GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE POLICY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS,
AND ESPECIALLY OF THOSE OF ENGLAND AND AUSTRIA.

THE incessant quarrels with Sir Hudson Lowe, and perhaps also his conversation with Lord Amherst, had led the Emperor’s mind to reflect on his gigantic struggle with England, and the constant efforts which he had used to induce the English ministers to see that it was the interest of both nations to come to a good understanding with one another.  During the whole day, the Emperor appeared to be labouring under a sort of moral and physical depression.  He had scarcely quitted his sofa or the fire-side, for a moment, and his valet-de-chambre had remarked that he had only taken a little soup and the wing of a chicken for his dinner.  Towards midnight he caused me to be sent for, and asked me, with a smile, if I was in a humour to spend the remainder of the night with him.  He then led me into the drawing-room, and giving free course to the impulse of his mind, he dictated to me the following note, as materials for that chapter of his memoirs which might treat of his negotiations with England :

“ When deplorable weakness and endless versatility manifest themselves in all the acts of power ;  when yielding, sometimes to the influence of one party and sometimes to that of another, and living from day to day without any fixed plan, or any definite object in view, its possessors have exhibited the clearest evidence of their incapacity, and the most moderate citizens are compelled to agree, that the state is not governed ;  when, finally, to the incapacity of the administration at home, it is guilty of the greatest error which it is possible to commit in the eyes of a proud nation—viz., degradation in the opinion of foreign nations—then a vague restlessness begins to pervade the whole mass of society.  It is deeply agitated by the fear of the loss of national reputation and honour ;  and turning its eyes upon itself, it appears to seek for a man capable of effecting its deliverance.

“ Such a tutelary genius is always to be found within the bosom of a populous nation, but sometimes he is slow to appear, and, in fact, it is not enough that he exists, he must be known by others, and know himself, too.  Till this happens, all attempts are vain, all intrigues powerless ;  the inaction of the multitude protects the nominal government, and, in despite of its incapacity or even its treasonable betrayal of the national interests, the efforts of its enemies do not prevail against it.  But no sooner does this deliverer, so impatiently expected, appear, and give symptoms of his existence, than the national instinct divines it, and calls him to his post :  obstacles disappear before him, and the whole of a great people unite, with one accord, and seem to say—‘This is the man!’

“ Such was the state of the public mind in France, when the nation confided its destiny to my hands.

“ Peace, without having been gained in the field of battle, would have ruined the republic.  War was absolutely necessary to maintain energy and unity in the state, as long as its administrative machinery did not work perfectly.  Peace would have brought, in its train, a reduction of taxation and a discharge of a part of the army.  Many men had been under arms since the levy en masse, in 1792, and were only raised for the defence of the country.  To have detained them in service, when the republic was at peace with the Continent, would have been to abuse their patriotism, and provoke dissatisfaction and discontent amongst a great number of families ;  and, under all circumstances, it would have been necessary to give them their discharge.  The consequence would have been that France, after two years of peace, would have found herself in a notorious and dangerous inferiority in the presence of the whole of monarchical Europe, which as necessarily would have continued to be allied against her republican institutions.

“ I owed it, however, to public opinion to open negotiations for peace ;  and the majority of the nation wished ardently for it, and circumstances appeared favourable to its conclusion.

“ The cabinet of Berlin had just given evidence of a very pacific disposition.  Count Haugwitz, the first minister, had said to the minister of France—‘The revolution with you has been accomplished from below upwards, and by a succession of the most frightful storms ;  it will proceed more slowly among us, but will come, sooner or later, and from above downwards.  The king is a democrat, after his fashion.  He is an enemy to the privileges of the nobility, and has been born in the school of philosophers ;  and in a few years, the law will be in Prussia what it has become, by means of the revolution of France, equal for all.  Have patience, then, and, believe me, we shall be your allies by the force of events, and that will be the day on which your government shall offer us guarantees of stability.’  At the same time, however, a Prussian corps d’armée was assembling on the Lower Rhine, and threatening the department of the Roer.

“Duroc was sent to Berlin ;  the king and the queen showed him the most marked attention, and gave him various proofs of their regard.  The Prussian troops quitted the banks of the Rhine, and returned to their usual quarters, but the cabinet still remained in an expecting attitude.

“ After the 26th of December, 1799, the First Consul wrote to King George, This unusual step produced very different effects in England.  The aristocracy merely regarded it as a violation of royal etiquette ;  the people, weary of the sacrifices which the war imposed upon them, were displeased with the insulting reply of Lord Grenville.  This minister wrote to Monsieur de Talleyrand, that peace was impossible as long as France was governed by a system, subversive of all social order, and as long as the house of Bourbon was not restored to the throne—an event which would restore her colonies to France, as well as the friendship of all Europe.  This arrogant minister allowed his passion to impel him so far as to say to parliament, ‘ To cease from fighting against a nation which is an enemy to all worship, all morality, and all government, is not to labour for the common good, but it is rather to grow weary of resisting evil.  It is necessary, then, to carry on the war with vigour against a nation which is desirous of subjecting the world to its ravages.  I declare, in the presence of Europe and of England, that I would prefer war and all its horrors, as long as France shall persist, as she has hitherto done, in the maintenance of those opinions and principles which have led to and effected the revolution :  they were Jacobins, and they are so still.  France proclaims war against kings ;  she regards nothing as sacred, and is faithless to her treaties.’  The courageous efforts of the Whigs were unavailing to defend the First Consul from the furious assaults of the Tories, and to prove to them that to refuse peace was, in fact, to deny the history of their country, and to fight in order to trammel the progress of civilization.  The cabinet of Vienna was in the pay of England, and its refusal to treat on the basis of the treaty of Campo-Formio served the policy of Napoleon.  The battle of Marengo replaced France in the position, without which no treaty of peace could have any permanence.

“ Italy being lost—Vienna menaced—Austria asked for peace.  Lieut.-General Count St. Julien arrived at Paris on the 21st July, 1800, as the bearer of a letter from the Emperor of Germany to the First Consul.  He announced himself as a plenipotentiary, commissioned to negotiate, conclude, and sign the preliminaries of a peace :  The Emperor’s letter was precise, and contained full powers :  ‘ You may place,’ observes the writer, 'full confidence in everything which Count St. Julien may say on my behalf, and I will ratify all that he may do.’  I commissioned Monsieur de Talleyrand to negotiate with this plenipotentiary, and in a few days the preliminaries were arranged.  I asked nothing which had not been already decided upon by the treaty of Campo-Formio, for I agreed to the Emperor’s receiving indemnities in Italy for his losses in Germany.  I only required that the two armies should remain in their respective positions till a definitive peace was signed.

