predi. (From Commercio dei Popoli Neutrali in Trattato di Gio. M. Lampredi. In Firenze, 1788. Parte 1. pp. 901 . 902 27 & 28 Vict. c. 24. 27 & 28 Vict. c. 25. DE CAPTIVIS ET POSTLIMINIO, ET REDEMPTIS AB HOSTIBUS. (Extract from Voet, Commentarius ad Pandectas, tom. iv. 1. xlix. tit. xv. Mémoire Raisonné by the Prince de Talleyrand 'on the Treatment of the King of Saxony by the European Powers, in 1814. (From the Traité Complet de Diplomatic, par Mons. le Comte de Garden, t. iii. p. 146.). 926 APPENDIX I. PAGE 104. STATE PAPERS. Letter of Lord Grenville dismissing French Ambassador, Mons. Chauvelin, dated Whitehall, December 31st, 1792.-(From State Papers relating to the War against France. London, 1794, p. 227.) "I HAVE received, Sir, from you a note, in which, styling yourself "Minister Plenipotentiary of France, you communicate to me, as the King's Secretary of State, the instructions which you state to "have yourself received from the Executive Council of the French Republic. You are not ignorant, that since the unhappy events of "the 10th of August, the King has thought proper to suspend all "official communication with France. You are yourself no otherwise "accredited to the King, than in the name of His Most Christian "Majesty. The proposition of receiving a minister accredited by แ any other authority or power in France would be a new question; which, whenever it should occur, the King would have the right "to decide, according to the interests of his subjects, his own dignity, "and the regard which he owes to his allies, and to the general system of Europe. I am therefore to inform you, Sir, in express "and formal terms, that I acknowledge you in no other public cha"racter than that of Minister from His Most Christian Majesty, and "that, consequently, you cannot be admitted to treat with the King's "Ministers in the quality and under the form stated in your note. "But observing that you have entered into explanations of some "of the circumstances which have given to England strong grounds "of uneasiness and jealousy, and that you speak of these explanations as being of a nature to bring our two countries nearer, I have been "unwilling to convey to you the notification stated above, without "at the same time explaining myself clearly and distinctly on the subject of what you have communicated to me, though under a "form which is neither regular nor official. แ "Your explanations are confined to three points. "The first is, that of the decree of the National Convention, of the "19th of November, in the expressions of which all England saw "the formal declaration of a design to extend universally the new principles of government adopted in France, and to encourage "disorder and revolt in all countries, even in those which are neutral. "If this interpretation, which you represent as injurious to the Convention, could admit of any doubt, it is but too well justified by "the conduct of the Convention itself; and the application of these "principles to the King's dominions has been shown unequivocally, "by the public reception given to the promoters of sedition in this country, and by the speeches made to them precisely at the time "of this decree, and since on several different occasions. 66 "Yet, notwithstanding all these proofs, supported by other cir"cumstances, which are but too notorious, it would have been with pleasure that we should have seen here such explanations and such (6 a conduct as would have satisfied the dignity and honour of England, "with respect to what has already passed; and would have offered a sufficient security in future for the maintenance of that respect "towards the rights, the government, and the tranquillity of neutral 'powers, which they have on every account the right to expect. "Neither this satisfaction nor this security is found in the terms of an explanation which still declares to the promoters of sedition in every country, what are the cases in which they may count before"hand on the support and succour of France; and which reserves "to that country the right of mixing herself in our internal affairs, "whenever she shall judge it proper, and on principles incompatible "with the political institutions of all the countries of Europe. No แ one can avoid perceiving how much a declaration like this is cal"culated to encourage disorder and revolt in every country. No one can be ignorant how contrary it is to the respect which is reciprocally due from independent nations, nor how repugnant to "those principles which the King has followed on his part, by abstaining at all times from any interference whatever in the internal "affairs of France; and this contrast is alone sufficient to show, not "only that England cannot consider such an explanation as satisfactory, but that she must look upon it as a fresh avowal of those "dispositions which she sees with so just an uneasiness and jealousy. "I proceed to the two other points of your explanation, which concern the general disposition of France with regard to the allies "of Great Britain, and the conduct of the Convention and its officers "relative to the Scheldt. The declaration which you there make, "that France will not attack Holland so long as that power shall "observe an exact neutrality, is conceived nearly in the same terms "with that which you was charged to make in the name of His Most "Christian Majesty, in the month of June last. Since that first "declaration was made, an officer, stating himself to be employed in "the service of France, has openly violated both the territory and "the neutrality of the Republic, in going up the Scheldt to attack "the citadel of Antwerp, notwithstanding the determination of the "Government not to grant this passage, and the formal protest by "which they opposed it. Since the same declaration was made, the "Convention has thought itself authorised to annul the rights of the Republic exercised within the limits of its own territory, and "enjoyed by virtue of the same treaties by which her independence แ 66 66 "is secured; and at the very moment when, under the name of an "amicable explanation, you renew to me in the same terms the promise of respecting the independence and the rights of England " and her allies, you announce to me, that those in whose name you speak intend to maintain these open and injurious aggressions. "It is not, certainly, on such a declaration as this that any re"liance can be placed for the continuance of public tranquillity. 