a ee ee EEO OOOoOOoeeeeeeelemermr.,.,LhcC.mLhCLmLcemrere _ CO EEE EE EE ee OOOO EO OE eV! 
454  Correfpondence between Great Britain and France 
political benefits; and though publications 
of this nature are, as they certainly ought to 
be, by the law of England, fubject to pu- 
nifhment, it is often difficult to prove the 
guilt of an individual fo fatisfactorily as to 
obtain the judgment of a court of juftice ; 
and the inconvenience which arifes from pro- 
fecution, unlefs there is a reafonable profpeét 
of fuecefs, is frequently fufficient to deter 
both the Government and individuals from 
undertaking it. In the prefent cafe I have 
thought it my duty to refer the article in 
quettion to his Majefty’s Attorney General, 
. for his opinion whether it is or is not a libel, 
according to the conftruction of the law of 
England, and whether it is fuch a libel as he 
would, under all the circumftances, recom- 
mend for prefecution. As foon as I receive 
his report, I thall have the honour of commu- 
nicating it to you. HAWKESBURY. 
M. Otto. 
No. 12. 
NOTE. 
The underfigned Minifter Plenipotentiary 
of the French Republic having fubmitted to 
his Government the letter which hisexcellency 
Lord Hawkefbury, Miniffer and Principal 
Secretary of State of his Britannic Majetty, 
did him the honour of writing, under date of 
the 27th July, is directed to offer the follow- 
ing obfervations : 
If the Britifh Government tolerates cen- 
fures upon the a¢ts of its adminiftration, and 
the perfonal abufe of the moft refpectable 
men, it does not fuffer even the ilighteft at- 
_ tempt againft the public tranquillity, the fun- 
damental laws of the empire, and the fu- 
preme authority which arifes from them. 
Every nation is, moreover, at liberty to fa- 
crifice any advantage whatever in its interior, 
in order to obtain another to which it attaches 
a higher value; but the Government which. 
does not reprefs the licentioufnefs of the 
prefs when it may be injurious to the honour 
or the interefts of foreign powers, would af- 
ford an opportunity for libelliftsto endanger 
the public tranquillity, or at leaft the good 
underftanding that forms the bafis of it, and 
whenever fuch ferious injuries are continued 
in aregular and fy{tematic manner, doubts 
mautt arife as to its own difpofitions. 
- The particular laws and conftitution of 
Great Britain are fubordinate to the general 
principles of the law of nations, which fu- 
pertede the laws of each individual ftate. 
Hf it be a right in Evgland to allow the moft 
extniive liberty to the prefs, it is a public 
right of poliihed nations, and the bounden 
auty of Governments to prevent, reprefs, 
and punifh, every attack which might. by 
thofe means .be made again{t the rights, 
the intesefts, aud the honour, of foreign 
powers. 
This general maxim of the law of nations 
has never been miftaken without paving the 
way for the greateft divifions, and has even 
farnithed in England a plaufible pretext to 
thofe who have written volumes to prove the 
[June 1, 
neceflity of the laft war agsinft France, 
Are thefé men now defirous of prefenting . 
to the Confular Government a weapon which 
they have wielded with fo much addrefs? 
And can they flatter themfelves that the au- 
thority which has figned the peace has not 
power to maintain it? 
By the firft article of the Treaty of Amiens, 
the two powers agree to afford no prote¢tion, 
either directly or indireétly, to thofe who 
fhould caufe prejudice to any of them. 
But the greateft of all injuries doubtlefs 
is, that which tends to debafe a foreign Go- 
vernment, or to excite within its territory 
civil and religious commotions; and the 
moft decided of all protections, is that 
which places under the fafeguard of 
the men who feek not only to dif- 
turb the political tranquillity of Europe, 
but even to diffolve the firft bonds of 
fociety. ~ 
The underfigned Minifter muft moreover 
obferve, that thisis not a queftion refpecting 
fome paragraphs, which, through the inad- 
vertence of an editor, might have been acci- 
dentally inferted in a public print; but is 
a queition of a deep and continued fyftem 
of defamation, directed not only againft the 
Chief of the French Republic, but againft 
all the conftituted authorities of the Repub- 
lic, againft the whole nation, reprefented by 
thefe libellers in the moft odious and degrad- 
ing terms. It has even been remarked that 
many of thefe prints contain an- appeal 
to the French people, againft the Go- 
vernment and fundamental laws of their 
country. 
If thefe obfervations apply to the Eng- 
lihh writers, who, for thefe three mouths 
paft, have deluged the public with the mof 
perfidious and unbecoming publications, they 
are ftill more applicable to a clafs of foreign 
calumniaturs, who appear to avail themfelves 
of the afylum offered them in England, 
only for the purpote of the better gratifying 
their hatred again France, and undermining 
the foundations of peace. 
It is not merely by infulting and feditious 
writings, evidently publifhed with a view to 
circulation in France, but by other incendiary 
pepers diftributed through the maritime de=. 
partments, in order to excite the evil-difpo- 
fed or weak inhabitants, to refift the execu- 
tion of the Concordate, that thefe implacable 
enemies of France continue to exercife hof- 
tilities, and to provoke the juft mdignation of 
the French Government and people. Nota 
doubt exifts of thefe writings having been 
compofed and circulated by Georges, and by 
the iormeér Biihops of France. Thefe men can 
no longer be confidered but as rebels againtt 
both political and religious authority, and 
after their reiterated attempts to difturb the. 
good underltanding between the two Govern- 
ments, their refidence in England. militates 
openly againft the fpirit and letter of the 
Treaty of Peace. A 
The meetings likewife which have taken 
' place 