“ The Emperor’s letter could leave no room to doubt respecting the ratification of the preliminaries.  It, however, proved otherwise ;  the cabinet of Vienna disavowed Count St. Julien.  Baron Thugut wrote that the Emperor, his master, was bound to England by treaties of peace, which rendered it impossible for him to ratify the treaty, but that he was, nevertheless, disposed to open new negotiations ;  and he communicated the contents of a letter, in which Lord Minto explained the grounds on which the English ministry was equally well disposed to concur in promoting a general peace.

“ The changes thus effected in a few months were very gratifying to the self-love of France.  Not long before, France had made the first efforts to obtain a peace, to which Lord Grenville replied by torrents of abuse.  Suffering himself to indulge in the most extraordinary insinuations, he had expressed his desire that the princes of that race of kings should be restored to the throne of France, without which peace was impossible ;  and now it was the same Lord Grenville who asked to treat with the First Consul, and even to buy the opening of a negotiation at the price of a naval armistice, which was wholly to the advantage of France.

“ The best thing which the republic could have done, would have been to recommence hostilities.  I was anxious, however, to overlook no opportunity of reestablishing peace with England, and for the attainment of that object, I suppressed the resentment which I felt in consequence of the insult offered to the French republic by the cabinet of Vienna, and made no allusion to it in my reply.  My minister of foreign affairs wrote to Baron Thugut, that the First Consul was ready to accept the proposal for a double negotiation and the admission of an English plenipotentiary to the conferences at Lunéville, on condition of an armistice by sea as well as by land ;  and that hostilities should recommence by land, if England refused to acquiesce in a naval armistice.

“ At the same, time a courier was sent to Monsieur Otto who was then in London, acting as French commissioner for an exchange of prisoners.  I directed him to write, that my wish was that my ships and neutral vessels should be allowed to convey succours and provisions to Malta and Alexandria, in the same manner as the fortresses of Ulm and Ingolstadt were to be provisioned and reinforced by the Austrians.  On the 24th of August, M. Otto addressed a note to Lord Grenville, in which he informed him of the contents of the communication made by Lord Minto, the English ambassador in Vienna, in which he signified the desire of the English government to take part in the negotiations which were about to be opened between Austria and France for the re-establishment of peace, and, stated that the First Consul was willing to admit an English plenipotentiary to the negotiations, but that in this case, the conclusion of a peace would become more difficult, the interests to be discussed more numerous and complicated, and the negotiations prolonged, so as to be injurious to the cause of the French republic, unless some compensation were given for the prolongation of the armistices of Marengo and Sarsdorff, by a naval armistice with England.

“Lord Minto’s despatches had not arrived in London.

“ Lord Grenville was astonished at the receipt of this note, and sent to request M. Otto to communicate to him the whole of the letter of which he had sent a part ;  the latter immediately complied.  In the meantime, Lord Minto’s courier arrived in London, and Lord Grenville said to M. Otto, that the idea of a naval armistice was something new in the history of nations—that, nevertheless, the British ministry acceded to the principle, and would send Mr. Thomas Grenville as plenipotentiary to the place appointed for the opening of the negotiations.  For this purpose, he requested M. Otto to furnish him with the necessary passports to enable him to enter France and reach his destination.

“ This was evidently a mere elusion of the question, in order to gain time and to enable Austria to repair her losses before the resumption of hostilities.  It was now the end of August, and M. Otto requested a categorical reply before the 3rd of September, because the armistice with Austria expired on the 10th of that month.

“ On the 4th of September, Lord Grenville confined himself to asking for a written plan, as he was at a loss precisely to comprehend what France intended by an armistice applicable to naval operations.

“ M. Otto immediately forwarded his plan, the principal features of which were :  1st, that the ships of war, and the trading vessels of both nations, should enjoy free navigation without being subjected to search or visitation ;  2ndly, that the squadrons blockading Toulon, Brest, Rochefort, and Cadiz should return to English ports ;  and, 3rdly, that Malta, Alexandria and Belleisle should be placed on the same footing as the fortresses of Ulm, Philippsburg, and Ingolstadt ;  and consequently, that all French and neutral ships should have free access to these ports.

“ On the 7th of September, Lord Grenville replied, that his Britannic Majesty admitted the principle of a naval armistice ;  although contrary to the interests of England, it was a sacrifice which she was willing to make in favour of peace, and of her ally, Austria ;  but that none of the articles of the French scheme were admissible ;  and he offered to negotiate the following counter-scheme as a basis :

“ ‘ 1st.  Hostilities shall cease by sea ;  2ndly, supplies shall be granted to Malta, Alexandria, and Belleisle for a fortnight at a time, according to the number of men which the garrisons respectively contain ;  3rdly, the blockade of the harbours of Brest, Toulon, and other harbours belonging to France or her allies shall be raised, but no vessel of war which shall be in any of the said harbours shall go to sea during the continuance of the armistice, and the English squadrons shall remain in sight of these ports.’

“ On the 16th of September, the French commissioner replied that his government proposed to his Britannic Majesty, that the negotiations should be opened at Lunéville, that the English and Austrian plenipotentiaries should be admitted to a joint negotiation, and that in the meantime, the war should continue by sea and land, or that there should be an armistice with Austria alone, and a negotiation with Austria alone ;  and that, in the latter case, negotiations could be carried on between France and England, either in Paris or London, without any interruption of the naval war.

“ The prolongation of the armistice by land would give Austria time to re-organize her armies, seriously injured at Marengo and Maestricht, would efface the impressions produced upon the minds of the Austrian soldiers by those two great victories, and enable the King of Naples to put himself in a condition to interfere in the affairs of Italy ;  levies en masse were already in the course of organization in the Apennines, and the March of Ancona.

“ A suspension of hostilities had only been conceded to Austria, on her formal promise of concluding a peace without delay, and by means of negotiations independent of her treaties with England.  The First Consul, therefore, felt himself perfectly authorised to resume the offensive, both on the Rhine and in Italy, on the 10th of September ;  General Moreau did not, however, put his advanced guard in motion till the 19th, and he stopped almost immediately, on the request of the Austrian general, and the offer made to him, by the court of Vienna, of placing the fortresses of Ulm, Ingolstadt, and Philippsburg in his hands as a pledge of the sincerity of its desire for peace.

“ The First Consul acceded to this proposal, and a prolongation of the armistice for forty days was granted, reckoning from the 30th of September.  At the same time, he consented to modify his first proposition respecting England, and on the 20th of September, M. Otto wrote to Lord Grenville, that 1st, the French government agreed that the French or allied squadrons should not leave their positions during the continuance of the naval armistice ;  2ndly, that only such communications with Malta should be authorised, as were necessary to convey supplies every fifteen days, at the rate of 10,000 rations per diem ;  but that Alexandria not being invested by land, and having an abundant supply of provisions, it required that six French frigates sailing from Toulon should be allowed free ingress and egress to and from Alexandria without being disturbed by the English fleet, on the single condition of having on board an English officer with a flag of truce.

