happy, if they had only to complain of being abandoned in the same way. It is certain, that France did twice propose to Prussia a separate peace; but it was well understood, at a time when she had not the generous interposition of Russia in her favour, that the Prussian territory was not to have been evacuated until the English should have made peace. It is not, while a French army still occupies and lays waste the remaining dominions of the king of Prus sia, in spite of the stipulations of the Prussian treaty of Tilsit; while contributions are arbitrarily exacted by France from that remnant of the Prussian monarchy, such as, in its entire and most flourishing state, the Prussian monarchy would have been unable to discharge; while the surrender is demanded, in time of peace, of Prussian fortresses, which had not been reduced ducing the war; and while the power of France is exercised over Prussia with such shameless tyranny, as to demand for instant death, individuals, subjects of his Prussian Majesty, and resident in his dominions, upon a charge of disrespect towards the French government;-it is not while all these things are done and suffered, under the eyes of the Emperor of Russia, and without his interierence on behalf of his ally, that his Majesty can feel himself called upon to account to Europe for having hesitated to repose an unconditional confidence in the efficacy of his Imperial Majesty's mediation." (9) (9) This paragraph contains only false assertions. No new contributions have been laid upon the Prussian states; but those which had been imposed during the war were to be discharged. All the countries between the Niemen and the Vistula, forming a population of more than a million, have been evacuated: the rest has not; and the reason it has not is, because the treaty has not fixed the period for its evacuation: because the preliminary arrangements with the King of Prussia are not yet terminated; because the expedition to Copenhagen has recently thrown more uncertainty into the affairs of the North of Europe; because the Prussian minister (who according to the ancient policy of his cabinet, has, by perfidious communications, given such good information to the British Cabinet) is still in London; because English vessels have been received at Memel; because, in short, in the extraordinary circumstances in which the acts of injustice on the part of Great Britain have placed Europe, Russia and France must understand each other. As to the death of indivi duals, subjects of his Prussian Majesty, and the surrender of Prussian fortresses which could not be reduced during the war, these assertions are altogether unintelligible. France has, on the contrary, restored two more fortresses to Prussia, Cossel and Glatz. The French make war She loyally, and certainly do not put to death the peaceful subjects of conquered countries. They do not seize the property of individuals; they protect it. People of the continent, read the maritime code of England, and you will see what her code on land would be were she as powerful there as she is on the ocean. does not merely seize merely the ships of the Princes with whom she is at war, but also of merchant vessels which transport private property. There is no difference in the eye of equity between magazines of merchandize belonging to individuals in conquered countries, and the goods of traders which are stowed in merchant vesse's. According to the relations of equity, there is no difference between merchant vessels and convoys of goods transported by land from Hamburgh to Berlin, or from Trieste to Germany; and have the French armies been ever known to arrest such convoys! Have we not seen Lord Keith attempt to seize, at Genoa, vessels which were in port, and goods which were in the possession of the merchants of that city? He did but apply on land the principles of th maritime code of England. The Austrians and Prince de Von Hohenzollern who commanded them, were indignant at such oppression; they re sisted them, and the battle of Marengo bringing, a few days afterwards, the French into Genoa, also brought back the security of private proper ty. Whence, then, does so different a conduct arise? The one is the result of the atrabilarious and unjust policy of England, and the other of the liberal policy and civilization of France. If, on her part, she were mistress of the seas, she would be seen attacking none but armed vessels; she would be seen even protecting the property of the subjects of those states with which she might be at war. If we wish to compare the spirit of liberality and the civilization of the two nations, we should take as the terms of this comparison the French code of war on land, and its application to individuals and property, and the maritime code of the English, and its application to the individuals and property that are found on the ocean. But what motive could have induced the ministers of London to mention Prussia in this manifesto? Is it the interest of Prussia? But if the interest of Prussia touched them, they would have accepted the mediation of Russia. Why do they publish at this hour this indiscreet paragraph, which clearly shews that the spirit which has already caused the cabinet of Berlin to take so many false steps, is yet in motion? Is it to be useful to Prussia, and to conciliate for her the interest of France, of which, under the present circumstances, she stands in so great need? France has evacuated many countries, England not one: and the preliminary basis of all these negociatious was the uti possidetis. When the French treat with their enemies, they either charge the governments guilty of having united with England VOL. III. against the interests of the Continent, or if they evacuate a conquered country, it is in consequence of a durable peace, all the conditions of which are observed; and as they are never seen to attack their allies without a declaration of war, or treacherously surprize their capitals, so they are never seen to quit a fortress before its fate has been determined by negociation. The English attack for the sake of plunder, and retire when they have burnt and pil laged all before them. This war is. well suited to them, for it is a war of pirates. When they once entered Copenhagen, they should have remained there until peace was concluded. Nothing could equal the infamy of that attack, but the dis honour of their disgraceful flight. But