Imágenes de página

operating a diversion favourable to England. 6. That he was one of those concerned in the conspiracy, planned by the English, for assassinating the First Consal, and intending in case of the success of this plot, to return to France. These were the charges preferred against the Duke of Enghien. The courtmartial found him guilty upon all and every one of the charges, and the court was unanimous in this their decision. They were unanimous also, in condemning him to death. This sentence was passed in conformity to the second article, title 4, of the military code of offences and punishments, passed on the 11th of January, 1795, and the second section of the first title of the ordinary penal code, established on the 6th of October, 1791, expressed in the following terms : “Article 2d, (11th January 1795), every “individual, whatever be his state, quality, “ or profession, convicted of acting as a “spy for the enemy, shall be sentenced “to the punishment of death.”—“Every “one engaged in a plot or conspiring ** against the republic, shall, on convic“tion, be punished with death.”—“Ar“ticle 2d, (6th October, 1791), every “one connected with a plot or conspi“racy, tending to disturb the tranquillity “ of the state, by civil war, by arming “one class of citizens against the other, “ or against the exercise of legitimate au“ thority, shall be punished with death.” This sentence was put in execution, and thus ended this unfortunate young man. Now, my Lord, there never has been any doubt expressed, that I have heard of, of the truth of these charges. So far from it, that the friends of the Duke of Enghien, have made it a merit in him, to have done the acts here imputed to him. It was afterwards fully proved, if we give credit to the official documents of the French, that the Duke had acted his full share in what was carrying on on the frontiers of France, against the peace of the republic, and the life of the First Consul; but, to the argument of Mr. Hunt, or rather to his statement, no proof of this sort is necessary, seeing, that it is acknowledged to the honour of the Duke of Enghien, by his friends, that he had done all these things of which he was accused. They say that it was great merit in him to do all that he was accused of doing. They say, that the government existing in France,

was an usurpation; that the Duke of Enghien as a loyal subject of the king, and especially as one of the royal family, he had a right to do every thing that he could to overturn the French government, and to cause to be put to death the First Consul, who was at the head of that government. But, my Lord, let us see how this doctrine will suit, if applied to ourselves. There was a time when the Hanoverians, who were put upon the throne in England, at the beginning of the last century, were called usurpers by the loyal adherents of the family of Stuart, and, especially, by the members of that family. Before we go any further, let me offer you an observation about these foreigners. The rable in England (I mean the rable, the stupid, prejudiced, hood-winked, cajoled, rich, rather than the poor) are frequently told, that the Emperor Napoleon is a foreigner in France. If he be a foreigner in France, all the inhabitants of the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, of the Isle of Wight, and even of Ireland, are foreigners in England; to say nothing of those numerous fellowsubjects of ours who have been born in our North American and West Indian colonies. Our present king, indeed, was born in England, but his two immediate predecessors were as completely foreigners as Napoleon himself is now a foreigner to England. Much more might be said upon this subject; but here is enough to expose the absurdity, the gross ignorance, or the base duplicity of those, who pretend that Napoleon is a foreigner to France. When the loyal subjects of the Stuarts had the audacity to call our Hanoverian Sovereigns usurpers, and, raided and assisted by the malice, the insolence, and the arms, of the perfidious and tyrannical Bourbons; when the loyal subjects of the Stuarts, thus encouraged and supported, threatened England with invasion, and, indeed, actually invaded her, for the purpose of making her submit to the divine right of that stupid family, what did his Majesty's predecessors do Did they stand quietly by, as our writers would have had the First Consul do, in the case of the Duke of Enghien; did they stand and gape like sucking geese, when that gallant youth, the son of the Pretender King, was approaching towards London with an army of what he called loyalists, but whom our forefathers called rebels 2 No, faith ! our good Hanoverian Kings did 2 B 2

