186 
council summoned specially for that 
purpose;* and after comparing it 
with the instructions given to M. 
D'Oubril before his departure, and 
with the subsequent orders sent to 
him at Vienna, it was declared by the 
council, that M. D’Oubril, in sign- 
ing these articles, had not only de- 
parted from his instructions, but had 
acted directly contrary to their sense 
and spirit; and upon this ground 
his imperial majesty was advised to 
withhold his ratification of the 
treaty. His resolution to that ef- 
fect was accordingly signified with- 
out delay to the French govern. 
ment, and notified by a circular let- 
ter to all the Russian ministers at 
foreign courts. M. ‘D’Oubril was 
disgraced and exiled from court, but 
neither deprived of his rank nor of 
his appointments. 
Notwithstanding the declaration 
of the Russian council, that D’Ou- 
bril, in signing this treaty, had acted 
in the face of his instructions, the 
very slight punishment to which he 
was condemned for conduct so ine 
excusable, if truly represented, 
leaves some doubt upon the mind, 
whether he had so far devjated from 
his secret instruetions as to justify 
the imputations cast upon him. On 
the other hand, the difficulty of giy- 
ing any rational explanation of the 
change of opinion on the subject of 
peace, which must be supposed to 
have taken place in the court of St. 
Petersburg after his departure from 
Vienna, if he negotiated in confor. 
mity to secret instructions which 
were alterwards disavowed, inclines 
* August 25th. 
“ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806: 
‘ter by the menacing language of 
us to believe, that he must have des 
s.rved in some degree his disgrace; 
and his remarkable expression after 
siguing the treaty, ** that he would 
carry to Petersburg his work and — 
his head, and lay them before the — 
feet of his master,” seems to imply, | 
that he was conscious of having,in-— 
curred a dangereus responsibility, — 
by acting in opposition to his instruc. 
tions. 1t has been said, that he was — 
led into this error by a private cons | 
yersation which he had with the em. — 
peror before his departure from St. 
Petersburg, in which he imagined © 
that he discovered a more pacific 
spirit and more accommodating po. 
licy in his sovereign, than was cen- 
tained in the public instructions of 
the ministers; and to this circum~ 
stance, if true, may perhaps be im~ 
puted the mildness of ‘his punish- 
ment. It has been also said, that in 
addition to the impression made on 
his weak and pusillanimous charac- 
the French, he was precipitated 
into the fatal measure of affixing 
his name to the treaty, by an erro. 
neous opinion, that the new mi- 
nisters at St. Petersburg were less 
favourably inclined to gland than 
their predecessors, In this idea, 
however, he was widely mistaken. 
General Budberg, the successor of 
Czartorinski, was 4 man of inferiox 
talents and reputation, but equally 
attached to the connection of Russia 
with England, and disposed to make 
every sacrifice and exertion to main 
tain the alliance of the two powers, 