“ The only advantages which the republic could have obtained from a suspension of hostilities by sea, were, that these six frigates armed en flute, would have been able to convey from 3 to 4000 men as reinforcements to Egypt, as well as such materials of war for the artillery, as it might stand in need of.  As soon as the principle of negotiation was admitted, Lord Grenville authorised M. Amman, his under-secretary of state to confer with M. Otto, with a view of coming to an understanding.  At their first interview, the under-secretary proposed to M. Otto, the evacuation of Egypt by the French army, as a consequence of the convention of El’ Arish, concluded on the 24th of January preceding, but broken on the 18th of May following, in consequence of England not having agreed to its ratification.  Such a proposition could not for a moment be entertained ;  M. Amman perceived the difficulty, and relinquished the point.  A few conferences sufficed to bring the parties to a perfect understanding on all the points, except that of sending six frigates to Alexandria.  It was found impossible to come to any agreement on a point which so nearly concerned England and her views upon Egypt, and on the 9th of October, the English commissioner declared the negotiations at an end.

“ These events led to serious complications ;  Malta capitulated towards the beginning of September, and, on the other side, a general rising was organized in the Apennines, ready to break out on the arrival of 10,000 English under General Abercrombie, and of a Neapolitan division which was to pass the frontiers of the kingdom, as soon as they were certain of the landing of the English corps.

“ In a state of things so dangerous to France, it became necessary to conclude a peace at any cost.

“ The opportunity appeared so much the more favourable, as a change of ministry had just taken place in Vienna.  Baron Thugut was replaced by Count Cobentzel, the negotiator of the peace of Campo-Formio, who regarded it as an honour to be called a man of peace.  His first act was to announce in Paris, that Count Lerbache was about to set out for Lunéville without delay.  Shortly after he himself set out for Paris ;  his secret purpose was to gain time.

“ The First Consul gave him a most distinguished reception, but on the next day the veil was torn off.  On being requested by the minister of foreign affairs to show his credentials, he hesitated, and alleged that the etiquette required the respective parties to make a regular exchange of powers at Lunéville.  The First Consul had appointed his brother Joseph, as his plenipotentiary at this congress, whom he now ordered to set out forthwith for Lunéville, and requested Count Cobentzel to proceed thither without delay.  The minutes of the proceedings were opened on the 6th of November ;  and an exchange of powers took place, but, at the first sitting, the Austrian plenipotentiary declared, that he could not treat without the concurrence of an English plenipotentiary, and as an English plenipotentiary could not be admitted without the consent of England to the last conditions proposed by France, in the question of the naval armistices, such a, declaration was equivalent to a rupture.  On the 17th of November, hostilities recommenced on the Rhine, and in Italy ;  but as the minutes were still open, the French plenipotentiaries at Lunéville were ordered to propose to Count Cobentzel to sign a separate peace with the Emperor, which, in case of need, might be kept secret, till negotiations were definitively broken off with England.  This peace was to embrace the following conditions :

“ ‘ The Mincio as the boundary between the Cisalpine republic and the Austrian states in Italy ;  the duchy of Tuscany for the Infant Duke of Parma ;  the legations for the Archduke Ferdinand ;  the restitution of Piedmont to the King of Sardinia, with the Sezio for its boundary on the side of the Cisalpine republic ;  the Alps and the Rhine as the frontiers of France.  On these conditions hostilities were again to cease.’

“ Austria refused.  It was not until the French headquarters were established at St. Piotten, and the advanced guard within four leagues of Vienna, that she determined to renounce her alliance with England.  On the 19th of February, 1802, she signed the peace of Lunéville, which was ratified by the Emperor in Vienna on the 7th of March following.

“ A very grave question was at this time agitated—the right of search.

“ In the month of December, 1800, a mutual engagement was entered into by Sweden, Denmark, Russia and Prussia, to lend assistance each to the others against the pretensions of the English admiralty, which arrogated to itself the right of visiting and searching all vessels sailing under a neutral flag.

“ This treaty called the quadruple alliance, laid down, and was formed to support, the following principles :

“ ‘ 1st.  The flag covers the merchandise.

“ ‘ 2ndly.  All vessels under convoy of the ships of a neutral state ;  are ipso facto, free from visit or search.

“ ‘ 3rdly.  Munitions of war alone are contraband, and subject to seizure.

“ ‘ 4thly.  The right of search is not to be employed, except in cases where munitions of war are on board.

“ ‘ 5thly.  Neutrality is established in all cases in which the captain and the half of the crew are natives of the country under whose flag the ship sails.

“ ‘ 6thly.  Ships of war belonging to the contracting powers, shall be considered entitled to convoy merchant vessels not only of their own, but of each of the four powers reciprocally.

“ ‘ 7thly.  A Russian, Danish, and Swedish squadron shall be continually at sea, to protect the commerce of the contracting nations, and to cause the principles laid down in this treaty to be respected.’

“ This question had led to a complete division between the cabinets of France and England, and involved the necessity of war between these two great rivals for the supremacy of the sea.  The treaty of Amiens had decided nothing on this point ;  the First Consul was desirous of peace, and his plenipotentiaries had orders not to embarrass or entangle the negotiation by the discussion of questions whose solution was not indispensable to the interests of the moment.

“ During the ages of barbarism, the right of nations was the same by sea and land.  Individuals I belonging to hostile nations were seized and made prisoners, whether they were taken with arms in their hands, or not, and were kept in bondage till an adequate ransom was paid.  Their property in money and goods was confiscated in whole or in part.  The influence of civilization, however, had effected a complete change in this respect among nations at war by land, without having produced the same effect in cases of vessels at sea ;  so that matters are regulated by two different rights, as if, there were two kinds of reason and justice.  The right of nations in war by land no longer justifies the spoliation of individuals, nor any change in their personal condition.  War only applies to governments ;  thus property does not always change hands ;  stores of merchandise remain intact ;  personal liberty is guaranteed.  Those alone are considered as prisoners of war, who are taken with arms in their hands, or who form a part of the military force.  This change has effected a vast amelioration of the evils of war, rendered the conquest of nations more easy, and war less bloody and disastrous.

“ A conquered province takes an oath of submission and obedience, and, if the conqueror requires it, gives hostages ;  surrenders its arms, and pays the usual taxes to the credit of the conqueror, who, if he deems it necessary, has and exercises the right of imposing an extraordinary levy, either for the support of his army, or as an indemnity for the expenses of the war.  This contribution, however, has no regard to the value of merchandise ;  it is only a pro rata increase of the ordinary contributions to a greater or less extent, nearly equal to a year’s revenue, and is imposed upon the whole body of the people, so that it never involves the ruin of individuals.

