni- during the negotiations, have since runat verse? And do they not know, that violence governed his conduct”” If these secret n and falsehood are ever injurious to the best of tives" during the negotiations" were causes? The destiny of empires is more abandon the possession of the island of M closely connected with the maintenance of it is, indeed, evident, that these same treaties, and a due observance of the pledged tives have not ceased to direct his coat faith of nations, than we are generally led to but, if we may be permitted to speak acknowledge. To the French government language of frankness and sincerity, it we commit the glorious task of victoriously more evident, that the motive which h replying, by the last and irresistible argu- variably actuated the conduct of the K ment of governments and of nations, to these has been the perpetual usurpation of odious recriminations. In its moderate, pa- island of Malta, by not executing the cifi and generous proceedings, it has been paragraph of the 10th article of the treaty actuated by motives of duty to the patience Amiens. Is this evincing a desire “ | and dignity with which it has fulfilled that to contribute to consolidate the generalin duty, the whole nation bears witness. Two of Europe " Or is it not, on the years will scarcely have passed over our heads, commencing his declaration with a before the genius of Europe, armed for peace, ridiculous proposition; since a maitses | will have written, in characters of terrer, on lation of the treaty of Amiens, in on. the shores of Britain, the merited punish- most important dispositions, consists ment for the infraction of treaties. We shall not restoring Malta to its legitimate confine ourselves to a simple refutation of te reigns, the Mediteranean and navigate motives avowed in the manifesto of the King their natural independence, and the of England; and leave our readers to judge, merce of nations to its indispensable and whether the causes assigned for entering scriptive liberty. The King declares, 1.20; upon a war of so dreadful a nature betray, in was actuated by a desire to consoliut?" the aggressor, a greater portion of injustice tranquillity of Europe before the negotiat or of hatred, of falsehood or of blind infatua-pence, as well as since that period." T tion. In voluntarily declaring war against France, at the expiration of a short twelve months of peace, the King of England pretends, "that it was his sincere desire, not only to put an end to the hostilities which subsisted between the two countries, but also to adopt such measures as might most effectually contribute to consolidate the general tranquillity of Lurope" And what were these measures? They are distinctly written in the treaty of Amiens: to restore the Cape of Good Hope to the Dutch, in exchange for the valuable island of Ceylon; to restore Minorca to Spain, in exchange for the favourable colonial position of Trinidad; to evacuate Egypt, at a moment when the plague at Alexandria was the only powerful motive which induced 1st CHARGE. The King of England com the English to abandon that town; and, last plains, that "the proceedings of the French go ly, to evacuate the island of Malta, whose vernment relative to commerce, afford the command over the commerce of the Mediter-striking contrast to his open, liberal, and friend . rancan whispers to his avarice the perpetually conduct;" and that "the prohibitions thus

*Sce present vol. p. 743.

66

by no means the fact. The retention
Malta was the first act of this "console
of the peace of Europe;" and, at the p
sent moment, more than at any former
riod, the cannon of the English tyran
in the Mediterranean from the heights of t
rock, and insults the general commerce -
that ocean, in the same degree since the
nature of peace, as before that event wa
consummated. Facts speak louder t
words. The stubborn and hostile retenue
of the island of Malta is the sole reply to thesi
pretended" amicable intentions,” to this * * *
cere desire of his Britannic Majesty, to cORTS
bute to consolidate the general tranquillay &
Europe."

* See p. 743.

King of England asserts, that all prohibitions
on French commerce imposed during the war
were removed*." This cannot possibly be
true; for, previous to the war, a treaty of
commerce between France and Great Bri-
tain was. in existence. The various prohi
bitions during the war had destroyed the sti-
pulations of this treaty. In order, therefore,
that "all" the prohibitions "imposed during
the war" should be completely removed, it
would have been necessary to restore the ad-
vantages stipulated, with regard to France,
by the treaty of commerce; and this, assured-
ly, is what Great Britain has not done. On
the contrary, whatever could prove favour-
able to the commerce of France, has either
been totally prohibited in England, or made
subject to duties tantamount to a prohibition.
Is not Great Britain, of all nations, the most
exclusive in her commerce? Is it not the on-
ly one in possession of a Navigation Act?
But have the other powers of Europe dis-
covered a motive for warfare, either in her
Navigation Act, or her system of exclusion?
It is, therefore, highly absurd for England to
behold, in our proceedings relative to Bri-
fish commerce, a subject of war.
If she en-
tertains the foolish idea, that France will sa-
crifice the manufactures and industry of her
inhabitants to the manufactures and industry
of England, and that war must last till she has
attained this object, Great Britain must first
succeed in disarming us; which she will find
no easy enterprize against a nation of 33 mil-
lions of individuals, accustomed to victory,
and who have successfully resisted the com-
bined force of all Europe leagued against
them; against a nation which, through ten
years of triumphs, has taught the astonished
universe, that, in spite of civil wars and dis-
sentions, in spite of coalitions and crimes, or-
ganized and paid for, with unbounded prodi
gality, by the British government, nothing
can result from the imprudent attacks which
have been, and which may be made upon
her, but an accession of power, of genius,
and of courage; and that rivers can oppose
but a feeble barrier to her conquests, and her
just vengeance for violated treaties.

had been placed on the commerce of his Majesty's subjects during the war have been enforced with increased strictness and severity*! Here, then, we behold the conduct of the King of England suddenly become open, liberal, and friendly! Doubtless, yes; if openness consists in signing a treaty which was never intended to be executed; if liberality consists in prohibiting the introduction of French silks the moment they became fashionable in London; if friendship consists in carrying on war, with calumnies and with poignards during peace, and in hating and annoying, under the mask of benevolence and good neignbourhood. Can, then, the conduct of the King of England, under these points of view, be considered as open, liberal, and friendly Far more correct would it have been, to have termed his conduct dexterous and cunning, in the deceitful, political senses of those expressions; for the King, in order to flatter the manufacturing and mercantile spirit of the English, in which alone their public spirit consists, has not scrupled to assert in his declaration, that "the prohibitions on the commerce of his Majesty's subjects have been en forced with increased severity." That this assertion, also, is not founded in fact, proof upon proof might be adduced; but the following will be sufficient for our purpose. During the war, no British vessel landed her cargo in France; since the peace, our ports have been crowded with them. The introduction of English coal was prohibited during the war; it has been permitted since the peace. Besides, how can prohibitions of this nature be made a ground of complaint? Seeing that they are reciprocal, and in no country are so numerous or so rigid as in Great Britain. Our merchandize, and even our territorial produce, have invariably been rejected. Our wines can with difficulty find their way thither, and the duties upon them are exorbitant. The British government, jealous of the prosperity of all nations, would render all nations subject to its industry, and permit no consumption but the exports of its own commerce. Has France renounced her powers of industry, and her commercial spirit, by setting her hand to a treaty of peace? The King of England declares, that " acts Has she sanctioned at Amiens the exclusive of violence have been offered to English vessels commerce and manufactures of Great Bri-and their property; and that, in no cure has tain? Has not the latter her prohibitions, her imposts, and her custom-house duties? And in no respect does France infringe upon the treaty of peace, by organizing, in her turn, her customs and her prohibitions, according as the interest of her commerce and industry may require.

With the same want of correctness, the

* See p. 743.

justice been afforded, nor any satisfactory answer given to the repeated representations made by his Majesty's ministers or ambassador at Parist." When intended as the bases of national hostilities, acts of violence so flagrant ought, at least, to Lave been distinctly specified, and clearly proved. On the contrary, his Britannic Majesty his avoided a

* Scep. 74.