England resumes War with France without Explanation.

19

In 1806 the two nations were weary of the war. The Minister, PITT, was overthrown in England, and Mr. Fox was put in his place for the purpose of facilitating peace. The negotiations which were opened at Paris, terminated. The English negotiator announced to his court that all questions between England and France were definitively settled. The war was, however, resumed by the act of England, and not one word of explanation was ever given to justify the eight years of ravage which ensued

I say that if the English nation had then required, as a condition for the resumption of hostilities, the assent of a single man not compromised in the affair, that third war with France could never have been made. I might say as much, in the way of parenthesis, of the two which had preceded it, and of the fourth which had to follow.

I base this declaration of impossibility on the real motive of that war, which was not less devoid of legal motive than that of 1838 against DOST MOHAMMED, and which could only have been explained by forgeries, if explanation of it had been demanded.

I shall be asked what that motive was and how I came to know it. It is not in written history that it is to be found; but it is written in characters of bronze in that real history which no one reads; that is to say, in the public documents. It is England herself who, in a solemn "DECLARATION" bearing date December 7th, 1807, avowed that the resumption of hostilities with France in 1806 was induced by no act or pretention of France, nor by any interest on the part of England.

I say then with a certainty and an authority which no man of good faith will question, that the previous assent to that war of a man not compromised by and not in the secrets of the Cabinet, and with the prospect of future responsibility, was impossible.

What then was the explanation given by the English Government in that document, and what its justification for such a crime?

There was none. It acknowledged the fact in its nakedness, and placed it to the account of "policy." But that document does not confine itself to this incident of the struggle which had then been going on since 1793, which afterwards lasted until 1815, and into the circle of which all the nations of Europe were drawn. The war with Turkey (the bombardment of Constantinople by the English without a declaration of war), is explained in the same terms, as having had nothing to do with English interests; that is to say, that it was without cause or pretext. Causes and pretexts which would certainly have been required by a man appointed to investigate the case; and in the absence of charges against the accused (the adverse party) it would have been impossible to pronounce a sentence.

FOUR WARS BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

The first war against France had been commenced by England. (It is not here necessary to take into account Russia and Prussia, who were powerless without the fleets, money, and support of England).

She had made it without a declaration of war.

20

English Falsification of Lord Whitworth's Note.

She could not have made it otherwise; for the pretended motives put forward for it would have been inadmissible in a legal document, which could only have contained the alleged and proved injuries, and the refusal to make reparation.

It was made in consequence of events which had occurred in the interior of France. It is true that there had been a violation by the National Convention of certain stipulations contained in the Treaty of Westphalia respecting Alsace and Lorraine. But as England did not take grounds on this infraction, and as nobody thought of it until the Congress of Vienna in 1814, it is useless to speak of it here.*

66

The second war happened in consequence of the refusal of England to restore Malta (according to the Treaty of Amiens). But the negotiations which preceded the resumption of hostilities in 1803, are too remarkable to be passed over. Lord WHITWORTH was the English Plenipotentiary. According to a note sent by him on the 10th of May to M. DE TALLEYRAND, the French propositions were rejected because of Russia: "And this proposition having been judged impracticable by the refusal of His Majesty the Emperor of "RUSSIA to accede to it." These are the words which we find in the note referred to. The question had reference to the island of Malta, which France had proposed to place in the hands of Austria, Russia, or Prussia, until the two Governments could arrive at an agreement with respect to it. England declared that she could not accept the intervention of other Powers, with the sole exception of Russia, and the Russian Emperor on his side refused it. The affair is thus narrated by Lord HAWKESBURY, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a letter to Lord WHITWORTH, dated May 7, 1803.