“ The right of nations which regulates maritime war has still continued to remain the same as it was in ages of barbarism.  The property of individuals is confiscated, and persons not engaged in actual hostilities are made prisoners.  When two nations are at war, all vessels belonging to either one or the other, whether at sea or in port, fire liable to be seized and confiscated, and the individuals on board to be made prisoners of war.  Thus, by a manifest contradiction (supposing France and England to be at war) an English ship which should be found in the port of Nantes, for example, at the moment at which the war was declared, would be confiscated, and the crew made prisoners of war, although not engaged in hostilities ;  whilst goods in the same city, belonging to an English merchant would not be sequestrated or confiscated, and- the merchant himself travelling in France would receive the necessary passports to enable him to leave the country.  An English vessel at sea, captured by a French ship, would be confiscated, although the cargo belonged to private individuals, and the crew would be made prisoners of war although not taken in arms, whilst a convoy of a hundred waggons of merchandise belonging to an Englishman, and traversing France at the time of a declaration of war between the two powers, would .not be seized.

“ In a war by land, even territorial properties possessed by foreign subjects are not confiscated ;  they are, at most, placed under sequestration.  The laws therefore which regulate war by land are much more conformable to the spirit of civilization, and individual safety and well-being, than those which prevail in naval affairs, and it is greatly to be desired that a time may come, when the same liberal ideas shall be extended to naval wars, and that the great belligerent powers may carry on warlike operations against each other, without the confiscation of merchant ships, or treating their crews as legitimate prisoners of war ;  and commerce would then be carried on, at sea, between the belligerent parties, in the same way as it is carried on by land, in the midst of the battles fought by their armies.

“ According to common rights, the sea is the domain of all nations ;  it extends over three-fourths of the globe, and forms a medium of intercourse among the different inhabitants of the earth.  A ship laden with merchandise, and at sea, is still subject to the civil and criminal laws of the country under whose flag she sails ;  she may, perhaps, be considered as a floating colony, inasmuch as all nations are equal sovereigns upon the sea.  If merchant vessels belonging to belligerent powers were allowed to, navigate the ocean freely, much less would there be any reason for exercising any right of search in case of neutrals ;  but as it has become a principle that merchant vessels belonging to the states of belligerent powers are liable to capture and confiscation, the result necessarily is, that all ships of war should have the right of satisfying themselves with respect to the genuineness of the flags of neutral ships with which they fall in at sea ;  for if, in any case, she proved to be an enemy’s vessel, she would be liable to seizure, hence the right of s,earch, recognised by all the great powers of Europe in various treaties ;  hence vessels of war have a right to send out their boats, and order an officer to go on board neutral vessels, to require the captain to produce his ship’s papers, and thus to assure themselves of the country to which the ship belongs.  The exercise of this right is recognised by all treaties, but at the same time, the greatest delicacy is expected and enjoined in the manner of its exercise ;  it is usual for the armed ships to remain beyond the range of cannon-shot, and for only two or three persons to go on board the vessel visited, in order that all appearance of force or violence may be avoided.

“ The principle has been recognised, that a vessel belongs to the nation under whose flag she sails, when she is furnished with proper papers, and the captain and one-half of the crew are citizens of the nation to which the vessel claims to belong.  All civilized powers have agreed in forbidding their neutral subjects to carry, on a contraband trade with powers which are at war.  All such articles as powder, balls, shells, guns, saddles, bridles, or other munitions of war whatsoever, are reckoned contraband, and vessels with such articles on board are supposed to have transgressed the laws of their own country, because every sovereign binds himself to forbid his subjects to carry on trade in such articles, and therefore all such articles are liable to seizure and confiscation.

“ The visit made by a cruiser is not merely a simple visit to ascertain the genuineness of the flag under which the ship visited sails, but the commander of the cruiser, in the name of the sovereign whose flag the vessel bears, exercises a new right of search to ascertain whether the vessel has any contraband articles on board.

“ Should there be any soldiers on board, they too are regarded as contraband, and this right does not at all derogate from the principle, that the flag covers the merchandise.

“ There is still another case, that in which vessels belonging to neutral powers proposed to enter ports in a state of siege, and blockaded by an enemy’s squadron, such vessels being laden not with munitions of war, but, with provisions, timber, wine, or other merchandise, which might be useful to the besieged, and enable them to prolong their defence.  After long discussions among the powers, it was finally agreed and determined by several treaties, that in every case in which a port is really blockaded so that there would be manifest danger to a vessel attempting to enter the harbour, then the commander of the blockading squadron is empowered to interdict neutral vessels from entering the port, and to capture the ship, provided she makes an attempt to violate the blockade, and to sail into the port either by force or stratagem.

“ Thus maritime laws are based upon these principles :  1st.  The flag covers the merchandise ;  2ndly, a neutral vessel must submit to be visited by ships of war belonging to belligerent nations, to ascertain whether she is bonci, fide a vessel belonging to the country whose flag she bears, and that her cargo does not include contraband articles ;  3rdly, contraband is restricted to munitions of war ;  and, 4thly, neutral vessels may be prevented from entering any harbour which is really blockaded, so that there would be manifest danger to any vessel attempting to enter such port or harbour.  These principles form the code of maritime law for neutral weasels, because the different powers have freely, and by various treaties, bound -themselves to the observance of them, and to enforce that observance upon their subjects in all cases of necessity.

“ The different maritime powers—Holland, Portugal, Spain, France, England, Sweden, Denmark, and Russia, have at different times, and in various treaties, successively bound themselves, each to the others, by the formal recognition of those principles which have been established and published in general treaties of pacification, such as those of Westphalia in 1649, and of Utrecht in 1712.

“ England in the war with America, in 1778, pretended :  1st, that all merchandise for ship-building, such as wood, hemp, pitch, &c., were contraband of war ;  2ndly, that a neutral vessel had the right to proceed from a friendly, to an enemy’s port, but that she could not be allowed to trade between one enemy’s port and another ;  3rdly, that neutrals could not sail from the colonies of a belligerent power to the mother country ;  4thly, that neutral powers had no right to send their merchantmen under convoy of ships of war, or in such case, that they were still liable to the right of search.

“ No independent power would acquiesce in these unjust pretensions ;  for the sea being the common domain of nations, no one power can have the right to regulate and establish a law for what takes place there.  If the right of search be permitted in the case of neutral vessels, it is because the various sovereign nations have recognised this right for common conve nience, and by special treaties.  If munitions of war are contraband, it is because treaties have made them so.  If belligerent powers can seize them, it is because the sovereign under whose flag the neutral vessel sails, has bound himself not to allow such a description of trade.  The list of contraband articles cannot, however, obviously be extended at discretion, as was objected to the English claim, and no nation has bound itself to forbid trade in naval munitions, such as ship timber, hemp, pitch, &c.

