would include Manheim, which would become the residence of the Crown Prince, instead of Salzburg. Should the negociation take this turn, it is impossible to foresee an end to it; nor do I believe that the Grand-Duke would ever consent to the cession required.

A pretended address from the inhabitants of Salzburg was forwarded to your lordship through Lord Clancarty; two other publications of the same nature have since appeared; one of them was even more obnoxious, but, upon the representations of the Austrian Chargé d'Affaires, they were immediately suppressed, so that I am not enabled to forward copies of them to your lordship. Their publication is calculated to throw much discredit on the Bavarian cause, and I believe it to be very contrary to the wishes of M. de Montgelas.

I have the honour to be, &c.,

[Enclosures.]

The Hon. F. Lamb to Lord Stewart.

F. LAMB.

Munich, January 7, 1816.

My dear Stewart-I enclose copies of the Notes demanding the intervention of the three Powers, and of that addressed by them to Count Montgelas. Thus the intervention of Russia is obtained, but there is great reason to doubt how far it will be supported. I know, from undoubted authority, that Capo d'Istrias is extremely unfavourable to the whole proceeding, and that, before leaving Paris, he wrote to the Emperor of Russia a strong remonstrance upon the subject. He has since, upon his own authority, directed Count Pahlen to use only the mildest language, and to put himself forward as little as possible until he shall receive the further orders of the Emperor; and, as the Protocol was signed at Paris after the deposition of the Emperor, and the Bavarians have since sent representations upon the subject, it seems not impossible that some change in the views of Russia may take place. This alone

would not have induced me to write to you, but I understand from Lord Clancarty that the Ministers are anxious that this question should be finally arranged before the meeting of Parliament.

Of this I see no possibility, unless Austria should be inclined to make some further cessions to Bavaria; unless she should adopt this line, I do not think that she will ever obtain the provinces in question without a demonstration of force; and even then it is highly probable that Bavaria will allow them to be occupied without signing any arrangement or relinquishing her claims upon them. This result appears to me to be calculated to produce so bad an effect in Europe, and particularly in England, that I lose no time in acquainting you with the state of the negociation, in order that you may judge how far you are authorized, or think it expedient, to attempt to dispose Austria to some further concessions.

What Bavaria wishes to obtain is the Innviertel, relinquishing the other provinces; but I should suppose that a smaller concession might be sufficient to induce a renewal of the negociation with every prospect of success. The principle of contiguity has only been asserted at last by Bavaria, when she saw that the offers of Austria were not sufficiently advantageous to induce her to relinquish it.

F. LAMB.

The Hon. F. Lamb to the Earl of Clancarty.

Munich, January 13, 1816. My dear Clancarty-I must answer your letter of the 4th at some length, and begin by agreeing with you that the Austrian negociation has been extremely ill conducted. It is only lucky that Wacquant has not taken some violent step, which he was once on the eve of doing. He is a hot-headed little General, who would delight in a war, but, though sixty years old, is much too wild and too lively to be employed as a conciliator.

I conclude you are right about the origin of his mission, and the fixing upon Munich as the place for the negociation; but, having never seen the Protocol of the 17th, I knew nothing of it before your letter arrived. If, however, this negociation depended upon the supposed renunciation of the principle of contiguity contained in M. de Rechberg's note of the 11th, I am totally at a loss to imagine how such an interpretation could ever have been put upon that note. Read it attentively, and I think you will find it the most carefully guarded exposition that ever was put together.

