Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1803-07-29

fore, IlIall TO AFFORD any ~ l' -
nation. He said, that IN order to pro-
coed regularly, il would be necessary tna'
the French government should be INFORM
cd precisely what were The objects Wh.cn
had created such uneasiness, and on wn'e'''
It was alledged all explanations had been
refused. That although this had perhaps
been touckrd upon in general conversation
vet no specific charge had been adduceo
in such manner as To demand formal
explanation. / told him, that it the OBJ
le6t Of the French government was 20
protraet the present state Of suspense ana
uncertainty, thar object might be answer
ed TO the extent indeed Of a very few
days, by forcing me to such reference J;
but must at the same time declare 20
him, that it could be productive OF no
advantage, and would serve only pro-
woke such recapitulation Of the system
and conduct which France had pursued
since the treaty Of Amiens, as would have,
all the appearance of manifesto, every
item Of which would cause conviction to:
every individual in Europe that 1t ap-
peared therefore more likely to answer the
end which both parties proposed, that OF.
fastening the conclusion OF an anlcable
arrangement, 10 take up the business on
the basis which should propose, and by
which they would admit no more than.
what was incontroyertable, namely, that IT
the French government exercised right
of extending its influence and territory,
in violation Of the spirit of the treaty OF
Amiens; Great Britain had if she chose
to avail herself Of it, (which was comb
dent she would not do further than was
necessary as measure Of security an
andoubted right 10 SEEK a counterpo'sc.
He did not seem inclined TO dispute this
position but rather to admit that such a
right did exist, and might be claimed IT
consequence of the acquisitions which had
been made by France. On the point of
satisfaction found him much more OBJ
stinate. He said that the first consul was
hurt at the expression (SahyafionJ 10
whlchhe gave an Interpretation ! bad ne
yer understood belonged to it, as IMPLY,
ing superiority; so that if the British 60
vernment required satisfaction of the
French, it arrogated to itself superiority.
| told him what certainly must be under
stood by every one, that the demand OF
satisfaction implied that one party had
been offended by another, and Of course
had a right to demand such satisfaction
that an inferior had an equal right with
his superior TO demand it; but in the case
in question there was perfect equality,
and consequently there was no oAence4to
be found but in the conduct which rem
dered such an appeal necessary. he
discussion OF this point took up conside-
rabe time, without producing any thing
decisive.
6 We at last came to the main point
of the business /; and ON this cannot say
any real progress has been made. NJ. de
Talleyrand repeated to me that the First
Consul had nothing more at heart than TO
avoid the necessity of going to war, and
there was no sacrifice he would make short
of his honor to obtain this end. Is there,
said NJ. Talleyrand, no means of satisfy
Ing both parties ? for at the same time
that the first consul insists, and will al
ways insist, on the full execution of the
treaty, he will not Object to any mode by
which you may acquire the security you
think necessary. You are not satisfied
with the independence Of Neapolitan
troops; what others will answer the pur-
pose He then started the idea Of mixed
garrison, composed Of English, French,
Italians, German, &c. He begged that /
would refer once more to your lordship,
and submit the enclosed paper, which he
drewup in my presence. ] told him,
that we were only losing time by such a