66 "But I am unwilling to leave, without a more particular reply, "what you say on the subject of the Scheldt. If it were true that "this question is in itself of little importance, this would only serve "to prove more clearly that it was brought forward only for the LL purpose of insulting the allies of England, by the infraction of their "neutrality, and by the violation of their rights, which the faith of "treaties obliges us to maintain. But you cannot be ignorant, that "here the utmost importance is attached to those principles which "France wishes to establish by this proceeding, and to those consequences which would naturally result from them; and that not "only those principles and those consequences will never be admitted "by England, but that she is, and ever will be, ready to oppose "them with all her force. 66 "France can have no right to annul the stipulations relative to "the Scheldt, unless she has also the right to set aside equally all the "other treaties between all the powers of Europe, and all the other " rights of England, or of her allies. She can even have no pretence "to interfere in the question of opening the Scheldt, unless she were "the sovereign of the Low Countries, or had the right to dictate "laws to all Europe. 66 "England never will consent that France shall arrogate the power "of annulling at her pleasure, and under the pretence of a pretended "natural right of which she makes herself the only judge, the political "system of Europe, established by solemn treaties, and guaranteed by "the consent of all the Powers. This Government, adhering to the "maxims which it has followed for more than a century, will also never see with indifference, that France shall make herself, either directly or indirectly, sovereign of the Low Countries, or general "arbitress of the rights and liberties of Europe. If France is really "desirous of maintaining friendship and peace with England, she "must show herself disposed to renounce her views of aggression "and aggrandizement, and to confine herself within her own territory, "without insulting other Governments, without disturbing their tranquillity, without violating their rights. 66 66 "With respect to that character of ill-will which is endeavoured "to be found in the conduct of England towards France, I cannot "discuss it, because you speak of it in general terms only, without alleging a single fact. All Europe has seen the justice and the generosity which have characterized the conduct of the King. His Majesty has always been desirous of peace: he desires it still; but "such as may be real and solid, and consistent with the interests "and dignity of his own dominions, and with the general security of "Europe. "On the rest of your paper I say nothing. As to what relates to me and my colleagues, the King's Ministers owe to his Majesty the "account of their conduct; and I have no answer to give to you on "this subject, any more than on that of the appeal which you proแ pose to make to the English Nation. This nation, according to "that constitution by which its liberty and its prosperity are secured, " and which it will always be able to defend against every attack, "direct or indirect, will never have with foreign powers connection or correspondence, except through the organ of its King; of a King whom it loves and reveres, and who has never for an instant "separated his rights, his interests, and his happiness, from the rights, the interests, and the happiness of his people. 66 "I have the honour to be, &c. "GRENVILLE." APPENDIX II. PAGE 54. CAUSE BELLI JUSTIFICE. Letter of Mr. Canning to Sir Charles Stuart, as to the State of Spain in 1823.-From State Papers (Spain), 1822, 1823. Vol. 10. p. 25. Foreign Office January 28, 1823. "SIR,-Shortly after I had despatched the messenger yesterday, "M. de Marcellus delivered to me the official answer of M. de "Chateaubriand to the note addressed by me to M. de Marcellus on "the 10th instant. "As it appears from your Excellency's despatch of the 24th, "which also reached me yesterday, that M. de Chateaubriand, though "he stated to your Excellency the substance of this note, had not "furnished you with a copy of it, I think it right to inclose a copy "for your information. "Upon a first consideration, I am by no means sure that it will "be necessary to reply officially to this note of M. de Chateaubriand; "since it, in effect, admits all the material propositions of the note to "which it is an answer. แ "The questions brought forward by France at Verona are acknowledged to have been French questions, in the sense in which they are in my note described to have been such; that is to say, "the interest of France is stated in those questions, not as distinct "from the interest of Europe, but as more immediate :—and it is "not denied that the refusal of his Majesty's Plenipotentiary to 66 concur in the decisions of Verona was founded on the omission |