litical benefits, the liberty of the press; and though publications of this nature were, as they certainly ought to be, by the law of England subject to punishment, it was often difficult to prove the guilt of an individual so satisfactorily as to obtain the judgement of a court of justice. A promise was given, however, that the matter should be referred to the attorney-general, for his opinion, whether the article in question was or was not a libel; and if so found, whether such a libel as he would, under all circumstances, reconmend for prosecution. His report was to be communicated to the French government. The reply to this stated, that, if the British government tolerated ensures upon the acts of its ad ministration, and the personal abuse of the most respectable men, it did not suffer even the slightest attempt against the public tranquillity, the fundamental laws of the empire, and the supreme authority which arose from them; that every nation was moreover at liberty to sacrifice any advantage ..whatever in its interior, in order to obtain another to which it attached a higher value; but that the go vernment which did not repress the licentiousness of the press, when it might be injurious to the honour and interest of foreign powers, would afford an opportunity to libelists to endanger the public tranquillity, or, at least, the good understanding which formed the basis of it; and whenever such sea rious injuries were continued in a regular and systematic manner, doubts must arise as to its own dis positions that the particular laws and constitution of Great Britain were subordinate to the general 1803. principles of the law of nations, which superseded the laws of each individual state; that if it were right in England to allow the most extensive liberty to the press, it was a public right of polished nations, and the boundén duty of government, to prevent, repress, and pu nish every attack which might, by those means, be made against the rights, the interests, and the honour of foreign powers. The note proceeded to observe that this was not a question respecting some paragraphs, which, through the inadvertence of an editor, might have been accidentally inserted in a public print; but it was a question of a deep and continued system of defamation, directed not only against the chief of the French republic, but against all the constituted authorities of the republic, against the whole nation, represented by these libelers in the most odious and degrading terms. It had even been remarked that many of these prints contained an appeal to the French people against the government and fundamental laws of their country: that if these observations applied to the English writers who, for three months past, had deluged the public with the most perfidious and unbecoming publications, they were still more applicable to a class of foreign calumniators, who ap peared to avail themselves of the asylum offered them in England, only for the purpose of better gratifying their hatred against France and undermining the foundations of peace that it was not merely by insulting and seditious writings, evidently published with a view to circulation in France, but by other incendiary papers, distributed through the maritime departments, R in in order to excite the evil-disposed or weak inhabitants to resist the execution of the concordate, that these implacable enemies of France continued to exercise hostilities, and to provoke the just indignation of the French government and people. Not a doubt existed of these writings having been composed and circulated by Georges and the former bishops of France: and that after the reiterated attempts of these men to disturb the good understanding between the two governments, their residence in England militated openly against the spirit and letter of the treaty of peace. The note alluded likewise to certain meetings which had taken place in the island of Jersey, and plots there framed, in spite of the representations of the French government, and demanded that immediate measures should be taken: that the establishment of peace and the general interests of humanity required that all these causes of dissatisfaction should be done away. The note concluded with the following requisitions: 1st. That his majesty's government would adopt the most effectual measures to put a stop to the unbecoming and seditious publications with which the newspapers and other writings printed in England were filled; 2. That the individuals mentioned in his (M. Otto's) letter of the 23d of July, should be sent out of the island of Jersey; 3. That the former bishops of Arras and St. Pol de Leon, and all those who, like them, under the pretext of religion, sought to raise disturbances in the interior of France, should likewise be sent away; 4. That Georges and his adherents should be transported to Canada according to the intention notified to the French government at the request of lord Hawkesbury; 5. That in order to deprive the evil-disposed of every pretext for disturbing the good understanding between the two governments, it should be recommended to the princes of the house of Bourbon, at present in Great Britain, to repair to Warsaw, the residence of the head of their family; 6. That such of the French emigrants as still thought proper to wear the orders and decorations belonging to the ancient government of France, should be required to quit the territory of the British empire. For the reasonableness of these demands, appeal was made to the treaty of Amiens and the verbal assurances which had been given during the course of the negotiation by lord Hawkesbury to the French ambassador. It was expected that the British government should take advantage of the alienact, by which it is empowered to require foreigners to quit the kingdom without having recourse to the courts of law, by an order of council. And the French minister therefore expressed his reliance on the efforts of the British ministry to disperse a faction equally the enemy of France and England. In the reply to these representations it was admitted that some very improper paragraphs had appeared in some of the English newspapers against the government of France; that publications of a still more improper and indecent nature had made their appearance in this country, with the names of foreigners affixed to them; and that, under these circumstances, the French government would have been warranted in expecting every redress that the laws of this country could afford them. But since, instead of seeking it in the ordinary course, they had thought fit to resort to recrimination themselves, or at least to authorise it in others, they could have no right to complain if their subsequent appeal to his majesty had failed to produce the effect that otherwise would That whatever have attended it. was the nature of the prior injury, they had in fact taken the law into their own hands. And what was this recrimination and retort? The paragraphs in the English newspapers, and the publications alluded to, had not appeared under any authority of the British government, and were disavowed and disapproved of by them; whereas, the paragraphs in the Moniteur had appeared in a paper avowedly official, for which the government was therefore considered as responsible, as his majesty's government was for the contents of the London Gazette. The retort was not confined to the unauthorised English newspapers, or to the other publications complained of, but was made a pretext for a direct attack upon the English government. His majesty felt it beneath his dignity