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
Ilqndon 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..tly 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'