After asserting the perfect right of the King to yield nothing, except en raison des convenances qu'on lui offre, and his expectation that, in return for his even entering upon the discussion, the cessions which are demanded from him will be diminished, he proceeds to qualify the order of things proposed as entirely new to him, and declares that he has no instructions whatever upon the subject. This alone is surely sufficient to prevent the note in question from being looked upon in any other light than that of a first step towards establishing a basis of negociation. It declares that, from M. de Rechberg's knowledge of the King's conciliatory disposition, he takes upon himself to say that he will perhaps consent to treat and to pass the Rhine, not on condition of receiving an equivalent for the territority which he cedes, but provided he shall obtain such advantages in population and finance as may in some measure repay him for the losses attached to the relinquishment of an arrondissement qui lui a été tant de fois garanti. What is this "arrondissement which has been so often guaranteed to him?" It is either the one which he actually possesses, extending from Aschaffenburg to the Lake of Constance, or such other as shall form, according to the Treaty of Ried, une contiguité parfaite avec le royaume de Bavière et à sa bienséance. I believe the words non interrompue are there also; but, as no one of the treaties has been sent to me, I cannot be perfectly certain. By renouncing this, he by no means

renounces the principle of contiguity-a renunciation which is, under no supposition whatever, to be found in Rechberg's note. The most that can be collected from thence is that the King will consent to break into his arrondissement, if you will make it worth his while; but he by no means allows that he is to be tempted even by considerable advantages, unless the territory which is to be taken in exchange shall be contiguous.

I am sure Metternich could never have mistaken the language of this note; but it suited his purpose to appear to do so; and, being such a petty affair, everybody else trusted him, upon his word. This difference, however, between the words contiguité and arrondissement appears to me essential to a clear understanding of the case; and, if we debate the matter, will probably be put forward; therefore, pray attend to it carefully. Rechberg has never been disavowed, nor considered himself so. Montgelas said, in an interview with M. de Wacquant, that, if M. de Rechberg had renounced the principle of contiguity, he had exceeded his powers. They understand one another well, and play their game well: nobody here is a match for them. Rechberg, so far from being dissatisfied, is, in his calm way, more violent against the exchanges than anybody here. He appears to work most cordially with Montgelas, and to have almost equal influence with him in the affair.

As to the idea that the mutual exchange of Tableaux constitutes an admission of the principle, this appears to me a field for a sort of argument which never leads to anything; but I perfectly agree with you as to the want of dexterity which it has shown in Wacquant, and the advantage it has given to Bavaria. In whatever manner the negociation had been conducted, the reply of Bavaria would probably have been the same; nor do I see that any line which Wacquant could have adopted would have thrown much odium upon her. It is impossible to make the reproach of avidity to a Power who says merely-" Leave me what I have, and what you have re

peatedly guaranteed to me, if you cannot give what you promised in exchange for it."

As to the odium of resisting the wishes of all Europe, the answer of M. de Montgelas will be that of everybody else— "Ce raisonnement est excellent pour les quatre Puissances, mais nullement applicable à la Bavière, ni fait pour être adopté par elle, dont tous les intérêts sont froissés par ce que les Puissances en demandent." She may yield to their power, but her attention to their wishes must depend upon the justice and the reason of them; and does it sound unreasonable that, if she renounces the advantages of a perfect arrondissementif, besides this, she waives the right of contiguity-she should demand, not a bare equivalent, but some further advantages, to counterbalance those which she resigns? Or even suppose that she mistakes her real interest, the loss she thereby sustains is her own work and at the same time her punishment: but, to obtain possession of that which she has the right and the desire to preserve, there are but two ways-purchase, or force persuasion goes for nothing en pareil cas, and you must not expect it to have the slightest weight here.

If Wacquant had chosen to go away, according to your view, you may depend upon it that this Court would have let him do so; nor can I think that this would have advanced the chances of an accommodation; neither can I agree with you in the principle that, he having chosen to wait and to ask for instructions, the mediators have nothing else to do but to wait also. I have always thought that he would have done better to ask for our interference much earlier, in order to establish the principle of the negociation; but, having neglected this, I am sure he could not, according to his instructions, have left Munich without claiming it, when his own endeavours had proved fruitless: and, as our intervention is in no document made to depend upon the previous renunciation of the principle of contiguity; as the Protocol of the 3rd, and your instructions of the 5th, which are in fact also mine, are