The words having reference to Russia which I have cited from Lord WHITWORTH, do not appear in his note printed among the other papers presented to Parliament! This suppression caused the French Government to accuse the English Government of having falsified the note in question; and this charge it established by publishing the original note in the Moniteur. There can be no doubt regarding the truth of the accusation; for we have the reply of TALLEYRAND to the same note (dated May 12), in which he expressed himself as follows: "That which your Excellency mentions in your note of "the 20th of this month" (20th of Floréal, which answers to the 10th of May), "is based on the refusal of the Emperor of RUSSIA to "consent to it." This reply was published by the English Government, but only after the debate in the House, and after orders had been given for the recommencement of hostilities. So true it is that knowledge after the event is good for nothing. TALLEYRAND'S note was published on the 24th of May, and already, that is to say, on the 16th, letters of marque had been issued and an embargo proclaimed.†

*The Emperor of Germany based his declaration of war on this act of the Convention. I speak here only of England.

† M. Duruy, in his "History of France," says, in speaking of the rupture of 1803:

Russia as a Peace-maker.

21

I find in an anonymous history the following very curious passage regarding the conduct of Russia in this affair:

"Russia all the while appeared in the shape of a peacemaker, "though WORONZOW, the Czar's Ambassador in London undisguisedly censured the ADDINGTON Ministry for their yielding con"duct at Amiens; and in recommending joint action to prevent the "dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, took pains to convince the English statesmen that BONAPARTE n'osait pas se brouilller avec

66

vous.

It is to be remarked that these terrible undertakings were induced neither by the "policy" of the Government nor any national interest; and still less by any popular passion. Passion there was when the war was once commenced, but it was a factitious passion based on the perversion of mind known by the name of national honour; honour distinct from justice. Instead of yielding to popular impulse, as people were pleased to explain the conduct of the Government, that Government had the greatest difficulty in procuring its projects to be accepted; as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who had taken part in commencing these four wars, avowed without evasion. It is true that this avowal was made to a foreign potentate, "in whose interest "and under whose influence" all these wars of the revolution were made.†

The results of the two first wars were, that France took possession of Hanover, the crown of which was worn by the King of England, of Holland, of the countries belonging to the Confederation of the Rhine, and of Italy. She had, notwithstanding, reached the end of her resources, and had no other object in view but that of securing peace on the condition that she might retain her conquests.

England, who was equally exhausted, though in consequence of fruitless efforts, was desirous of peace. She declared in her reasons for negotiating that the war had no object, and that she possessed no further means of continuing it.

So that the two parties were disposed to treat on the footing that all conquests acquired should be retained.

The negotiations therefore opened at Paris on the basis of uti possidetis.

The Treaty, however, which was negotiated gave Hanover back to England, abandoned Malta to her, and surrendered to her the Cape of Good Hope, which an English expedition had seized upon during the negotiations.

Let us suppose that the Privy Council had intervened at this point only.

"The English Minister, without a declaration of war, caused to be seized on the high seas 1200 French and Batavian ships."

An English historian says: "The orders in Council with respect to letters of marque and the proclamation of an embargo, which were published two days after the return of Lord Whitworth, led to the capture or detention of, 200 French and Batavian ships, having cargoes on board of the value of three millions sterling."-Knight's Pictorial History of England. *State Policy of Modern Europe, from the beginning of the sixteenth century to the present time.-Vol. ii. p. 51, 1857.

† Lord Castlereagh; see his letters in the Appendix, Nos. 4 and 5.

22

Questions the Privy Council must have asked.

The Government presents itself before the Council to obtain its assent to the new war which it proposes to make, saying to it, "It is "necessary to resume hostilities with France."

The Council would ask if France had refused to comply with the demands made upon her, or if she had advanced new pretensions. The Government would have had to reply what it published after the resumption of hostilities in order to justify them :

"No! France has not refused any of our demands. "vanced no new pretension."

She has ad

"On what grounds then do you desire to make war?" the Council would ask.

The Government would then have to answer: "But France has "refused to consent to the dismemberment of a third Power for the "profit of a fourth."

The Council would then have insisted upon knowing whether these conditions were embraced in the first project of agreement, and the Government would have found it impossible to say that they formed any part of it.