“ With regard to the second claim—it is contrary, it was said, to recognised usage :  you cannot intermeddle with the commerce of neutral nations, further than to ascertain the genuineness of the flag ;  you have no right to know what a neutral ship is doing on the high seas, because such a vessel is on her own rightful element, and beyond your authority.  She is not protected, it is true, by the batteries of her country, but she is so by the moral power of her nation and of her sovereign.

“ The third pretension has no better foundation.  A state of war can, and ought to have, no effect upon neutrals.  They ought to be able to do in war what they can do in peace.  In a state of peace, there is nothing to prevent a vessel belonging to one country from trading between another country and its colonies.  If foreign vessels are permitted to trade in this way, this permission is not founded upon the law of nations, but on municipal regulations ;  and in all cases in which a nation is disposed to confer this privilege on foreign vessels, no other nation has any right to interfere.

“ With regard to the fourth pretension, it was replied, that as the right of search was instituted merely in order to ascertain the genuineness of the flag, and whether the cargo was composed of articles contraband of war, an armed vessel under the commission of the sovereign of a neutral nation is a much better assurance of the genuineness of the flag, and of the cargoes not being contraband of war, than can result from any search whatever ;  and it would be a consequence of such a pretension, that a fleet of merchant vessels, under convoy of eight or ten ships of the line, would be liable to have the right of search enforced by a brig of war, or a privateer of a belligerent power.

“ During the American war (1778), Monsieur de Castries, then minister of Marine in, France, published, and caused to be adopted, a regulation relative to the commerce of neutral powers.  This regulation was drawn up in conformity with the spirit of the treaty of Utrecht, and of the rights of neutral nations.  The principles above mentioned were therein declared to be inadmissible, and that their observance was only to continue for six months, after which, they should cease to be regarded by neutral nations which should not have made their rights known by England.

“ This course was both just and politic.  It satisfied all the neutral powers, and threw a new light upon this question.

“ The Dutch, who then carried on the largest trade, annoyed by the English cruisers, and the decisions of the English Admiralty, caused their merchant ships to be convoyed by vessels of war, hoping that this course would at least protect them against the exercise of the right of search.  A convoy, escorted by several Dutch ships of war, was, however, attacked, taken, and carried into an English harbour, an event which filled the Dutch with indignation, and shortly after, Holland and Spain declared war against England.

“ Catherine, Empress of Russia, took such a part in these great questions as the dignity of her flag and the interests of her empire demanded.  The trade of Russia principally consisted in articles employed in ship-building, and this led her to resolve to unite with Sweden and Denmark in forming an armed neutrality.  These powers declared their determination to make war upon any belligerent power which should violate the following principles, which they assumed as the basis of their union :  1st, that the flag covers the merchandise (contraband excepted) ;  2ndly, that the right of search exercised by a ship of war upon a neutral vessel, should be exercised with the greatest possible delicacy ;  3dly, that munitions of war alone, such as cannon, powder and ball, are contraband ;  4thly, that every power has a right to convoy merchant ships ;  and that in this case, the declaration of the commander of the ship of war is sufficient to protect the flag and cargoes of the ships under her convoy and protection ;  5thly, that a port cannot be regarded as blockaded by a squadron, except where there is manifest danger of entering such a port—and that a ship is not to be prevented from entering a port previously blockaded by a force no longer before it, from whatever cause the absence of the blockading squadron may have taken place, whether from stress of weather or from the want of provisions.

“ The armed neutrality of the northern powers was announced, to the belligerent powers on the 15th of August, 1780 :  France and Spain, whose principles were thus recognised, hastened to express their adherence to these conditions.  England alone testified extreme dissatisfaction, but did not venture to brave the new confederation.  She contented herself with the non-enforcement of her own principles, and thus virtually renounced them.  Fifteen months afterwards, the peace of 1782 put an end to the maritime war.  The war between France and England commenced in 1793 ;  England very soon became the soul of the first coalition.  Whilst the armies of Austria, Spain, Russia and Piedmont invaded our frontiers, she employed all possible means to ruin our colonies.  The taking of Toulon, where our squadron was destroyed by fire, and the rising of the west, in which a great number of sailors perished, annihilated our marine, and England no longer set any limits to her ambition.  Thenceforth mistress of the seas, and without a rival, she thought the moment was come, in which she might without danger, revive her former pretensions, which she had tacitly renounced in the war of 1780—that is to say, that materials for shipbuilding are contraband ;  that neutral powers have not the right to convoy their merchant ships by ships of war, and thus protect them from the right of search ;  and that a blockade is to be respected not only when the blockading squadron is present, but when it is absent from stress of weather or other reasons.  She, however, went still further, and put forward three new pretensions :  1st, that the flag does not cover the merchandise, but that the property of an enemy is liable to be seized and confiscated even in a neutral bottom ;  2ndly, that neutrals have not a right to carry on trade between the colonies and the mother country of a belligerent nation ;  and, 3rdly, that a neutral vessel may enter an enemy’s port, but not proceed from one enemy’s port to another. “ The assassination of Paul I. left England complete liberty of action to maintain, with greater force than she had ever yet displayed, her pretensions to the absolute dominion of the seas.  The quadruple alliance was dissolved, and Denmark cruelly punished for having dared to measure her strength with England in a naval engagement.

“ Pitt had at this time retired before the ascendant of France ;  the signature of the treaty of the quadruple alliance, the occupation of Hanover by Prussian troops, and the necessity to sign a peace imposed upon Austria by the defeat at Hohenlinden, had deprived him of all hope of success in his scheme of preventing any serious approximation to peace between France and England.  Lord Hawkesbury had replaced Lord Grenville in the foreign office, and hastened to renew the negotiations with Monsieur Otto :  There was some reason to hope for success on this occasion, but on the arrival of the news concerning the events which had just taken place at Petersburg, the demands of England proved that peace would be impossible until some new events should constrain its adoption.

“ It became necessary, at all costs, to alarm the hearts of the citizens of London ;  considerable armaments were ordered to be got in readiness on the whole coast of France, from the Gironde to the Scheldt ;  all the French dockyards were put into a state of full activity in order to construct a flotilla for the conveyance of troops across the channel.  The English on their side raised troops, threw up entrenchments at the mouth of the Thames, and gave many other proofs of their fear of an invasion.

“ The interviews between M. Otto and Lord Hawkesbury had never been discontinued, and the pretensions of the cabinet of St. James’s, inadmissible as they were, had still continued to be discussed, in the expectation of the occurrence of some events favourable to peace, when the First Consul, at the propitious moment, caused a counter-project to be submitted through M. Otto to the following effect :

“ 2ndly.  Ceylon to England, and the restoration of the Cape of Good Hope to Holland.

“ 3dly.  Restoration, by England, of the colonies in the West Indies, taken by her during the war.

“ 4thly.  Restoration to Portugal of the province of Olivenza, occupied by a Franco-Spanish army.