if it were true that the French have exacted a little from their enemies, why should they not in fact? They have 800,000 troops, and they are ready to make every sacrifice to double their force, if it should be necessary; not that war is their natural trade, and that they do not sensibly feel the sacrifices which they make in withdrawing so many hands from the cultivation of their so fertile soil. In possession of a fine country, they wish to addict themselves to the conquests of commerce and industry; but your tyranny will not suffer them. You have roused a giant, who, having roused, you continue to irritate incessantly. During fifteen years, your injustice has only tended to add to his energy and power, which your perseverance in your tyranny will still increase. He not only will not lay down his arms, but he will augment his force until he has conquered the liberty of the seas, which is his first right, and the patrimony of all nutions. If the afflicting consequences of war are protracted, if the French troops continue a burthen to the territories which they occupy, you are the cause. All the calamities which op press Europe, proceed from you alone. These great questions are not to be resolved by diplomatic common-places. When you are disposed to make peace, France will be ready to make it. Of this you cannot be ignorant; you well know it. An anecdote generally known may be quoted in support of this assertion: When the Imperial Guard set out for Jena it was known that the Emperor was to join the army a few days after. Lord Lauderdale asked M. Champagny, whether, if England made peace, the Emperor Napoleon would consent to stop and countermand the murch of his troops against Prus вга. The Emperor replied in the affirmative. With one word you could have saved Prussia! By preventing the fall of this power, you would have maintained on the Elbe that barrier so necessary to your dearest interests, the re-establishment which in future is impossible. of "But while the alleged rejection of the Emperor of Russia's mediation, between Great Britain and France, is stated as a just ground of his Imperial Majesty's resentment, his Majesty's request of that mediation, for the re-establish ment of peace between Great Britain and Denmark, is represented as an insult which it was beyond the bounds of his Imperial Majesty's moderation to endure." (10.) (10) The Emperor of Russia must necessarily be offended at the communication that Mr. Canning made to Mr. Ryder (M. Rist), and in which the English minister declares himself certain that Russia would guarantee Denmark from the just resentment of France, if, after having suffered its independence to be violated, and its fleet to be carried away, Denmark should constitute itself into a British province. This falsehood had no effect but to irritate the Prince Royal: it could not impose upon any body. England wished Russia to guarantee Denmark from the resentment of France, at the time when she declared that she offered violence to Denmark only to guarantee herself from the secret engagements contracted at Tilsit, by the Emperor of Russia. It is really hard to determine which is the most remarkable in this instance, the bad reasoning or the immorality of the cabinet of London. "But until the Russian declaration was published, 'his Majesty had no reason to suspect that any opinions which of the transactions at Copenhagen, could the Emperor of Russia might entertain be such as to preclude his Imperial Majesty from undertaking, at the request of Great Britain, that same office of mediator, which he had assumed with so much alacrity on the behalf of France. Nor can his Majesty forget that the first the peace of Tilsit, the only prospect of symptoms of reviving confidence, since success in the endeavours of his Majesty's Ambassador to restore the ancient good understanding between Great Britain and Russia, appeared when the intelligence of the siege of Copenhagen had been recently received at St. Petersburgh." (11.) (11) If the Emperor of Russia has ever shewn England the first symp toms of reviving confidence after the peace of Tilsit, it is not consequently true that he has concluded at Tilsit secret arrangements, which places him at enmity with England. If those demonstrations have taken place at the moment when the investment of Copenhagen was known at St. Petersburgh, it was not because the Emperor of Russia felt no resentment; it was because he felt some hopes of softening the ferocity of England by gentle measures; it was because he wished to interfere to save his unfortunate ally; it was because, ignorant of the causes of the Expedition to Copenhagen, knowing that he had given no pretence for it directly or indirectly, he was able to persuade himself for some time that England had some reasons to induce her to take so important a step. He was, however, better informed by the communications of the Prince Royal, by the communications of England herself, by the manifesto of the English General, which explained the odious pretensions of his government; and then he demanded that the attack of Copenhagen should cease. England answered him by setting Copenhagen in flames, and carrying away the fleet! After this operation, the most fatal for England of all the enterprizes which she has ever undertaken, she had only two courses to pursue: either to continue to occupy Copenhagen, and that she durst not do, or to evacuate Copenhagen, the consequence of which she knew would be, that the Sound would be for ever shut against her. She then had the meanness to have recourse to the me diation of Russia. She laid open her character; she thought she could impose upon the Emperor Alexander; but she could obtain nothing by a proceeding rendered odious by this very opinion. Russia replied to her with the silence of centempt, and by fortifying Cronstadt and her coasts. This proceeding of England, then, proves one thing, namely, that she did not think that Russia had formed secret engagements at Tilsit, contrary to her interests. This truth, established in so many ways in these notes, overturns all the scaffolding of the English manifesto. "The inviolability of the Baltic Sea, and the reciprocal guarantees of the powers that border upon it, guarantees said to have been contracted with the knowledge of the British government, are stated as aggravations of his Majesty's proceedings in the Baltic. It cannot be intended to represent