of them were furnished with instructions to obtain the soundings of the harbours, and to pro cure military surveys of the places where it was intended they should reside. His Majesty represented to the French government the necessity of withdrawing them *.”

distinct enumeration, for the purpose of ren- cumstance that some of them were MILITARY dering still more vague and extensive, a griev-MEN, but by the actual discovery, that several ance totally unfounded. As to the pretended non-success of the representations made by his ministers or ambassador, in behalf of some British merchants, it is a fact of incontestible notoriety, that no one representation from the ministers of the King of England has not been taken into consideration. More than two hundred decisions in favour of British merchants could be cited in support of this assertion. So much for our "refusal to afford justice," and this legitimate motive"

for entering upon a new war!

Here, then, we are favoured with confec tures and suspicions, as pretexts for the violation, with regard to our commercial agents, of the established law of nations! Suspicions and conjectures for the ground-work of a declaration of war!!! The reasoning, it must be confessed, is most clear and convincing; but let us enquire, for a moment, into the correctness of the facts? In the first place, the French government has dispatched no commercial agents into Great Britain, but with regular, formal instructions, similar to those which have invariably been given, from the ministry of Colbert to the present day. Secondly, the French government has distributed none of these commercial commissions

convinced of the truth of the assertion, that none of the commercial envoys sent to England were "military men,” an examination of the public printed list of the commercial agents will alone be sufficient. But, admitting that they had formerly been employed in the service of the army, if this circumstance be a motive for hostilities, how happens it that the King of England never thought proper to complain of the French ambassador, who was, at one and the same time, both a

2nd CHARGE. "The French government has had recourse," says the King's Declaration, "to the extraordinary measure of sending over to England a number of persons, for the professed purpose of residing in the most considerable sea-port towns of Great Britain, in the character of commercial agents; a character to which they could have no pretensions, but from a commercial treaty; and no treaty of that description was in existence between his Majesty and the French Republic *" If the French go-to any "military man" whatever. To be vernment have employed commercial agents, it has been by virtue of the usage and universally acknowledged law of Europe. Since commerce, the principal agent of modern civilization, forms also the grand basis of the prosperity, the riches, and the strength of nations, commercial relations have become a sort of natural right, a law of nations among civilized people. To be authorized to employ commercial agents in a foreign country, it does not necessarily follow, that a commercial treaty must exist between us and that" military man" and an engineer? Thirdly, country. Thus it is that we send them to Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Prussia, and America; and that these powers dispatch other commercial agents to us in return, although we have no commercial treaty with those powers. Thus it is, that England herself maintains them in Holland, and in various other countries, although no such treaty is in existence between them; and that, from time immemorial, commercial agents have been reciprocally admitted among all nations. Commerce and its respective agents are anterior to all treaties, whether of diplomacy or of commerce; and are, above all, independ-vernment? ent of those very treaties. This, therefore, is not, as the King of England is pleased to assert, an "extraordinary measure" on the part of the French government.

"There was, consequently, too much reason to CONJECTURE," continues the declaration, "that the real object of their mission was, by no means of a commercial nature; and this SUSPICION was confirmed, not only by the cir

* See p. 743.

the whole commercial world knows, that Citizen Coquebert, the first who arrived in England on a mission similar to that of all the others, was extremely well received by the British government, and that his Majesty's ministers apparently beheld his arrival with satisfaction. With respect to the representation on the subject of the pretended mission for the purpose of "obtaining the soundings of the harbours, and procuring military surveys of the places where it was intended they should reside," was such a representation, we wish to ask, ever made to the French go.

Without an answer to this query, we cannot seriously enter into a refutation of the charge; seeing that the soundings of harbours, and plans of fortified towns, are to be met with in publications, within the reach of every person, and that none of our commercial agents were dispatched to places of this description.

