The National Register.
London, England, 1816-01-28 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

:S;IR R. WILSON, MR. BRUCE, AND MR:
HUTCHINSON.

Tune Goitlemen, all persons of some rank and con-
sideration, and to whom we must give ordinary credit for
possessing the honourable feelings of their profession, are.
confined in FRANCE, under a charge of assisting in the
Rescue of LA VALI:TEE. We last week collected, by
way of anticipation, all the probable or possible causes
of their conduct. We are ourselves at present inclined to
consider it, on the part of Sir K. WI esoN, the impulse of
private feeling and friendship, and that the other gentlemen
have been misled by him : but it is publicly stated, that
Mr. 'Luxes declared he had a right to interfere, in virtue
of the Convention of PARIS Whether this has been vio.
lated or not our readers may judge. The note to Lord
CHARLE4 STUART, by the advocates of NEY, places the
case in a very clear point of view, and the only question
wills be whether, in contracting with the Doke of Wet.
eirenTosr and BLUCHER for an amnesty, the French
generals were not short sighted, not to say over. reached,
by omitting to stipulate for their guarantee against the
returning government; who by them only could be re-
stored. The common principle is, that every grant shall
be construed most forcibly against the grantor. Now the
words do not. stipulate for Louis XVIII. and if WELLING.•
To sr and BLUCHER had this mental reservation, they nave
outwitted NEY and Davousv in the quibbles of diplomacy,
as well as beaten them in war. If the Duke of WLei.iwo-
'row took possession in his own right, or right of his sove-
reign, for an instant ; he was bound, while in possession,
to protect NEY. That is quite clear, according to the
letter of the Convention. lie did take possession. He
afterwards almost instantly handed over PAltls, without
stipulations to Louis XVIII. Ought he to have done
this? Can Louis XVIII. hold Paris except according to
the terms on which WELLINGTON told it? Is not every
subsequent possessor, bound by the mortgage, or contract
of the first taker, of his last ancestor, or of the previous
possessor. This is the only ground on which the case can
now stand, and if so, should Louis XVIII. even be right'
in disregarding the Convention, it will not be so easy to
show that the ENGLISH have not been guilty of any omis-
sion. If the Duke of WELLINGTON acted as ally of, and
for, Louis XVIII. then is not Louis XVIi I. bound by
his contract ? Or shall the people of PARIS super by the
omission of his name ? Louis XVIII. will say that he
came in by a prior right, and is retested in his Former power.
But if WELLINGTON considered this to be the case, was
he not then stipulating as agent for Louis XVIII ? Could
the re-entry have been made except through the process of
the Duke of WELLINGTON, and was not the compromises
with him binding on Louis XVIII.
We think we have thus reduced the question to its fair
'merits. It is a case of plain Law, and the opinion of NET
or WELLINGTON is alike immaterial. Whether the officers
in the British Service can justly interfere, except by ss
memorial to the crown of England we confess we doubt
much. Subordination is at an end if this is allowed. And
whatever we may think of the chivalrous honour of the
BRUCE (meaning the great King of Scotland ROBERT
BRUCE), a name quite as glorious as that of any of the
, BOURBONS, and not to be eclipsed even by a IlEsity IV)
of whom we hear so much, even to the nausea, that
makes us loath again, we are obliged to confess that the
sole honour in a modern soldier is to go where his monarch)