to formal complaint on the make any occasion. Lord Hawkesbury observed that the six propositions in M. Otto's official note might be referred to two heads; the first, relating to the libels of all descriptions, alleged to be published against the French government; the last, comprehending the five complaints which related to the emigrants resident in this country. With respect to the first, he expressed his assurance that his majesty could not, and ne ver would, in consequence of any serve. On the second general head, his lordship remarked, as to the precedent insited on by the French government, to enforce their demand, that of the pretender, who was demanded by this country to be sent from the French dominions, it was important that the diffe rences between these two cases should be stated; which were accordingly stated at large; but which, as they are obvious, it is unnecessary to repeat. On the 2d of October, in the official journal of the French government, the address of the first consul to the inhabitants of Switzerland, was inserted. About the middle of the same month, a dispatch from Mr. Liston, ambassador at the Hague, that a courier had been dispatched informed the British government, R 2 from from Paris to M. Semonville, the French ambassador, with orders to inform the government of the country that the first consul had learnt, with as much surprise as indignation, that certain persons, greedy of revolutions, were desirous of disturbing anew the repose of Batavia; and for this purpose had recourse to the abuse of respectable names; and that the first consul, as the ally of the republic, invited the government to take all necessary measures for the maintenance of the order of things established by the constitution. Mr. Liston further stated, that the dispatches of the French minister for foreign affairs to the ambassador entered into considerable detail on the subject of the plots supposed to be formed in Batavia against the administration; mentioned the names of the chiefs; and ended, by making an offer, on the part of the first consul, to come to the assistance of the government, should circumstances render it necessary, with all his forces. About the conclusion of the same month, another dispatch from Mr. Liston stated, that the recent attack made by Bonaparte upon the liberties and independence of the Swiss cantons had naturally made a strong impression on the inhabitants of that country; and that the public anxiety had been much augmented by certain symptoms in the conduct of the consular government, which seemed to indicate an intention not to withdraw the French troops, which had been kept in the Batavian republic for some time past, under the title of auxiliaries, and paid and maintained at the expense of the Dutch nation. These troops (amounting to between ten and eleven thousand men), were to remain there till the conclusion of the definitive treaty with Great Britain. It was afterwards formally promised on the part of France, that they should evacuate the territories of the republic, at. the latest on the expiration of the last French year (the 23d of September). That hopes were, however, entertained, from day to day, that their departure would take place; when, to the astonishment of the Batavian government, official notice had, on the preceding week, been transmitted from France to the department of war at the Hague, that the first consul had be pleased to appoint a new commander-in-chief (general Montrichard), and a new staff, for the auxiliary troops in that country; and the notice was given that government might provide for the pay of the officers in question. In a dispatch, dated 30th of Nov., from lord Hawkesbury to lord Whitworth, then ambassador at the French court, the former expresses his surprise, from the communications of general Stuart, that that of ficer had signified to colonel Sebastiani his inability to evacuate Egypt, until he should receive specific orders for that purpose, and apologises for the same, explaining the probable reasons why it happened. The old subject of the scurrility of the English prints was renewed by the French minister, in a conversation with the British ambassador, about the latter end of January 1803. In his communication to the English government on this occasion, lord Whitworth states, that M. Talleyrand endeavoured to establish a fact which his lordship lordship assured him a reference to every other antecedent treaty to any one newspaper in Paris. or convention, &c.; that is, that rewould instantly refute, that, during gard should be had to the state of four months, not a word of provo- the two countries at the time: cation had appeared in any French that since this, France had made journal which could justify a retort some large acquisitions; and the from those published in England. French government had admitted, In his reply, lord Whitworth en- that England ought to keep a comdeavoured to make M. Talleyrand pensation out of her conquests for understand; 1st, That whatever these. He proceeded to mention was said in the English papers, the report of colonel Sebastiani, might be considered as a national which had excited not only indigretaliation for what was published nation but jealousy as to the dein the French papers; 2dly, That signs of France. the official influence exerted over papers published in France was entirely different from what it was possible to exercise in England; and 3dly, That although the government possessed a controul over the press in France, the English government neither had, nor could have, a similar controul. The French minister persisted in his opinion, however, that his majesty's ministers might keep certain papers in order, as his lordship did, in assuring him, that, until the first consul could so far master his feelings as to be indifferent to the scurrility of the English prints, as the English government was to that which daily appeared in the French, this state of irritation was irremediable. About the close of the month of January, 1803, the French minister (Talleyrand) by the express order of the first consul, solemnly required lord Whitworth to inform him what were his majesty's intentions with regard to the evacuation of Malta. To this direct question, the following answer was returned by the English government: That the treaty of Amiens was to be considered as founded on principles not different from those which had been invariably applied The French minister, in his reply, admitted that the jealousy we felt on the score of Egypt, with a view to our possessions in India, was natural; but he could not admit that any thing had appeared in the conduct of the French government in justification of the alarm expressed by the government. He asserted the mission of Sebastiani to be strictly commercial; and also the sincere desire of the first consul to maintain inviolable the peace which had been so lately concluded; adding, that were not this desire of peace, in the first consul, an effect of system, it would be most imperiously dictated to him by the total impossibility in which France found herself, of carrying on that extensive state of warfare, to which even a partial rupture would naturally lead. He expressed great surprise, therefore, that any suspicion should attach, when the means of disturbing the public tranquillity were, as must be well known in England, so completely wanting; and desired to know what was the nature and degree of satisfaction which his majesty would require. The dispatch which conveyed this intelligence to the British government, was scarcely gone, when R 3 lord |