364 OPINIONS OF PARLIAMENT. CH. XLI. Hence it was, that the announcement of peace, after the war had long ceased to have any definite object, was greeted with demonstrations of joy, such as had never been equalled after the most signal triumphs of our arms. The nation, being in this temper, was not very critical in scanning the terms which the Government had agreed to. At the meeting of Parliament, on the 29th of October, the address, in answer to the King's speech, announcing the convention with the Northern Powers, and the preliminary treaty with France, was voted without opposition, after short debates. The old War party, never considerable in regard to numbers, led by Grenville and Windham, denounced the treaty as a mere armed truce, entered upon without necessity, negotiated without wisdom, and concluded without honour. England, they said, was a conquered country, and Bonaparte as much its master as he was of Spain or Prussia. But it was not the treaty, which these statesmen censured so much as the peace. According to their views England should have continued the war until its original objects were accomplished; until the spirit of Jacobinism was extirpated, and until the military ambition of France was restrained within fixed limits. On the other hand, the old opposition, as insignificant in point of following as the War party, but still more distinguished by the quality of its leaders, applauded both the peace and the treaty, because they had failed to accomplish the objects of the war. Those objects, they said, were the restoration of an odious despotism, and a guarantee to kings against the liberties of their people. Public opinion lay between these extremes, and was, on the whole, well expressed by Mr. Pitt. He said, that whatever views might have been entertained at different periods of this protracted war, all thinking men were now agreed that after the dissolution of the European 1801. OPINIONS OF PARLIAMENT. 365 alliance, and the conclusion of peace between France and the several Continental Powers, this country could not fairly be expected to entertain any other object than the termination of the war upon such terms as should not be dishonourable to herself, or disadvantageous to her remaining allies. He did not describe it as a glorious peace; nor did he venture to predict that it would be durable. Whatever treaty we might make with the French people, whether ruled by a Bonaparte or a Bourbon, its stipulations would be observed only so long as they considered it beneficial to their interest to do so. An epigrammatic phrase which Sheridan let fall in one of the debates, was taken up and passed from mouth to mouth. 'It was a peace,' he said, 'which everybody would be glad of, but which nobody could be proud of.' powers, Northern Convention. The convention with Russia and the Baltic which recognised substantially all the Grenville's principles of maritime law for which this attack on the country had ever contended, seemed hardly to present any topic for unfavourable criticism, even to the most captious opponent; yet Lord Grenville, who was certainly not actuated by a personal or party opposition to the Government, thought fit to make a deliberate attack on this compact, as if it had surrendered the most cherished rights and privileges of the flag. In a speech still referred to * for the great knowledge and ability which it displayed, the late Minister for Foreign Affairs sustained the pretensions of the belligerent flag at their highest point, and contended that the slight concessions made by England were a serious derogation from her maritime rights. He went so far as to assert, that i. the stipulations of the treaty remained unaltered, our system of maritime law, instead of having been confirmed * 13th November, 1801.-Parliamentary History. 366 by the issue of a successful contest, would be found to have been, in all its parts, essentially impaired; its principles shaken, its exercise embarrassed, and its clearest regulations made matter of eternal dissension and contest. But this sweeping condemnation was ill-sustained by the cavils which Grenville urged against the several articles. He complained that the first article did not, in terms sufficiently explicit, prohibit neutrals from taking up the French, or any other coasting trade in time of war; and that the colonial trade was absolutely surrendered. On these points, the Lord Chancellor replied that such concessions had not been intended, and did not result from the construction of the terms. With regard to the great principle, that free ships make free goods, which had been the foundation of the Armed Neutrality, Lord Grenville admitted that this was given up; but he thought the restricted definition of contraband, and the reduction of the number of native seamen required to entitle a ship to the privilege of neutrality, were dangerous relaxations of the existing law. The article, which abolished loose or paper blockades and substituted actual blockades was substantially adopted from the maritime code of 1780, and this, therefore, gave great offence to a statesman, who was persuaded that the belligerent interests of this country were incompatible with any independent exercise of their commercial rights by neutrals. The article, which removed the more offensive incidents to the right of search, and restricted it as a general rule to the papers of the ship subject to visit, was represented as a virtual abandonment of the right. Lord Grenville's elaborate attack upon the convention received no support, and in answer to an eloquent appeal, which he had made to the great naval commanders who had been ennobled for their services, Nelson declared that he entirely approved of the convention, which he considered just and satisfactory. GRENVILLE ON THE ARMED NEUTRALITY. CH. XLI 1801. BONAPARTE'S RECEPTION OF CORNWALLIS. 367 The Marquis Cornwallis was sent to Paris to conclude the definitive treaty with the French Definitive Government. The English ambassador treaty. was treated with every mark of distinction; and his reception formed a striking contrast to that which Lord Malmesbury had experienced three years before. But the vain, incapable Directory, giddy with sudden elevation, had been swept away, and in their place was a ruler who knew how to respect the power which had been exhibited at the Nile, at Alexandria, and at Copenhagen. Bonaparte himself, who had been accustomed to treat the representatives of the European states with an insolence measured by his sense of his own ability compared with their weakness, behaved with scrupulous civility and respect to the ambassador of Great Britain. While he assumed the tone of an absolute ruler with reference to the policy of France, he affected a frank, liberal, and conciliatory spirit in dealing with the demands of the English Government. He said that he was desirous of peace, because France had entirely lost her commerce, and her pecuniary resources were almost exhausted. With reference to a formidable expedition which he had lately sent to the West Indies, with the avowed object of subduing the black populations of St. Domingo and Guadaloupe, the First Consul went so far as to say, that had he been informed of the objections entertained by the British Government to that expedition, it should have been abandoned. He expressed also, in very obliging terms, his willingness to consent to a provision in the treaty for an indemnity to the Prince of Orange, since His Britannic Majesty felt a personal interest in the matter. These civilities were important only as showing the estimation in which England was held, and that French diplomacy had resumed the tone and temper which became a civilised power. But the British plenipotentiary would have been greatly misled, if he had interpreted the frank 368 NEGOTIATIONS AT PARIS. CH. XLI. ness and courtesy of the First Consul as meaning anything more.* * Lord Cornwallis's instructions were to adhere to the preliminaries, adding only the demand for compensation to the Prince of Orange for the loss of his property. But great Difficulties in adjusting the terms. difficulty was experienced in adjusting the terms comprised in the preliminary articles; and the utmost vigilance and firmness were needed in holding the French Government to the letter and the spirit of their engagements. After Lord Cornwallis's interview with the head of the French Government, the formal conferences were transferred to Amiens, Joseph Bonaparte being accredited as the French plenipotentiary; the Chevalier d'Azara and M. Schimmelpenninck were, after some hesitation on the part of France, admitted as the representatives of Spain and Holland. The negotiations were protracted to such a length by the evasion and duplicity of the French Government, that great doubts were entertained at home of their reaching a satisfactory termination. More than once they were, in fact, on the point of breaking off; but it was the policy of Bonaparte to make a temporary peace, and when he found that the English Government were neither to be intimidated nor cajoled, their just demands were yielded. At length, after the Congress had sat during four months, the definitive treaty was signed. It was substantially a faithful confirmation of the preliminary articles. Malta, the position of which had been left to be determined by the Congress, was placed under the protectorate of the principal European powers, with a garrison composed half of Maltese and half of troops furnished by the King of the Two Sicilies. The only additional article was that which provided for compensation to the Marquis Cornwallis to Lord Hawkesbury, 3rd December, 1801.-Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 399. |