of power for its object; and that although we had no prospect for the present of making that balance as even in the scale as might be wished, still we should never make a peace that did not provide a foundation for one, leaving it to time and events to bring it to something like an equipoise. In confirmation of this assurance, I referred him to the cause which had occasioned the suspension of the preliminary correspondence from the time of M. de Talleyrand's first overture in March until May. It had been interrupted, as he knew, because France had refused to admit Russia into it as our ally, on the old pretension of excluding us from continental connections; nor had it been resumed until she had given way on that vital point, by acknowledging in express terms our unlimited right of intervention and guarantee; and that it was then, and then only, that Mr. Fox, on consultation with Russia, had consented to a form which admitted of discussing, but only of discussing, separately such matters as pertained to our several interests, common as well as individual. With regard to specific conditions, I had it not in my power to particularise what they were likely to be; but on one point, namely, the cession of Sicily to France, I could venture positively to assure him that, so far from consenting to its surrender, it was not intended to be made the subject even of negociation; that in fact there would be no negociation at all unless France as a preliminary renounced her demand of Sicily, and returned to her first proposal of the uti possidetis; for it was on the acceptance of that condition alone, that Lord Yarmouth would produce his powers.

After so distinct an assurance, I had no right to be surprised at perceiving some coldness on the part of the minister when he communicated the fact to me, which he did a few days after this conversation, of the presentation of his full powers by Lord Yarmouth

without his having obtained this previous renunciation. At first sight it seemed to be clear, that on this latter point, I had either deceived him, or had been deceived myself; and in either case my credit with him must necessarily be diminished. But this awkward state of our incipient diplomatic relations was sure to cease on the receipt of my next despatches from London. In the full certainty therefore of what they would contain on this head, I ventured to assure him that either some great mistake, or some pressing necessity, must have occurred at Paris to have occasioned such a step on the part of our negociator; and that, after all, France would gain nothing by it but the insignificant advantage of being enabled to perplex the conferences at her pleasure, by the introduction of fresh matter for dispute without the remotest prospect of attaining her end.

In all that I had anticipated on this subject the event fully bore me out. It was soon known that to produce his full powers on the instant, or to quit Paris in twenty-four hours, was the alternative offered to Lord Yarmouth, before M. d'Oubril could have well folded up his treaty. Placed in so new and difficult a situation, the French government having actually refused him the short delay necessary to get fresh instructions upon it from his own government, and unwilling to take upon himself the responsibility of an absolute rupture, Lord Yarmouth had indeed given way, and by so doing had admitted that he was ready officially to discuss the pretension of France to place Sicily among the objects to be treated for; but on the other hand it will be no less clear on referring, as we shall shortly do, to the correspondence, that from the beginning to the end the French negociators never advanced a single step towards their object of acquiring Sicily, nor even so far as to obtain an estimation of its value from the British plenipotentiary

in considering what might constitute an equivalent for it.

It is needless to say that my very first despatches from London were of a nature fully to relieve the British government from all suspicion of a vacillating policy on this important occasion, and to reinstate me consequently in the confidence of the Austrian minister.

But in order to sift this whole matter to the bottom, to clear the way for rightly understanding the steadiness and the unity of our policy at this period until Napoleon, failing to separate us from the Continent by his diplomacy, effected it for a time by his arms, it will be necessary to go somewhat at length into the history of these Paris negociations; with respect to which, and to the true causes of their rupture, much mis-statement has been hazarded, and much error has prevailed.

CAUSES OF THE COMMENCEMENT AND RUPTURE OF THE NEGOCIATIONS FOR PEACE IN 1806

BETWEEN

ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

In order thoroughly to understand the circumstances which led to the negociations for peace, in 1806, and the reason of their failure, we must look back to the first war with France, in 1793. Into the causes of that war, and by what gradations we got into it, it will not be necessary to enter. The facts are as follow: A long series of vices and errors had existed in the government of France. The country called for a remedy to them. If the first movers in the revolution looked, for their part, no further than so to limit the monarchy as to obtain through new institutions security against the return of the public evils, other leaders with far different views, and other factions formed on far different principles, soon took the direction of it out of their hands, and, instead of reforming the monarchy, subverted it. These new leaders went further. They passed the celebrated decree of fraternity, holding out to the people of all other countries who might choose to imitate their example the promise of assistance and support. In doing this they had gone beyond the lawful means of defence which every country is justified in employing against its adversaries, and thus put themselves into a state of hostility towards every community, whether monarchical or republican, that was living under settled government. Europe took the alarm. A revolution so made and so sustained could not be matter of indifference to the neighbours of France, especially to England. It could not be so, whether considered as an example in government, or as her

first step towards the conquest of the world. The question, therefore, for us, was-how to deal with it. The most distinguished leaders of the public opinion at that time were Mr. Pitt, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Fox. Now, in this case, and before any act of direct aggression had been committed on either side, there was a choice as to our mode of proceeding. First, we might make war upon France, and force her back on her old monarchy. Secondly, we might keep aloof, and wait for events, observing a wary and mistrustful neutrality towards her. Thirdly, we might leave her alone; be neutral, but friendly in our neutrality; and above all, throw no obstacles in the way of her internal reforms.

Of these three modes of proceeding, Mr. Burke was for the first; Mr. Fox for the last. The minister took the middle course. He would neither enter into war for the old monarchy, nor, if forced into one, continue it until its restoration; but he was willing enough to oppose the revolution by arms, if France should give just cause for hostility on other grounds.

The comparative prudence of these different courses it were useless now to discuss; all that is required is to point out clearly the opposition of sentiment which prevailed amongst the great leaders of the state. For the views of Mr. Burke, and his reasoning upon them, we may consult his writings; and Mr. Fox, in his letter to his constituents of December, 1793, has set forth his own in a manner sufficiently explicit to be left as they stand for the judgment of after times. The views of Mr. Pitt, together with his acts, must appear before the same tribunal, to be judged by those rules of historical justice to which all men are amenable whose hands have wielded the destinies of the world.

But the diversity of opinion amongst these eminent men led to other differences, which, as materially