Nevertheless, his Britannic Majesty "felt it to be his duty, to prevent their departure to

* See p. 744

their respective places of destination. It can- can take place between the two countries not be denied," he observes," that the circum-seeing that peace and war embrace all time. stances under which they were sent, and the in- The British government, faithful to its blind structions which were given them, ought to be and inveterate hatred, declares also, that considered as decisive indications of the dispo-" the proceedings of the French, in the whole sitions and intentions of the government by whom they were employed *" Thus it is, that after the conclusion of a solemn treaty of peace, the English government has prevented the departure of the commercial agents of France to their respective places of destination (this open avowal of the infraction of the rights of peace and of reciprocity between two friendly nations is extremely curious); thus it is, that it interprets, at its pleasure, the instructions it supposes to have been given to these commercial agents, instructions which have nothing hostile or suspicious in them, but the false interpretations put upon them by the British government: thus it is, that this government, after having formed merely conjectures and suspicions as to the mission of these commercial envoys, suddenly considers the "circumstance of the peace established at Amiens, and the instructions given to the commercial agents, as decisive indications of the dispositions and intentions of the government by whom they were employed:" henceforth, therefore, the powers of Europe will no longer declare war upon grounds of aggression, upon acts of hostility, or upon self-evident facts. England opens to us a shorter course to the mad thirst of war. A new treatise on peace and war will speedily spring from the diplomatic heads of the cabinet of St. James's; and, in future, conjectures, upon suspicions of enmity, upon indications, upon dispositions, upon intentions, will the powers of Europe, in imitation of England, found their declarations of war. Former publicists have written merely upon positive facts, upon absolute acts of hostility; but the publicists of Westminster have established a new political code, and have given a far greater latitude to the chances of war, by establishing the benevolent system of intentional hostilities.

After the introduction of such a system into the politics of England, it is by no means surprising that the king should conclude, that "the conduct of the French government, with respect to the commercial intercourse between the two countries is ill-suited to a state of peace t." At what period, then, may we expect that England will consent to receive the commercial agents of France, since the moment of peace appears to her unfavourable to this species of relation? In a time of war a commercial intercourse would, certainly, not be agreeable to her: consequently no possible contact, whether commercial or political, + Ibid.

* See p. 744.

of their political relations, are altogether inconsistent with every principle of good faith moderation, and justice*." The King of England, then, imagines himself in the exclusive possession of these sublime virtues. He imagines himself the possessor of "every principle of justice"-by seizing, by force or by cunning, upon every thing suitable to his convenience, and by fancying, that every thing suitable to his convenience instantly becomes his property. He imagines himself the possessor of "every principle of moderation," by granting to one of the greatest powers of the continent, the space of thirtysix hours, for the cession of Lampedosa, an island which does not belong to it, and for consenting to the usurpation of Malta, the property of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and the Maltese! He imagines himself the possessor of " every principle of good faith"--by openly violating the treaty of Amiens, which engaged him to evacuate Malta in the space of three months, by presenting to Europe the example of a monarch one day dispatching orders for the restitution of the Cape of Good Hope to the Dutch, by virtue of the treaty of Amiens, and the following day commanding the retention of it, in direct violation of the same treaty: a system of "justice," of "moderation," and of "good faith," scarcely to be met with among barbarians; a system which, happily, the moral code of Europe is, by no means, disposed to admit, and which all the naval forces and all the diplomatic quirks of the British government will never succeed in introducing among civilized nations.

3rd CHARGE. "His Majesty had entertained hopes that he should have succeeded in bringing France to adopt a system of policy, which, if it had not inspired other powers with confidence, might, at least, have allayed their jealousies +." But to what " system of policy" did the King of England hope to "bring the French government?" Was it to a system of apathy, which, throughout Europe, would have left peace or war, partition or boundary, commerce or destruction, industry or subjection, the examination of vessels in time of peace, and the destruction of the ports of the various states of the continent, entirely at the insolent disposal of Great Britain? Was it to a system of general disarming, of military abasement of spirit, of non-vigilance over our coasts and principal +Ibid.