“ Lord Hawkesbury replied, that England was disposed to restore the Island of Malta to the Knights of St. John ;  that she considered the Indian question settled by the acquisition of Ceylon—that as to the question of the Antilles, she was ready to restore Martinique, but must retain possession of Trinidad and Tobago, and require that Demerara should be a free port.  After long discussions, all these points were admitted, an condition that Spain should retain the province of Olivenza in lieu of Trinidad.  On the first of October, 1801, the preliminaries of peace were signed by M. Otto on these bases.

“ The joy consequent on the announcement of this peace, was still greater in England than in France.  Lauriston, the First Consul’s aide-de-camp, who was sent to England as the bearer of the ratifications of the treaty, signed by M. Otto, was received with the most enthusiastic ovations, and Mr. Addington, the prime minister, said to him :  ‘ This is not an ordinary peace ;  it is an act of reconciliation between the two most powerful nations in the world.’

“ Conferences for a definitive peace were opened at Amiens.  Lord Cornwallis was the representative of England ;  the interests of Spain were entrusted to the Marquis d’Azara ;  Herr Schimmelpenynck appeared on behalf of Holland ;  and the First Consul selected his brother Joseph for France.  On the 27th of March, 1802, the peace was signed.

“ From this day forth, the great object of the English Tories was a rupture of the treaty ;  and in this they were aided and abetted by the criminal device of a body of emigrés, who marched under the banner of the Count d’Artois.  The French government had nothing wherewith to reproach itself.  It did everything possible, consistent with French honour, to preserve the peace.

“ The cabinet of St. James’s, by violating the peace of Amiens, involved Europe in a mortal struggle against the French republic, at the very moment in which it offered, through M. Malhouet, an emigré, formerly minister of Louis XVI, to place at my personal disposal 30,000,000 of francs, and the whole moral assistance of England, to induce me to proclaim myself king of the French, on the sole condition of ceding to England the rule of the Mediterranean, which would ensure the markets of the Levant for her manufactures, and sooner or later open to her the way to India by the Euphrates or the Red Sea.

“ The reply to be given to this proposal required no hesitation ;  I gave it myself to Lord Whitworth, the English ambassador, in the following terms ;  ‘ I wish to owe nothing to strangers or to their interference ;  if ever the French nation places the royal crown upon my head, it shall be of its own free accord.’

“ During the war in Italy, Austria had already sought to work upon my ambition by her insinuations ;  the Marquis de Gallo, the ambassador of Naples in Vienna, offered me, on the part of the Emperor, a sovereignty in Germany ;  but then, as always, my device as well as my life has been TOUT POUR LA FRANCE.

“ In 1805, Napoleon, when conqueror of Austria, wrote anew to the King of England :  ‘ Is not the world large enough to hold our two nations ;  and has not reason power sufficient to suggest means of reconciliation, if both parties earnestly desire it ?  Peace is the wish of my heart, though war has never been unfavourable to my arms.  I conjure your Majesty, not to deny yourself the happiness of giving peace to the nations.’

“ Pitt made war to the death upon the French revolution, because he regarded it as a species of mutual struggle for the English aristocracy.  In 1806, however, before the battle of Jena, he would have accepted the pacific offers of the Emperor of the French, when the latter said to Lord Lauderdale :

“ ‘ You would do better to persuade your government to peace, for in a month I shall be master of, Prussia.  Prussia and Russia, if united, might offer some resistance, and perhaps with some hopes of success ;  but Prussia cannot do that alone.  The Russians are three months’ march distant from the first battle-field.  The plan of the Prussian campaign is to defend Berlin, instead of retiring behind the Oder, and there awaiting the Russians before risking a battle.  The Prussian army, will be destroyed, and I shall be in Berlin before the advanced guard of the Russians shall have passed the Vistula.  Make peace, therefore, whilst the moral power of the Prussia of Frederick the Great aids you with its friendship.’

“ The Emperor of Austria offered to interpose, in order to decide his allies.  ‘ The English,’ said he, in the interview granted him at Austerlitz—‘ the English are merchants ;  they set fire to the Continent, in order to secure the commerce of the world for themselves ;  and France is right in her quarrel with England.’

“ Pitt’s death in 1806, brought Fox to the head of affairs, and rendered peace possible.  It might have been expected that the ancient rivalry of two great nations, worthy of mutual love and esteem, would have been extinguished ;  but the day of reconciliation had not yet arrived.  Fox died, and the shade of Pitt protected the Tory ministry ;  which returned to power.  The English cabinet, by following Pitt’s principles, endeavoured on all hands to find new enemies for France.  It sent a squadron to the Tagus to draw Portugal into the war ;  threatened the Ottoman Porte to compel it to enter into the coalition ;  intrigued with Russia, with a view to change her pacific intentions ;  and excited Prussia against France, by persuading her that she would lose Hanover, which France had suffered her to occupy, but which she would not guarantee, except on the condition of making common cause, in compelling England to accept a peace.  As long as Fox directed the negotiations, they were carried on in an honourable and frank spirit, with the view of re-establishing peace ;  after his death, the only object was to break them off, by all possible means to elude the responsibility of the rupture, and to give the war a spirit of greater violence than before, in hopes that a new coalition would be all in favour of the allies of England, and would be for her merely an account current at the Treasury ;  and finally, that France would be exhausted, and finish by succumbing in this incessant struggle against the whole of Europe.

“ The decrees of Berlin and Milan were nothing but just reprisals upon England for the course which she had pursued.  The continental system appeared like the mere swagger of a diseased mind ;  no one comprehended its bearings, and it was even necessary to have recourse to force to ensure its execution.  The tree, however, soon bore fruit, and time will do the rest.

“ Had it not been for the treachery of 1814, the face of commerce would be now changed, as well as the route of industry ;  the impulse was immense, and our manufacturing interests and property were increasing immeasurably ;  the progress of knowledge was gigantic ;  ideas were everywhere being rectified, and science becoming popular in France.  I have been careful,” said Napoleon to his minister of commerce, “ not to fall into the errors of men of system, of preferring myself, and my own ideas, to the wisdom of nations.  True wisdom is the result of experience ;  the economists who preach up freedom of trade, constantly quote the commercial prosperity of England as a model for imitation ;  but England is the country of prohibitions, and, in some things, she is right, for protection is always necessary to encourage rising industry, and, in such cases, the value of this protection cannot be replaced by customs—smuggling destroys the object of the law.  Men in general fall far short of the truth in the solution of all these questions, so vital to national prosperity.  The truth, however, will be more and more approximated by taking, as the basis of our reflections upon, this subject, the classification which I have always adopted in agriculture, industry, and commerce—objects which are distinct, and form a real gradation :

“ 1stly.  Agriculture is the soul, the foundation of all national prosperity.

“ 2ndly.  Industry—the ready money and prosperity of the people.

“ 3rdly.  Internal trade—the profitable employment of the products of agriculture and industry.

