HISTORY OF EUROPE. [93 



of good faith in their former nego- 

 ciations with France ? During the 

 mission of lord Malmsbury to Paris, 

 the jacobin government, then ex- 

 isting, was no obstacle to negocia- 

 tion in the estimation of them who 

 sent him. He was not commissioned 

 to insist on a renunciation, on their 

 part, of existing principles, or on ac- 

 knowledgments tending to their 

 crimination. Yet, without these 

 essentials, these preliminaries, his 

 lordship expected good faith on their 

 part to any treaty that might have 

 been concluded : otherwise their at- 

 tempt atnegociation could not have 

 been sincere. In the second nego- 

 ciation at Lisle, one set of negoci- 

 ators were recalled, and a more 

 Jacobinical set sent in their places. 

 Still no objection was started to far- 

 ther negociation. His majesty de- 

 clared, in the face of all Europe, 

 that he was ready to conclude a 

 treaty with them, if their overtures 

 had been at all reconcileable to the 

 honour and interests of his subjects 

 and allies. To discountenance ne- 

 gociation, many arguments had 

 been drawn from the character of 

 the first consul, who was repre- 

 sented both as an infractor of trea- 

 ties, and an unprincipled blas- 

 phemer. Every topic that could 

 revile, and every art that could 

 blacken, had been resorted to for 

 the purposes of political slander : 

 and he was very sorry to see that 

 the intercepted correspondence, 

 strengthened with notes, had made 

 its appearance, with a view to preju- 

 dice the country against the first 

 consul, and thereby to set every 

 hope of negociation at a distance. 

 It had been said by Mr. Dundas 

 that since Buonaparte had been 

 , known to mankind, in no one in- 



stance had he ever observed a treaty 

 or kept an armistice. It was well 

 known, Mr. Whitbread observed, 

 that the preliminaries of Leoben 

 were not broken, or the peace with 

 Austria infringed by Buonaparte ; 

 for, before these events took place, 

 he had left Europe. The conduct 

 of Buonaparte, at Venice, Mr. 

 Whitbread did not attempt to de- 

 fend any more than that of Austria. 

 As to the charge of misconduct to- 

 wards the Cisalpine republic, the 

 ground of accusation was the entire 

 act of the executive directory. — 

 With regard to what had been said 

 of treachery on the part of Buona- 

 parte in ordering general Kleber to 

 negociate with the Porte, but to de- 

 lay the completion of the treaty till 

 such time as he should hear from 

 France, the completion of the 

 treaty was the evacuation of Egypt, 

 which Kleber might have been 

 very well told to delay, without 

 any reasonable charge of treachery 

 on the side of Buonaparte. It was 

 said that he who could have invaded 

 Egypt ought never to be treated 

 with. To seize and colonize that 

 country, Mr. Whitbread observed, 

 had always been a favourite scheme 

 of the old government of France. 

 The only difference between the 

 two was, that the new government 

 of France had executed what the 

 old had only planned. Treachery, 

 however, of that kind, was not 

 confined to France. For Prussia 

 could seize Silesia, and three of the 

 first powers of Europe, while Eng- 

 land was a tame spectator, could 

 divide and appropriate to themselves 

 the unfortunate kingdom of Poland. 

 Yet Austria and Russia, the chief 

 agents in this transaction, were still 

 our good and true allies : and with 



