90] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1800. 



or railing against the character of 

 Buonaparte. I disavow any such 

 intention. At the same time, I 

 must confess, I have an old national 

 prejudice about meso far influencing 

 my judgement, as to mate me re- 

 gard the blasphemer of his God as 

 not precisely that sort of man with 

 whom I could wish to treat ; but 

 any objection of this kind I readily 

 Avave, and wish only to consider 

 him in the character in wliich he 

 forces himself upon thehouse,name- 

 ly, as professing a pacific disposition, 

 and proposing a negociation for 

 peace. I say, I am bound to con- 

 sider the character of the man as 

 connected with his proposal, before 

 I can feel sufficient inducement to 

 tempt me to enter into negociation. 

 I shall refer merely to the cases in 

 which Buonaparte has been the only 

 agent, the scenes in which he has 

 been the sole performer: I shall not 

 place to his account the contribu- 

 tion imposed on Hamburgh, nor the 

 conduct observed by France towards 

 Spain and Portugal, but I shall re- 

 fer you to the Cisalpine republic, 

 Naples, Venice, Genoa, Tuscany, 

 and Sardinia, for, in the case of all 

 these, the conduct of France was 

 the conduct of Buonaparte himself. 

 With regard to Venice, what was 

 his conduct to that state? He en- 

 tered it on the faith of a previous 

 proclamation, avowing that his sole 

 object was to protect it from falling 

 under the power of Austria. What 

 was his first act? The dissolution 

 of its government. What was his 

 second ? His surrender of it to the 

 very power against which he de- 

 clared his only object was to afford 

 it protection. What were the 

 circumstances of his conduct with 

 respect to the Cisalpine republic ? 

 A proposal of a treaty of commerce 



and alliance was made to it by 

 France, which the government of 

 that republic had the audacity to 

 decline; and for this free and just 

 exercise of its rights, the persons 

 who exercised it were punished by 

 Buonaparte. With regard to Malta, 

 we have never heard of any aggres- 

 sion committed by her against 

 France, any ground or pretence of 

 hostility; yet the attack upon that 

 island was open, and that attack con- 

 ducted by Buonaparte. Thewholeof 

 this question would embrace a va- 

 riety of instances of fraud and un- 

 provoked aggression too numerous 

 in detail; I shall therefore select 

 only such as immediately apply to 

 the proper object. What then, I ask, 

 has been the conduct of Buonaparte 

 with regard to Egypt ? It is not pre- 

 tended that there was any aggression 

 on the part of the Ottoman Porte. — 

 But what has been the conduct of 

 Buonaparte ? His last act, before he 

 left that country, was to send a me- 

 morial to the grand vizier, stating, 

 that he came to it without any hos- 

 tile intention ; that his only object 

 was torelieve him from the tyranny 

 of the beys ; and that he (the grand 

 vizier) had only to desire him to 

 withdraw with his army, and the 

 order should be instantly obeyed. 

 But what does this man, who makes 

 such pacific and friendly professions 

 to the grand vizier, say, when 

 writing to general Kleber ? He 

 desires him to enter into a negocia- 

 tion with the Ottoman Porte, but 

 to endeavour to prevent the evacu- 

 ation of the country by the army, 

 until after a general peace (a cry 

 of " hear ! hear !" ), that he might 

 still preserve a chance of returning 

 to that country. We have this man 

 stated as a lover of peace; yet all 

 this unprecedented conduct to the 



