Page images

ment Français, qui croit avec raison que dans cet ouvrage, il n'y aura que des sottises contre le Duc de Wellington, a déjà fait offrir six mille francs au libraire pour que le livre ne paraisse pas. Je tiens ces détails du libraire lui-même qui m'assure encore que Sarrazin lui avait dit qu'il ne cesserait d'écrire contre le Gouvernement Anglais et les Anglais en général que lorsque le Gouvernement de France lui donnerait, au lieu d'une solde de retraite, sa solde toute entière. Qu'on juge d'après cela quelle est la foi qu'on peut ajouter aux faits racontés par un homme qui n'écrit que pour un vil intérêt.

Il paraît que le Gouvernement Français ne peut pas encore trouver des gens qui veuillent se charger de la fourniture des troupes étrangères aux taux stipulé dans le traité. Un agent du Duc d'Orléans vient de recevoir une lettre du Duc, dans laquelle celui-ci lui dit qu'il est possible qu'il aille faire un voyage à Naples. On croit que c'est le Roi de France qui lui a conseillé de se retirer à Naples pour dissiper les soupçons qui planent sur lui.

Je suis très sûr que la plus grande partie des Membres de la Chambre de Députés firent tous leur efforts pour tâcher de faire comprendre Talleyrand dans la liste des proscrits, mais ils ne parent trouver aucun moyen d'en venir à bout. On dit maintenant que lui aussi est obligé d'aller faire un tour à Naples quoiqu'il soit le grand chambellan du Roi.

Les Français qui détestent cordialement les Anglais, prennent cependant un très vif intérêt aux trois Anglais qui ont été arrêtés dernièrement, parcequ'ils firent sauver Lavalette. Ils disent aussi qu'il n'est pas vrai, comme le ('ourier semble vouloir faire croire, que l'Ambassadeur Anglais n'eut connaissance de cet évènement que par M. Bruce qui s'addrera à lui. Selon eux, non seulement l'Ambassadeur mais le Duc de Wel. lington et le Ministère Anglais furent instruits de tout cela avant l'arrestation, qui n'eut lieu que d'un commun accord, parceque le Gouvernement Français, dans la situation où il est maintenant, n'aurait pas Oné de son chef faire arrêter trois

Anglais de marque à Paris. À l'appui de tout cela Messieurs les Français disent qu'un Prussien, qui avait commis des désordres dans le pays occupé par les Prussiens, ayant été arrêté par les Français, qui lui font les procès à Metz, les Prussiens réclament contre cela, parcequ'ils disent que la connaissance de cette affaire leur appartient exclusivement. D'après cela les Français ajoutent: “ Pourquoi les Anglais ne feraient pas autant pour leurs compatriotes arrêtés dans un pays occupé par eux? C'est que le Gouvernement Anglais s'entend làdessus avec le Gouvernement Français."

Dans tout cela, je n'ai fait que répéter ce que j'ai oui dire dans les sociétés de Paris ; dans lesquelles (il faut le dire) on ne se serait jamais attendu à trouver tant de zèle pour des Anglais. Mais cela prouve plus que jamais que la haine qu'on a ici en général pour toutes les opérations du gouvernement l'emporte même sur les rivalités nationales les plus acharnées.

Deux officiers Anglais, qui traversaient le Palais Royal la semaine dernière furent très injustement et très cruellement insultés par un mauvais officier réformé. Les Anglais se mettaient en devoir de le repousser comme il le méritait, lorsque toute la canaille se rassembla autour d'eux et contre eux, de manière qu'ils furent obligé de se retirer. C'est un nouvel avis aux Anglais pour qu'ils soient toujours en force et toujours sur leur garde dans ce pays-ci.

The Hon. F. Lamb to Lord Castlereagh.

Munich, January 25, 1816. My dear Lord, I have nothing to add to my public despatches except a statement relative to the money intended to be offered to Baden. M. de Wacquant has twice suggested to me that this might be taken from the sum appropriated to the building a fortress upon the Rhine, and it seeins possible that the proposition may be made to your lordship.

The Austrian Government seems at one time to have entertained the same idea with regard to the exchanges with Bavaria ; and M. de Wacquant requested me to ascertain whether a sum of money would not be a facility in the negociation. I had no difficulty in making the inquiry of M. de Rechberg, who said that compensation in territory was the only one which they would accept. I hope that the opinion of Austria with respect to Baden is better founded.