“ 4thly.  Foreign trade—the profitable employment of the surplus of the national products, the superabundance of property, but of much inferior interest to the others, to which it is subservient, and not they to it.

“ It was the whole plan of the imperial administration to promote these diverse interests according to their national rank, but it was never successful in satisfying them all.  Time will tell what they owe to it ;  the national resources which it has created, and the deliverance which it has effected for them from the bondage of the merchants of the city.  It is now time to make known the secret of the treaty of commerce of 1783.  The English, imposed it under threats of recommencing the war, and this was what they wished to repeat the rupture of the peace of Amiens ;  but Napoleon was possessed of gigantic power, and felt that he was so ;  he replied, that he would persist in refusing, even if their armies were on the heights of Montmartre.  He has been blamed, and that justly, for conceding licences ;  but this arose from the necessity of the moment, and was only a temporary resource, as the whole continental system was merely an arm of war.  It would have been easy to come to an understanding concerning a peace, by a system of reciprocity in customs, in accordance with the interest of the two great commercial prosperities of England and France.

“ During the interview with Alexander in Erfurt, in 1808, the Emperor induced him to join in a new attempt at reconciliation.

“ Finally, in 1812, when Napoleon was in the apogee of his power, he made a fresh offer of peace to England, in concert with the Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia, who went to Dresden expressly to visit him, and to give him a splendid proof of the sincerity of their alliance.  The English ministry, and the libels of all the oligarchs in the world may say what they will, the Emperor Napoleon always wished for peace with England, because he regarded a general peace as the first condition of the regeneration of Europe.

“ The cabinet of Lord Castlereagh, as well as that of the Venetian aristocracy, suffered itself to be ruled by old women.  The great Lord Chatham said — ‘ If England were to act with justice towards France, for twenty-four hours only, she would run to her ruin.’  England is indebted to Lord Castlereagh for all the embarrassments of her situation, and the crisis which threatened her.  A man must have been blinded by an absurd respect for the opinions of Lord Chatham, or by a more absurd vanity of disinterestedness ;  worthy of a new Don Quixote, to have acted as Lord Castlereagh did at the congress of Vienna, at a time when Austria acquired 10,000,000 of people ;  Russia 8,000,000 ;  Prussia 10,000,000 ;  and even Holland, Bavaria, and Sardinia, obtained extensions of territory.  England would not have asked too much as an indemnity for the almost incredible and impossible efforts which she had made, if she had demanded and required the establishment of small maritime independent states put under her protection, such as Hamburgh, Bremen, Lubeck, Stralsund, Dantzig, Antwerp, Genoa, and Venice, to serve as an entrepot for her manufactures, with secret stipulations, which should ensure her the means of extending her trade with a moderate competition.  A still graver fault, however, was committed, by suffering Russia to obtain the crown of Poland.  It would have been a hundred times better to have given it to the King of Prussia or to the Emperor of Austria ;  nor should the Emperor of Russia have been allowed to usurp the protectorate of the four provinces on the Danube.  Russia is aggressive by nature—sooner or later she will make an irruption into Europe ;  and this, in fact, is her duty for advancing the progress of civilization among the four-fifths of her population.  Such an irruption would be a powerful and seductive means of consolidating her rule over the numerous and valiant races who dwell on her frontiers.  They would be drawn towards her by the fabulous tales of the pleasures of Europe ;  all would successively be grouped in the ranks of the Russian light troops.  The attractions of the plunder of a city like Paris are much more than sufficient to induce all the barbarians of the north to unite in a predatory incursion into Europe.  These nations have all the elements of success ;  they are brave, active, and indefatigable, insensible to changes of climate ;  they subsist upon very little, and submit to discipline like brutes.  Should Russia succeed in destroying the nationality of Poland, and acquiring the fraternity of the Poles ;  she will then be without a rival.  She will keep England at bay by threatening her possessions in the Indies, and hold Austria in check by the great moral superiority of her troops, and the assistance of the members belonging to the Greek Church, who are so numerous in Hungary and Gallizia.  According to all appearances, a Greek Patriarch will one day officiate in St. Sophia, and from that moment England will be deprived of India, and Europe at the mercy of the knout.

“ Another fault, perhaps not less grave, committed by the English ministry, was that of having united Belgium with Holland ;  because Holland never will be strong enough to prevent France from seizing upon Belgium when she pleases, and because Holland, not having the manufactures of Belgium, would again become, in her own interest, the entrepot for the most important products of the English manufactures.  It would have been much better for England to have restored Belgium to the Emperor of Austria.

“ In short, the cabinet of Lord Castlereagh is responsible for all the evils and all the disasters which threaten England, for having failed to take advantage of the opportunity of ensuring immense commercial advantages to his country, and of rendering his nation the richest and the most powerful in the world.  He signed the treaty of Paris, and conducted himself at the congress of Vienna, as if England had been conquered.  From being the directing power of the coalition, as she really was, he transformed her into a mere auxiliary ;  happy in being able to pick up a few crumbs at the banquets of kings, instead of speaking like a master, he placed himself in the wake of the chanceries of Vienna, Petersburg, and Berlin, which for twenty years had all been in the pay of the treasury in London.  He left his country oppressed by an immense debt, contracted mainly for the interest of one family—the Bourbons—and of that Holy Alliance, now so forgetful of all that England did for them, that they already begin to close the markets of the Continent against her manufactures, with no less rigour than was done by the Emperor of the French himself.

“ The debt of England is a gnawing worm—the chain of all those embarrassments which will affect her future course ;  for, in order to sustain this immense weight, it will be necessary to continue, during peace ;  the levy of those extraordinary taxes imposed during the war ;  this will, necessarily, lead to an increase in the price of provisions, and insensibly bring the people to the most frightful misery.  One of two things must happen :  either the wages of labour must increase proportionably, and then the products of English industry will no longer be able to compete with the productions of other nations in the continental markets, and the manufacturers will suffer ;  or, the wages of labour will remain stationary, to the advantage of the manufacturers, and in this case the labouring class will not be able to gain the means of providing for the most necessary wants.

“ The first element of the well-being of a nation consists in a just equilibrium between the amount of taxes imposed for the maintenance of the public revenue, and the surplus of the price of its labour ;  unfortunately, however, the taxes are not productive till they reach the masses of the people, and whenever they affect the bread of the people they engender misery and all those scourges which it brings in its train.

“ It is imperative on England to endeavour to combat this devouring monster—her debt—by all positive and negative means—by the reduction of her expenses and the increase of her commerce with the whole world.  In making reductions, she must be unsparing ;  it is necessary to cut to the quick, when mortification threatens.  In the case of sinecures, salaries, and the expense of her land-armies, reforms must be sweeping.  The political greatness of England consists in her navy, and not in those small armies which she has sent to the Continent in the train of the large armies of Russia, Austria and Prussia.

