The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1807-01-06 00:00:00

...

original basis, -although no dire& words were used.
Can there be any dispute of the fact ? Cannot those,
who do dispute it, refer to Mr. Fox's letter of the
96th of June ? In that letter our lamented statesman
shows all the indignation which he felt at their re-
traition of a basis of :Ili pouidetis, proposed by the
French themselves, at the outset of the Negociation,
and alludes to Lord Yarmouth being sent to Paris,
upon that basis alone ; and states too, that it had
made the greater impression upon him, because the
same words had been used in a letter to himself.
I certainly have to apologize to the House, for an
apparent omission here, of what is important to no-
tice It refers to a passage which is published in
some one of the Holt letters amongst these Papers,
wherein the French say, " they have nothing to de-
sire of what England possesses " It was remarked
to me, that these English words were not so corn-
prehensive as the French expression used in some
of the letters, where it is said, " News ne rows de-
setnidons rien." I have to refer to another letter, in
which it is stated, "that the Emperor finds himself
in a situation in which he has nothing to demand of
England, for that he believes the greatness of
France compatible with the greatness of England."
In short, Sir, the offer originally made by Talley-
rand was distinct, and such was the offer on which
we aced. If then such be the foe, I should
like to know from the Right Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite, what we ought to have done ? Do they
mean to say, that after receiving such an offer to
treat upon the basis of actual possession, it being
desirable to open a Negnciation for Peace, we
should have rejected such proposition, because it
was not strialy given in writing ? One Noble
Lord in this House (Lord Castlereagh), and ano-
ther in the other House (Lord Hawkesbuty),
have stased, that it was not loose and vague as-
sertions, but writings, we ought to have lock -d to
I would ask them, whether it is in the nature of the
world, that negociations should commence in an;
other mode than this one has done ? Are not such
treat es commenced by something in an unofficed
er indite& manner, both na,ions being unwilling to
take the first steps towards an amicable a. c 31111710-
dation, or of making concessions the one to the
other, till such time as they know that their honour
will not be commisted ? All negotiations have
been experienced to be so begun ; and if these di-
plomatists, who argue otherwise, be right, there
would be many more difficulties thrown in the way
of an accommodation of differences between belli-
gerent powers, than were ever supposed to exist. Is
there not something then that would justify a verbal
communication ? Is it net the first, the preliminary
• step, towards opening a communication for peace?
Is it not also the practice, even at that solemn period
when two natioas are about to go to war with each
other, when one of them is wishing to produce an
eition.ttete If If that verbal proposal is not to be
conceded, then what are the consequences? The
consequences of the one case are much more dread-
ful than the other ; and, therefore, of the two, I
should think, that the communications for Peace
should not, of necessity, be in wilting, at the very
econmencement of a Negotiation. I hold in my
band a document relative to the Negotiation which
preceded this present War. The Noble Lord op.
polite. to whom I have alluded, was then a Member
of the Cabinet (Lord Castlereagh), and the Right
Hun. Gentleman opposite, was then Attorney-
General (Mt. Perceval), neither of whom would
be guilty of allowing any thing irregular to pass
ander their Administration ; and, therefore, I
would ask them, if they thought themselves blame-
able for any omission in the general issue of the Ne-
gociation to which I allude Another Right Hon
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rose), did also support
that former Negociation, and did not pass any se-
verescriticism upon the details thereof; but, inched,
he was less implicated thao the others. In that Ne-
gociation, 1 find that Lord Whitworth spoke of three
auricles, stating. that if no concession was made,
he had orders to return to England ; on which
Talleyrand wished his Lordship to give in his
proposals, formally, in writing ; but his Lord-
ship expressly declared, that his instrations for-
bad his giving in any written noti'e. if we are
to take these privileges, are we to deny the French
the same ? If we do not, it would be saying
to.ther more nor less than that we think them such,
that we will not to list them ; but that they must take
concessions verbally from us, while we must de-
mand writing. Lord Hawkesbnry, indeed, went so
far as to authorise Lord Whitworth to deliver a
note in writing, if he was much p 1; but if not
so pressed, he was to condua it verbally, and it so
happened that this latter mode was adopted. In
the present instance, however, to the written letter
of M. Talleyrand, Mr. Fos sends a written answer,
discussing the points in controversy. Lord Yar-
mouth's instructions were merely to ascertain the
basi,. and, nn that being acknnwledged,ht was an-
thori‘ed to produce his powers, but not till then. The
very first step in this Negotiation must necessarily
produce written acknowledgments s and, as I have
stated, such an acknowledgment was first made by
the French Government. Lord Yarmouth, indeed.
was tent back to Paris, wish instructions not to pro-
duce his powers till the hays was more formally ac-
knowledged. Undtitilitedly his powers were produced
without any such acknowledgment being obtained;
but that step must have been taken from the peculiar
circumeeances at the time, and from a reliance of the
basis having been formerly expressed. I cannot
comptehend where any real objedions can be stated
against making such acknowledgments. both ex-
pressed and implied. the basis of commencing a
.Negociation. When Lord Yarmouth ariived in
Parts, be found things much altered, as I have
stated ; and M. D'Ouhril arriving soon after-
wards, and making representations to France,
caused a restriction of former offers mole to
us. This placed Lord Yarmouth, undoubte lly,
in a very difficult situation; after he perteiv-
ed that D'Oebril bad signed the Treaty, he
naturally conceived that there was no other
plan left of affording an opportunity for Peace
with this country and France, than by producing
his powers. • I am far, indeed, from disputing that
Noble Lord's motives, or that he aced any other-
wise than with an earnest wish for the good of the
• country ; but at the same time, 1 must say, that it
was contrary to the wish or expectations of His Ma-
jasty's Governmen', that he should do so, unless he
Iry received a tornial written acknowledgmentof the
leeie. tlas his Lordsh:p died iaUsc beyoad his