The National Register. — London, England, 1808-01-17 00:00:00

, . • 40 —*fa . . , lug, drom aulhorky, that no secret engagement was ever formed at Tilsit, which in any way concerned gag land, fi Why, it is added, " does not the Cabinet of I l qndon make known these secret engageincnts which are contrary to the interests of England, if it be acquainted with them Its Manifesto in that case would be unneces sary, and the mere communication of these Secret Ar ticics would justify its conduct in the eyes of E and 14 :y toe eyes :taupe, redoiiide the zeal and energy of every English citizen:it,— • As the meeting of Parliament is so near, we have no . . doubt that such tualiguant insinuations will be effectually films eta, by the .actual production of these documents in • the coUstitutional channel. It is ungenerous, and even eriptilal, to allege thiit our Ministers are so destitute of common sense, as to have compromised their own honour - and that of the nation, by asiorting, and acting upon the assertion, that they lin d proof of a conspir- cy against Britait., while no such proofs were really in existence. : We trt.:,t that we shall soon he presented with the means of v't.iiiat:ng these insullfi upon the Monitcur. But the Manifesto goes on to assert, that our Ministers not only bad no proofs of any secret hostile engagements at Tilsit, but that they did not themselves believe such erigagonents existed. The following is the very curious reuoitipg - employed on this occasion 4 ‘ If, in fart, .the Cabinet of London did believe in the ez istence of arts h engageine.nts between France and Russia, why did it not, at the very instant that. it made that discovery which indueed it to attack Copenlizt , rensail the Russian squa dron in the Meliterrarmaii, instead of permitting it to clear the • Straits of Gibraltar? Why did three Russian vessels, which were coming from the North Sea, pass through the English squadron which was blockading Copenhagen ? Why, if secret stipulations ha-1 been made at Tilsit to the disadvantage of England, did the Cabinet of London have recourse to the me diation of Russia, in order to conciliate its differences with Den mark ? Let these Ministers be at least consistent with them selves, and let them not assert, a few pages lower, these very Wards- 4 ' But unlit the Russian Declaration teas published (that is, until Noveinter,) hi.c .Vaje.. t ly had sto reason to suspect that any opinion . i which the EmperJr of I:ussia might entertain of the transactions at Copenhagen, could he such as le preclude his Imperial Majesty from undertaking, at the request Great Bri tain, that same office of Nediator.'"fhos the English have re , cootie to the niesliation of Russia, in colter to come to an ar rangement with Denmark, more than three mouths after the Treat% of Tilsit ; and they pretend, as we shall see still far ther clown, that they undertook the exrdition against Den mark, only to oppose the execution of the arrangements al Tilsit, awl to det;-at one of the objects of those arrangements.' They briLt`ii llaiiish vessel', on account of wangeincilts which the Emperor of Russia had made at Tilsit : they permitted the vessels of the Emperor of Russia to pass freely ; they were qt peace with Russia, for they had recourse to her mediation ; It i= 'lent e not true that they now believe in the existence nt fro se avaii,:einents, How is this unhappy nation fal4.u? by what mi. erable councils an. her atf:: irs directed ! Ilcr 'tf misters, . in wanting a Manifesto of u few tutees, have not good sense and tedecti:lo enough to avoid contradictions thus gross!" The lamentations of our Ministers over the degraded state into which ALEXANDER, has brought himself, and the hopes they express that he would sooner have returned to a conduct more consistent with his dignity,are attempted to be turned into ridiklite. We are told, 'that to have broken a treaty as soon as it was made, would have been a singular way to retrieve his honour; arid perfectly similar to the coaduct. of Britain himself, who makes treaties merely for the occasion, and maintains them only as long as suits her movenience t When our-Mioisters state the moderate manner in which ter at pined to the EMPEROR of Itt , sstA, fur the comma picatii.,44 of taa secret u:ticlek of the tretity of Tilsit; the T ---- THE NATIONAL REGISTER. JAN. If, ilioniteur assures us, that the EssPEROR of Russia flatly de nied any such articles existed which at all concerned us, and that we still seemed resolved not to be satisfied unless he would actually forge such articles for us, To this we may answer, that we have as yet no authority, but that of the Monfteur, that the EMPEROR of Russia actually has denied the existence of such articles, The manner in which the Moniteur evades the unanswer able statements of our Ministers, that the cause of the KING of PRUSSIA was not more that of Britain than of Russia, is a singular display of unblushing sophistry. The war in which Austria was overthrown, and that in which Prussia was conquered, are confounded together: a discus sion is then entered into with a view to prove our close connection with Austria, and the very particular claims she' had on our assistance; and hence it is concluded that we wore under much greater obligations than Russia to support Austria? No—to support Prussia ! Rut the moat singular part of this very whimsical piece of argumentation is the conclusion. The writer of the article, finding that be had fairly involved himself in a labyrinth of confusion, begins ko rail at the English Government for the very folly ;nto which . he has himself fallen. " This confounding of the most recent events," says he, " this ignorance of the occurrences of our own times, is worthy of the present Ministers of England ! ! ! " A long dissertation follows, in which the Moniteur, after maintaining the charge that we deserted our allies, very ingeniottill! detsils the operations for their support, which we ought to have undertaken. This silly tirade, deserves neither repetition nor remark, In the second article of this paper, our readers will find a short statement of our sentiments on this question, In answer to the assertion of our Ministers, that only one Russian ship has been condemned in our Courts, the Moidleur recounts the oppression of our cruizers in :imp ping and searching Russian vessels; and asserts, on what authority it does not think fit to tell, that twelve more of the detained ships have been condemned since our declar,,- tion of war was published. The statement of our Ministers, that they had not im mediately accepfrd the mediation of Russia, because she was so intimately connected with our enemies, and would not communicate the secret articles of the treaty of Tilsit, is noticed in the following singular passage, of which every one can judge. " Sophistry and hypocrisy add to the sentiment of disgust which is felt at reading such absurdities. However horrible the priu ciple of perpetual war may he, it would be less shameful to avow it : there is a so!1 o f grf ntntss in baidtypresclaiming cri;nrs, England says, that she has not refused the mediation offered by the Emperor of Russia ; and yet the very day that her Note ap peared in answer to that offer, her troops entered Copenhagen, declaring-, in this manner, war, not only against Russia, but against Austria and the whole of the Continent. Her answer to the Cabinet of St. Petersburg,' was read by the light of the con= flagration of •Copenhagen. And what was that answer ? That England wished to know the basis of the negotiation. ltow wretched a shift, when the question involved such important in terests: ' Lord Yarmouth and Lord Lauderdale knew those bases : let it be asked of them, whether they believed France wished for peace. Tim most desirable basis was disclosed in the Notes of Russia, since she offered her mediation for a just aud konourable peam. England demanded a guarantee, and the Em peror of Russia offered his. Was there on earth a guarantee . more powerful and more august ? As to the communication ot the Secret Articles concerning you, , whet right had you for them, since none such eNisted ? What was your reel inten tion ? To refuse the mediation. You have refused it ; and the hand which sinned the refusal was then reeking with the bleed of the Woe., the dcarest and oldest of the Allies of 4U:ltioll.7' ~--• •-re- -~ . r