719 
neéral conversation, yet, no specific 
charge had been adduced, in such a 
manner as to demand a formal ex- 
planation. 1 told him, that if the 
object of the French government 
was to protract the present state of 
suspense and uncertainty, that ob- 
ject might be answered to the ex- 
tent, indeed, of a very few days, 
by forcing me to such a reference ; 
but I must, at the same time, de- 
clare to him, that it could be pro- 
ductive of no advantage, and would 
serve only to provoke such a reca- 
pitulation of the.system and conduct 
which France had pursued since the 
treaty of Amiens, as would have all 
the appearance of a manifesto, every 
item of which would carry convic- 
tion to every individual in Europe ; 
that it appeared, therefore, more 
likely to answer the end which both 
parties proposed, that of hastening 
the conclusion of an amicable ar- 
rangement, to take up the business 
on the basis which I should pro- 
pose, and by which they would ad- 
mit no more than what was incon- 
trovertible, namely, that if the 
French government exercised a right 
of extending its influence and terri- 
tory, in violation of the spirit of the 
treaty of Amiens, Great Britain 
had, if she chose to avail herself of 
it, (which I was confident she 
would not do, further than was ne- 
cessary aS a measure of security,) 
an undoubted right to seek a coun- 
terpoise. He did not seem inclined 
to dispute this position, but rather 
to admit that such a right did exist, 
and might be claimed in consequence 
of the acquisitions which had been 
made by France. On the point of sa- 
tisfaction I found him much more ob- 
stinate. He said that the first con- 
sul was hurt at the expression (sa- 
tisfaétion, ) to which he gave an in- 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1803. 
terpretation I had never understood 
belonged to it, as implying superio- 
rity ; so that if the British govern- 
ment required satisfaction of the 
French, it arrogated to itself a su- 
periority. I told him, what cer- 
tainly must be understood by every 
one, that the demand of satisfaction 
implied that one party had been of- 
fended by another, and, of course, 
had a right to demand such satisfac- 
tion; 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 offence 
to be found, but in the conduct 
which rendered such an appeal ne- 
cessary. The discussion of this 
point took up a considerable time, 
without producing any thing de- 
cisive. 
We, at last, came to the main 
point of the business; and on this 
I cannot say any real progress has 
been made, M. de Talleyrand re- 
peated to me that the first consul 
had nothing more at heart, than to 
avoid the necessity of going to war, 
and that there was no sacrifice he 
would not make, short of his ho- 
nour, to obtain this end. Is there, 
said M. de Talleyrand, no means of 
satisfying both parties ; for, at the 
same time that the first consul in- 
sists, and will always insist, on the 
full execution of the treaty, he will 
not object to any mode by which 
you may acquire the security you 
think so necessary, You are not 
satisfied with the independence of 
Neapolitan troaps ; what others will 
answer the purpose? he then start- 
ed the idea of a mixed garrison, 
composed of English, French, Ita- 
lians, Germans, &c. He begged 
that I would refer, once more, to 
your lordship, and submit the in- 
closed 