* See p. 744

towns? Was it to a system of hostility against our own customs, and of preference to British manufactures over those of our native country? Was it, in short, to a system of dissimulation in the non-execution of the treaty of Amiens, the tardy evacuation of Alexandria, the retention of the island of Malta, and of ambition secretly turned to wards the two Sicilies? The King, it must be confessed, expresses himself feebly on these heads; his language is, nevertheless, perfectly intelligible. It is evident, that the British government still remember those happy times, when indolent sovereigns and venal ministers delivered over their deluded and vilified country, without opposition or remorse, into the hands of the British ministry. It is evident, that the King of England turns, with affliction, his tender regards to that fortunate period, when, by means of a few corrupt millions and diplomatic menaces, he exercised absolute control over the politics and general direction of affairs in France. How unfortunate it is for the illustrious and pacific reign of George the Third, that he can no longer hope to behold one of his honourable commissaries, seated upon the ruins of Dunkirk, commanding the French, with the gold and the arrogance of his master, not to erect stone upon stone in the dishonoured fortifications of that port, as its existence endangered the security and repose of

Great Britain!

the present discussions, and the motives for entering upon the present war, might be sovereignly decided, through their mediation. Is the English government able to say as much? Has that government, which speaks so loudly of the pretended "jealousy" of these powers, dared to discover the same confidence in their intervention? Has it not refused their justice, or eluded their me diation? Does it not rather perceive, that the jealousy of these powers is turned, with more justice, towards England herself, and that if, at any moment, they stand in need of encouragement, it is when they reflect upon the gigantic ambition, the secret views, the deceitful politics, and, above all, the presumption with which the British government arrogates to itself universal monarchy, gene ral colonization, the tyranny of commerce, and the sovereignty of the seas? In vain does this Machiavellian government wish turn aside the attention of the powers of Europe, by seeking to excite their jealousy against France. Never will those powers lose sight of the great coNTINENTAL interest: they feel that France exists but to preserve them from British piracies in the Mediterranean; that she extends her power over the shores of the west and the north, but to guarantee the commerce and industry of the continent from the ravages of British merchants. The ports of France are the bul warks of Europe against the pirates of Great Britain; her armies are the dread of the ty rant of the seas and if ever the scourge English colonization should strike with slavery and desolation this beautiful and magnificent portion of Europe, it will not be till France shall have lost her political existence and her victorious armies. But what do I say? France is continental, populous, rich, powerful, enlightened, and governed by the genius of war, who arms but for general peace universal commerce. And yet England,her power factitious, her riches artificial, her government head-strong and ignorant, her politics venal, her colonies oppressed, her friends doubtful, her citizens discontented,, her credit in danger, her administration overwhelmed with debts; still dares to violate treaties, and threaten the conquerors!!!

of

and

But to enter into a more serious refutation of these charges. "His Majesty had entertained hopes of bringing France to adopt a system of policy, which, if it had not inspired confidence, mi ha at least have allayed their jealousies." Confidence apart, (since that is a sentiment which the King of England does not wish to inspire) which are these same powers, whose jealousies stood in such need of being allayed Is it the Emperor of Russia, with whom France acted in concert, in the arrangement of the affairs of the Germanic body, and whose generous and pacific character has unceasingly led him to desire the tranquillity of Europe Is it the King of Prussia, over whom the influence which France has obtained, by her victories and her justice, has nothing diminished of his rights and his political importance? Is it, lastly, the Emperor of Ger- What an astonishing contrast! The King many, he who has no longer any point of of England, nevertheless, ventures to decontact with France, and who, by the late clare, that if the French government kad treaties, has acquired a maritime existence proved their dispositions to be essentially pacific, and territorial concessions, in one of the allowances would have been made for the situa finest portions of Italy-Alas! so little does tion in which a new government must be placed, France distrust the justice and the friendly after so dreadful and extensive a convulsion, as dispositions of these powers, so great in them- that which has been produced by the French reselves, and so powerful from their enlighten-volution" What does the King of England. ed policy, that the French government has repeatedly manifested its express wish, that |

* See p.