During the course of these negotiations a separate peace had been signed at Paris by M. D'OUBRIL, the Russian Ambassador; a peace which was based on the status ante bellum, which for Russia was the same thing as the uti possidetis; for she had neither gained nor lost territory. She by this means had left England alone face to face with France. It is true that the Emperor refused to ratify the act of his Ambassador, under the pretext that he had exceeded his powers. But the English Government was not the dupe of this manœuvre; for we find in an official pamphlet the following passage ;

66

"It is not worth while any longer to disguise the truth.

He

66 (M. D'OUBRIL) was furnished with full powers to conclude a peace, and, let us tell the truth, such a peace as he made; namely, "the status ante bellum as regards Russia."*

The change which took place at St. Petersburg is, in this pamphlet, explained according to its manner by the English Government. That which is evident for us is, that Russia profited by the occasion to attach the then English Government to herself more strongly than ever. She gave herself the air of having been extraordinarily generous, and put herself forward as acting only in view of the interests of England and those of Europe in refusing to make peace with France. The news of the refusal of the Emperor arrived just in time to break up the English negotiations at Paris. The incident is thus narrated in "The State of the Negotiation:"

"In the mean time arrived the important intelligence of the refusal "of the Emperor of RUSSIA to ratify the act concluded by M.D'OUBRIL, "and about the same period of time an official assurance to the Go

*"State of the Negotiation, with details of its progress and causes of its determination in the recall of the Earl of Lauderdale," p. 57; a pamphlet published by the Government in order that "in the necessary delay of the official papers the public may be enabled to form a due estimate of the conduct of His Majesty's Ministers." London: Printed for John Stockdale, Piccadilly. 1806. See Appendix, No. 6.

23

England forwards Russia's Demands without knowing them. "vernment of England that His Imperial Majesty of the Russias would "conclude no peace but in concert with Great Britain. "Here was, therefore, a third era in the negotiations since the "arrival of the Earl of LAUDERDALE. His lordship was now raised 66 to higher ground."*

This is to say, that the English negotiator made fresh demands on account of England, and added demands thereto on account of Russia. The English Government, according to its own words, was quite ready to forward the Russian demands without knowing what they were. I find in a despatch from London, drawn up after the arrival of the disavowal of M. D'OUBRIL, and addressed to Lord LAUDERDALE on the 4th of September, 1806, the following passage:

"In a few days we shall probably learn the new projects and future "intentions of Russia, which must necessarily be taken into account in "all negotiations yet to come."

This was literally the "State of the Negotiation" in the month of August, 1806.

I say that it would have been impossible for the Privy Council, having been thus put in possession of the facts before the first shot was fired, to have given its assent to the resumption of hostilities; the Privy Council, as constituted by the Act of Parliament of the 12th year of the reign of WILLIAM III., by which each member of that Council had to sign his name to the advice he gave, the book being in the custody of an officer appointed for the purpose, and producible on the demand of Parliament; in order that each might be prosecuted on a criminal charge, for having given advice not conformable to the Law, the honour of the Crown, and the interest of the Kingdom.

The most instructive part of this resumé remains to be indicated. In such a check the Government itself would have found a refuge against the sort of pressure to which it succumbed. This pressure consisted, not only in the superior faculties and trained intellects of the diplomatists whom the English Ministers had to encounter, also in the insubordination of their own agents, who acted in concert with the agents of other countries, and who involved and compromised them.

but

ALISON, the English historian par excellence of this period, thus relates the incident of the return of Lord WHITWORTH :

66

66

"As a last resource, finding the English Ambassador very determined, TALLEYRAND proposed an arrangement by which the island "of Malta should be surrendered to Great Britain in perpetuity for a proper equivalent. But Lord WHITWORTH did not consider that "he was authorised to negotiate an arrangement which amounted to 66 an exchange of territory in place of an indemnity in the nature of a guarantee for the future. Lord WHITWORTH demanded his passports and received them on the 12th of May."

66

66

*"State of the Negotiation," p. 87.