“ It is equally necessary for her to have recourse to a wise reform of innumerable abuses, connected with ecclesiastical property, the position of farmers in reference to their landlords, the administration of Ireland, as respects the mother country, and that kind of social interdict which is imposed upon nearly, onethird of the population of Great Britain in consequence of their religious faith ;  and, finally, by a free admission of all those really interested to the rights and privileges of electors.  The present state of the electoral franchise is nothing more than a brilliant deception, which places the majority of parliament in the nomination of the aristocracy and the crown.  As to Ireland, she possesses merely the fiction of a representation in parliament ;  but it is true, that she is, in fact, a conquered country.  It would have been, in reality, much better for her to have been treated as a conquered country, and then she would, at least, have had the advantage of not seeing her national debt doubled by fusion with that of England.

“ In England the aristocracy are absolute masters, and the moment that any reform threatens to touch their power or privileges, they have recourse to the habitual cry — ‘ The foundations of the constitution—touch the foundations, and the whole edifice will fall into ruins—and the liberties of the nation be destroyed.’  It is true, that, in spite of its monstrous defects, when viewed in connexion with the civilization of the age, the English constitution presents the curious phenomenon of a magnificent result ;  and it is the blessings of this result which make the people afraid of risking their loss ;  but how much more would these advantages be felt, if wise reforms were employed to facilitate the motions of this grand and beautiful machine !

“ In her foreign policy, she must know how to dare to exercise, in case of necessity, those rights of sovereignty by sea, which the sovereigns of the Continent exercise for the protection of the industry of their subjects ;  dare to oblige them to open their markets to English products, under pain of establishing a tariff upon the rights of navigation, as a compensation for their burthensome or prohibitory duties on English commerce.  Can it be that a King of Denmark has any better right of sovereignty over the Sound than a King of England has over the Channel or the Straits of Gibraltar ?  Is it that the protection of the English marine is of no value to the traaing vessels of most of the Continental states ?  There is, in fact, no want of sufficient reasons for establishing the right of search under any pretext whatever.  In speaking to the imagination of philanthropists of all colours, there is no longer any public right to invoke, when the equilibrium is destroyed ;  and at present the dominion of the sea belongs, in fact and incontestably, to England—consequently, she has a right to say to the Continental states — ‘ Your merchandise shall not be allowed to pass over my seas, without the payment of the same amount of customs which you impose on your Continent—freedom of trade for my merchandise—amen ;  but customs with you, and not with me—no.’

“ This, it may be said, would be war, but upon whom ?  Spain has not three ships fit to put to sea ;  Holland has not four ;  Naples one or two ;  Denmark has none, since the burning of her fleet at Copenhagen ;  Russia—but it would require only the smallest effort on the part of England to shut up the Russian fleet in her ports, and burn her ships.  As to France, what will her navy be for twenty-five years to come ?  The hundred ships which were built under the empire, the treaty of Paris has taken from her ! — poor France !

“ The Continent, such as it has been made by the treaties of 1814 and 1815, will submit to the lawbow to the tariffs and open its markets ;  for England can make war upon whom she will with impunity, whilst no continental power can go to war without experiencing great losses in her commerce ;  and this state of things will continue till France has again assumed her proper rank of a great nation, with a hundred ships of the line, as she had under Napoleon and Louis XIV., and 500,000 troops on her frontiers.  The disinterestedness of England, in the division of the spoils of the French empire, would be explicable, if she had designed to establish her empire on the Continent by the gratitude of the people, or if she had been seated in a congress of kings as the natural protectrix of constitutional institutions.  What would the poor Poles, the poor Spaniards, and the poor Italians, not have given to escape being placed under the iron yoke of the czar, or the inquisition !  What a noble character !  What a glorious opportunity did the morning after the battle of Waterloo afford for opening the markets of the whole of Europe to English commerce !  What better could the cabinet of St. James’s have done than to give its hand to those noble means of modern regeneration, which sooner or later will be effectual, and against which kings, by right divine, and the oligarchy, by assumption, may exhaust all their efforts in vain !  It is the rock of Sisyphus which they keep raised above their heads, and which will fall and crush them when the arm is no longer able to sustain its weight.  Napoleon has planted the seeds of liberty with a bountiful hand, wherever the civil code has been introduced.

“ The English ministry which shall put itself at the head of the liberal ideas of the Continent will receive the blessings of the universe, and all the heartburnings felt towards England will be forgotten.  Such a course would have been quite in the spirit of Fox.  Pitt would not have undertaken to pursue it.  In the case of Fox, his heart warmed his genius, whilst in that of Pitt, his intellect withered up his heart.

“ Whenever England shall undertake the regeneration of Europe, she will rest her efforts upon a foundation as deep as the earth ;  Napoleon’s foundation was upon sand.  The institutions of England are those of ages ;  England reigns over things established and immoveable.  Napoleon had the immense task of establishing them—of purifying a terrible and unexampled revolution.  He succeeded in subduing anarchy—in binding into a bundle the scattered elements produced by the world of the republicans, but he was constantly obliged to surround this bundle with his powerful arm to save it from the attacks from without, whilst Europe was incessantly in arms to conquer the principles which his crown represented within.  Factions attacked him with the most opposite views ;  he was libelled in the time of the directory for his concessions ;  he would have been the object, and France the victim, of a contre Brumaire.  In France, the people are by nature so restless, so busy, and so gossiping, that there would be twenty revolutions, and, consequently, as many constitutions, all ready in the portfolios of political constitution-mongers, of whom there are as many in France, as there are bill-discounters under the pillars of the exchange in Amsterdam.

“ The conduct of the English ministry at the Congress of Vienna, and the negotiations of the treaty of 1815 ;  its forgetfulness of all duty and patriotism, can only be explained on the supposition of a secret design, the object of which was to reduce the English people under the yoke of military power ;  to forge chains to fetter all their liberties ;  to reduce their constitutional institutions to the shadow of their former selves, and to cover them with the mantle of despotism, all which would be in perfect accordance with those principles which Prince Metternich wished, and wishes, to triumph as therule of European organization born at the Congress of Vienna.  The liberty of England is a subject of continual alarm in Vienna and Petersburg.  When the English people feel the royal yoke too heavy to bear ;  or when their distress becomes insupportable—the grape-shot or the cord of the executioner are the implements of justice.  This is possible as long as the evil has not penetrated to the marrow of the masses ;  but when it has touched the vitals, then those who were only a mob in the deluded eyes of power, become a nation ;  and then it is seen when too late, that it is indeed the masses which constitute the people, and not a few nobles or millionaires ;  for the rabble no sooner gains the ascendancy than it changes its name, and calls itself the nation.  If conquered, a few wretches are seized—they are denominated rebels or robbers ;  and thus the world goes.  Mob, robbers, rebels, or heroes, according to the chances of the strife.  Poor humanity ! ”