744.

cuated, but it was positively known that Malta and Alexandria were not. The stay of the French troops in Holland was the neces sary consequence of the garrisons which the English kept up, and were incessantly augmenting, at Malta. Besides, the stay of the French troops in Holland gave no offence to the Batavian government, whilst the reinforcement of the garrison of Malta, and the non-admission of the Neapolitan garrison intợ the forts of that island, discovered to Europe a project of ambition in the Mediterranean, and a premeditated violation of a solemn trea ty of general peace.-If, by an article in the treaty of Amiens, France had been obligated to evacuate Holland, the non-execution of the conditions accepted by England, would have released her from her engagement. But so far is this from being the case, that the treaty of Amiens stipulates in no shape whatever, for the evacuation of Holland: France, nevertheless, concluded a treaty with Holland,

understand by "dispositions essentially pacific" Doubtless, that France and her allies should be left entirely unprepared, that we should no longer maintain forces sufficient to guarantee the security of the country, the English government secretly propose to attack or invade, that we leave her a free entrance into Holland, Switzerland, Piedmont, the Island of Elba, Naples, and the Sicilies, and that we should no longer possess the military means of forcing the power to execute a treaty, which, in signing it, had faithlessly premeditated its non-fulfilment. On such conditions of weakness and of inconceivable humiliation, would the King of England have consented "to make allowances" for the French government! Must then the French government be absolved in London for the crime of being victorious, powerful, and pacific, of being beloved by the nation, and of maintaining, with honour and courage, the majesty of the French people? Or rather, must it not retort upon the English govern-in which she expressed her readiness to with ment itself, this pretended "system of rio- draw 3000 men who still remained there, the lence, aggression, and aggrandizement ?" Was moment the execution of the treaty in the it not a system of violence, to refuse, in the three quarters of the globe, and particularly midst of immense maritime preparations, to the evacuation of the Cape, was known to execute the treaty of Amiens, and forcibly have taken place. In addition to this, France to expel the Neapolitan garrison, which was has repeatedly declared, during the period of never admitted into the forts, but sent back the late negotiations, her willingness to evato Messina? Was it not a system of ag-cuate Holland, the instant the stipulations of grandizement, to seize upon Malta in direct the treaty of Amiens were completely fulviolation of the faith of treaties, and thus to filled. domineer at pleasure over the whole commerce and navigation of the Mediterranean? And yet, the King of Great Britain, whose "system of violence and aggrandizement" is the sole cause of the renewal of hostilities, does not blush to prefer, still further, his charges against the French government!

2nd. With regard to Switzerland: the French government engaged, in the treaty of Amiens, to evacuate the kingdom of Naples, and the states of the Pope; it did not engage to evacuate Switzerland. At the conclusion of the treaty of Amiens, there were no fewer than twelve thousand French troops in Helvetia! "They have continued," he exclaims, " to It is, therefore, untrue to assert, that since keep a French army in Holland against the will, the signature of this treaty France "has in and in defiance of the remonstrances of the Ba- vaded the territory of Switzerland." But, in tavian Government, and in repugnance to framing the treaty of Luneville, it is not treaties. They have, in a period of peace, Switzerland that was acknowledged; it is the invaded the territory, and violated the inde- "Helvetic Republic, one, and fuch as it existed pendence of the Swiss nation, in defiance of the at the signature of this treaty." France, from treaty of Luneville. They have annexed to the her territorial and political situation with Switdominions of France, Piedmont, Parma, Pla- | zerland, possessed the natural obligation of centia, and the island of Elba, without allot-retaining French troops in those unfortunate ting any provision to the King of Sardinia, countries, in order to preserve them from the whom they have despoiled of the most valuable fatal influence of British agents, who poured part of his territory, though they were bound by into it their poison and their gold, and made a solemn engagement to the Emperor of Rus-it the receptacle of their arms and ammusia*." nition, their merchandize, and their abomiThis charge is as unfounded as the pre-nable calumnies against France.-The Helceding ones. This we shall briefly endea-vetic senate demanded, officially, the intervour to prove: 1st. With respect to Holland:vention of France, in order that a term might At the moment of the King's Message, it was not known whether or not the Cape was eva

be put to their dreadful intestine commotions. It was, then, at the express desire of the Helvetic government, that France interfered in the unfortunate affairs of Helvetia. But why *Nan