his Majesty as having at any time acquiesced in the principles upon which the inviolability of the Baltic is maintained; however his Majesty may, at particular periods have forborne, for special reasons influencing his conduct at the time, to act in contradiction to them. Such forbearance never could have applied but to a state of peace and real neutrality in the North; and his Majesty most assuredly could not be expected to recur o it, after France has been suffered to establish herself in undisputed sovereignty along the whole coast of the Baltic Sea, from Dantzie to Lubeck." (12.) to (12.) Why should not England consent to the inviolability of the Baltie? If it be not an enclosed sea, why should the English vesels pay toll at Elsineur? "Nor can his Majesty conceive that, in proposing to the Prince Royal terms of peace, such as the most successful y have been expected to extort from war on the part of Denmark could hardGreat Britain,his Majesty rendered biniself liable to the imputation, either of exasperating the resentment, or of outraging the dignity of Denmark." (13.) * (13.) Europe, will judge whether these conditions are such as Denmark could hardly obtain by the most suc-. cessful war. England required, 1. That the Danish navy should be given up to her in deposit till peace. 2. That the just indignation produced by the attack upon Copenhagen, should give way to friendly sentiments towards England. 3. That the Danish army should take part against France, and carry on the war for England. We should add to all the advantages offered by these fine terms granted by England, the loss of the Danish possessions in Germany, which France would have seized, and upon which territories she would have beaten the English, if she allowed them to land there. We should in vain look for the traces of any calculation, for any appearance of reason in such arguments.-The fact is, that the British councils are guided by precipitation and ignorance, and that in what the government says, does, or intends, no object, view, or motive can be discovered. "His Majesty has thus replied to all the different accusations by which the Russian government labours to justify the rupture of a connection which has subsisted for ages, with reciprocal advantage to Great Britain and Russia, and attempts to disguise the operation of that external influence by which Russia is driven into unjust hostilities, for interests not her own." (14.) .. (14.) So that Russia has no interest in going to war with England: for tion concerns not the Russians! They the interests of commerce and naviga have no interest in the independence of the Baltic; for an order of the English council has stripped the Baltic of its independence, and another order of the same council might decide that they had no interest in the navigation of the Neva. The object which all the powers propose to themselves, in re-establishing the liberty of the seas, and restoring peace to Europe, is an object foreign to Russia. Russia, for the last hundred years, has received such advantages from her connection with England, that she has nothing to wish for. These great advantages consist in a treaty of commerce, which has fettered and ruined the industry and commerce of Russia; but since this treaty has eminently contributed to the prosperity of England, what sig nifies it if it has all the effects upon Russia of a perpetual frost. "The termination of the war with Denmark has been so anxiously sought by his Majesty, that it cannot be necessary for his Majesty to renew any professions upon that subject. But his Majesty is at a loss to reconcile the Emperor of Russia's present anxiety for the an arrangement, completion of such with his Imperial Majesty's recent refusal to contribute his good offices for effecting it." (15.) (15.) His Britannic Majesty labours here under a great embarrassment, and his council is not fruitful in expedients. France, Austria, Russia, require, that the Danish fleet should be restored; that the reparation should be made to the Prince Royal; that the English people, following the example of the Romans upon a similar occasion, should surrender into the hands of the Prince Royal the person who advised the expedition a gainst Copenhagen; that the houses destroyed in that city should be rebuilt at the expence of England; and finally, that his Britannic Majesty should disavow the outrage affered to all Sovereigns. This is far distant from the proposals made by England. "The requisition of his Imperial Majesty for the immediate conclusion, by his Majesty, of a peace with France, is as extraordinary in the substance, as it is offensive in the manner. His Majesty has at no time declied to treat with France, when France has professed a willingness to treat on an admissible basis. And the Emperor of Russia cannot fail to remember, that the last negociation between Great Britain and France was broken off upon points immediately affecting, not his Majesty's own interests, but those of his imperial ally. But his Majesty neither understands, nor will he admit the pretensions of the Emperor of Russia, to dictate the time, or the mode, of his Majesty's pacific negociations with other powers. It never will be endured by his Majesty that any government shall indemnify itself for the humiliation of subserviency to France, by the adoption of an insulting and peremptory tone towards Great Britain." (16.) (16.) When a person endeavours to support a cause which has nei ther truth nor justice in it, he should do it with ability, and there is no ability displayed in the remarkable assertion contained in the following paragraph: The last negociation between France and England was broken off upon points immediately affecting, not his Majesty's own interests, but those of his Imperial Ally. People of Europe, hear this. It was not France which opposed peace; it was not the important interests of England which prevented it; it was Russia alone which then threw obstacles in the way. Well then, when this obstacle no longer exists, why does England object to peace? Why does she, in place of negociating ask upon what basis France is wik ling to treat? Why does she violate the flag of every nation? Why does she maintain the whole world in that state of irritation and vio lence which oppresses all nations and is a burthen to all sovereigns Every Englishman should blush at being governed by such men. We shall make no observation |