The Prince Royal set off last night at ten o'clock, and M. de Rechberg omitted sending for my despatch to Lord Stewart, as he had promised. This is of no importance, and I equally forward a copy of it to your lordship, and have the honour to be, &c.,

F. LAMB. As I had told M. de Rechberg and Montgelas my opinion about the two notes, and they had both admitted it and treated it as a good joke, I should not be surprised if he had purposely avoided receiving my despatches, preferring to make his communication himself to Lord Stewart, without any comment of mine.

Lord Clancarty to Lord Castlereagh.

Frankfort sur Maine, January 27, 1816. My dear Lord-I avail myself of a courier which M. de Gagern is about to despatch to his Court, for the purpose of obtaining, as I really hope and believe, a last instruction, to acquaint you with the state of that negociation.

In my despatch of the 20th, I acquainted you with the then intention of the two plenipotentiaries to forward the treaty, as soon as the several articles should have been previously agreed upon, to their respective Courts for approbation prior to signature. This, however, is now necessarily altered, from the circumstance of neither party feeling himself authorized to yield further than he has now done to the views of the other, and so a perfect agreement being for the present unattainable. I am, however, far from thinking that this alteration of proceeding will create delay, and am strongly of opinion that the return of M. de Gagern's courier, and that of one already despatched by M. de Humboldt with the same object, will enable us to complete this business to the reasonable satisfaction of all parties.

We had last night, Humboldt, Gagern, and I, a sitting of near four hours' duration, in which we went through the whole treaty, during the course of which many points were reconciled, and several ceded on both sides ; so that it may now with truth be asserted that only one subject of difference exists to prevent the entire accord of both plenipotentiaries. This is upon the proportionate share which each party should incur in the expense of supply and maintenance of the fortress of Luxemburg; which, upon first statement, would appear a large obstacle to prevent agreement, but which, upon examination, seems to me to dwindle almost into nothing. In the first place, it has been agreed to lay down as a principle in one of the articles that this expense should be borne by the German Confederacy, whose fortress Luxemburg is, and it is stipulated by the same Article, already assented to, that the High Contracting Parties shall exert their efforts, according to their moyens respectifs, to obtain the adoption of this principle by the Diet. (Note, I do not see any objection to our signing an Article thus qualified: if you should think there is, be so good as to acquaint me with it without the least delay.) The difference then only operates materially upon a contingency which may never occur, viz., that of the Confederacy refusing to supply and maintain their own fortresses. As there are, however, some rumours of opposition on this point, and some opinions abroad (our friend Münster's par exemple) that the Confederation should not be loaded with the expense, at least exclusively, of supporting those fortresses, the governors and garrisons of which have been disposed of without her authority, the parties are right in ascertaining by what means these supplies shall be borne, in the event of refusal, either in the whole or in part by the Diet.

Those expenses are principally-1. Provisions for the garrison to be used in war-for, in peace each party is willing to uudertake the nourishment of its own troops. 2. Ammunition. 3. Fuel, and light furniture and utensils for barracks and hospitals. 4. Repairs and maintenance of the fortifications. Of these, though M. de Humboldt professes to hold that the whole should be equally borne by both parties, he has authorized M. de Gagern to write to his Court that, if the principle of equality shall be acceded to on the two last, he will consent that his Court shall bear the expense of the two first, in the proportion assented to by M. de Gagern for the whole, viz., in that of the number of troops to be furnished by each, or, in figures, in that of three to one. And, from private conversation with Humboldt, I have but little doubt that, provided equality is acceded to as the governing principle on the last point, he will not be indisposed to give way on the third also.

The only point then which I consider to exist to impede the final arrangement (supposing, however, their Courts to be in unison with the plenipotentiaries here-a fact of which they both state themselves to be doubtful) is the fourth. Now, on this I really think the arguments are in favour of Prussia; nay, after establishing it as a principle, that the whole matériel of the place is the absolute property of the King of the Netherlands, and, under this, having undertaken that his Court shall supply barracks, hospitals, stables, &c., at their own exclusive expense, M. de Gagern and his Government may, in my mind, rejoice that Prussia is ready to take an equal share in the expense of improving, repairing, and maintaining the works, instead of throwing the whole upon the Netherlands. I have privately communicated to M. de Gagern my opinion in this respect, in which he states himself fully to coincide, and informs me that he will not fail to reason the matter thus in his present despatches to his Court.

« PreviousContinue »