was this republic necessitated to throw herself | tional administrations were completely estabupon France? And why did France behold herself obliged to interfere? The King of England answers these questions himself, when he informs us, that "measures were taken by him to ascertain the real situation and wishes of the Swiss Cantons." * Now, it was not the Swiss Cantons which were acknowledged at Luneville, but the Helvetic Republic, existing in a system of unity. Thus, then, while his Britannic Majesty was generously labouring to assist the Swiss Cantons, and to light up the torch of civil discord, it is he alone who has been endeavouring to destroy one of the stipulations of the treaty of Luneville. This avowal, on the part of the King of England, is extremely remarkable in the same manifesto, in which he complains, that France has appeased the civil dissensions which it was so much his interest to excite! -Switzerland, however, has at last arrived at a state of perfect tranquillity. The French troops, far from violating her independence, have secured to her repose, and her ancient constitutions; for she now enjoys the same system of government, as she possessed before the blow aimed at her existence by the Executive Directory, and has regained her ancient customs, her ancient manners, and her ancient federation. Such is the testimony which the powers bordering upon Switzerland have borne to the conduct of France. For the King of England tells us, with extreme candour," that having_ascertained the sentiments of the other cabinets of Europe, he has learned, with the utmost regret, that none of the powers most immediately interested in preventing these repeated infractions of treaties and acts of violence, bad manifested no disposition to counteract them." If, then, Austria herself, in spite of the instigations of the cabinet of London, does not conceive that France has committed" acts of violence," or "infractions of treaties," why has not this testimony of the cabinets the most immediately interested," a testimony every way favourable to France, arrested the turbulent and insidious pen of the author of the Anglican manifesto?"

lished, organized, and in full activity. This union was so evidently completed, and ad plomatic fact of such notoriety, that at the conferences at Amiens, Lord Cornwally offered a acknowledge Etruria, provided France would restore Piedmont to the King of Sardinia. T proposition was, however, rejected. If, the England, in the year 10, did not make the restitution of Piedmont one of the conditio of peace, on what ground does she make, in the year. 11, the retention of Piedmont by France a ground of hostilities? This portion of the manifesto is as absurd and contradictory, as it is disgusting and contemptible.-To he the complaints of England on the union si Piedmont to France, one would imagine Britannic Majesty was touched with the mos lively interest in favour of the King of Se dinia. But, no! He, apparently, manifested the same disposition at the framing of the treaty of Amiens. The French governmen proposed to him, to leave Ceylon to the Dutch, and in lieu of that island, to make such an arrangement in behalf of the King of Sardinia, as he might propose: but the King of Great Britain, who takes in the fa of all sovereigns, but a speculative and perely diplomatic interest, speedily declined the pro position; and the King of Sardinia sawa! self abandoned by the very man, who has himself up, in the present manifesto, tur ostensible defender. Thus, then, since Britannic Majesty has been unwilling to make any sacrifices for the King of Sardinia, assuredly, lost his estates from his alliance t England; or make any stipulation for him in the treaty of Amiens, why, from the prese condition of that prince, conjure up a cause of complaint against the French governme We might, perhaps, be contented, as equivalent for Piedmont, with the restitution of the estates of Tippoo Saib to his unict nate children! But, the fact is, that when England spoke of the King of Sardinia in het ultimatum, she was told that the French gover ment were extremely willing to treat upon that subject. Why, then, make a ground of war, of what was a proposed article of ne gotiation?

With respect to the island of Elba, Porto Ferrajo, the principal town was given up to France, in execution of the treaty of Amiens, by the English garrison itself; and the treaty existing between France and the King of Etruria was known to all Europe.

3rd. The King of England is not a whit more correct in what concerns the "union of Piedmont, Parma, Placentia, and the island of Elba, without allowing any provision to the King of Sardinia." From this expression in the royal declaration, one would be led to suppose, that, at the moment of signing the treaty of Amiens (Ventose, year 10), the King of Sardinia was still reigning at Turin. On the contrary, this Sovereign had lost Piedmont long before that period, which country was united and incorporated with France at the tinie of that treaty. The customs and na-pletion of the engagements subsisting between

As to Parma and Placentia, it is not true that these countries are united to France. With regard to the officious interest his Britannic Majesty is pleased to take in the com

France and Russia, we shall only observe, that France has proposed the mediation of