[ocr errors]

no such thing. They set a price upon his head, dead or alive; they pursued his adherents with the utmost rigour; and I remember hearing my father say, once when he returned home from London, that he had seen some of their heads still sticking upon Temple-Bar. I believe, my Lord, that these heads remained there for nearly forty years. A pretty good spell to give the loyal subjects of the Stuarts a caution against acting upon the principle of divine right, and in “contempt,” as your saucy countryman, the pensioned Burke, called it, “ of the will of the nation.” I should be glad to hear what some great casuist in the rights and duties of princes and of people, had to say, why the French nation should not have a right to act towards the Bourbons and their adherents in the same way, that the English nation acted towards the Stuarts and their adherents. With those, who are ready to contend, and that, too, seriously, that the English nation is not to be put upon a level with any other nation; that we are a sort of chosen people, who are not to be bound by those rules by which we have a right to bind other nations; that we may with great propriety call in foreigners to

be our Kings, as we did the Prince of

©range, once, who had not the smallest pretension to a drop of the blood of the Frenchman, who conquered our country some hundreds of years before; that we may employ as many foreign troops as we please, at home or abroad; in short, that, while we have a right to criticize the conduct of all other nations, and even to punish them for any thing that we may deem

to be offences, political or moral, we-our

selves can do no wrong, our character being, like the person of our King; sacred and inviolable. With those who insist upon this doctrine, H shall not attempt to argue; all Khave to ask of your Lordship is, if the execution of the Duke of Enghien was a murder, what was the execution of the Scotch Lords, and what were the killings of Glenca, in the year 17445. 2 Ét has frequently been asserted, that the Duke of Enghieu was shot by torch-light, in the wood of Pineennes. It does not

seem very likely that the execution should have taken place by night. There appears to have been no reason for it whatever; and besides, if the object was a secret execution; it is very strange that night

f * * , , o

should have been chosen for a wood 2 A wood is shelter for day-time. Torches in a wood, or artificial lights of some kind, are necessary, not to make an act secret, but to expose it as much as pessible. But this, like all the other parts of the story, has been invented for the purpose of giving tragical effect to the thing; to make an impression of horror upon mens' minds; to excite at once, their hatred and their dread of Napoleon'; te fill them with that sort of feeling which is made up of resentment and of fear; and, thus to make them dead to the dictates of reason and of justice. Napoleon could have no interest in putting to death this Prince of the house of Bourbon; except that interest, which he had in common with all Frenchmen. He has lately had the whole family in his power. No man of sense will deny, that, if he had been so minded, he might have detained, and brought to execution, every man of that family. At any rate, he had the Duke d’Angouleme a prisoner; takea in arms against his authority, in the interior of France. He susters him to depart. Not a drop of their blood does he shed. And yet, this is the man whom our writers. call a tyger, a hyena, and every other name descriptive of bloody mindednessIt is clear, then, that in this case, Napoleon was no more guilty of murder, in cousequence of the execution of the Duke of Enghien, than our king was guilty of murder, in consequence of the execution of O'Conc LEY, who suffered death upoa. the charge of carrying on correspendence with the king's enemies. It is very easy to talk about murder; but, if all the blood which has been shed, in consequence of sentences of treason, during the present reign, were laid upon the head of George the. Third, what a figure he would make in history. But, as we are not so unjust as to impute this blood to him, neither ought we to impute the blood of those who have been executed for treason in. France, to the government of France. But, in the case of the Duke of Eng

| hien, it is said that he was, not in the

French territory when he committed the treason. And, were your poor unfortunate countrymen, who were executed, a few years ago, for treason committed in the Isle of France; were they in the English, territory or in the Irish territory, ‘when they committed that treason? No:

and your Lordship knows very well, that


treason may be committed abroad, as well as at home. Therefore, there is nothing here that makes against the measure adopted against the Duke of Enghien. There is one remaining point, connected with the death of the Buke of Enghien. The foul-mouthed man who writes in the TIMEs newspaper, always is representing Napoleon, as having gone by night, like an assassin, into the territory of the Elector of Baden, to seize this same Royal Duke, and to bring him away into France to murder him. At any rate, a great outcry is made by all the haters of the French about the violation of neutral territory. The truth, my Lord, is this:—after the trial of Pichegru and his brother conspirators; after the discovery of the correspondence between Mr. Drake, our envoy at Munich, and persons in France; after the developement of the whole of the grand scheme which was then carrying on against the existence of the French goovernment, and the life of the First Consul, the French government made a requisition to the Elector of Baden, for the purpose of arresting the Duke of Enghien. This requisition, which was dated at Paris on the 10th of March, 1804, stated “ that the First Consul, from the suc“cessive arrests of the baniliiti which “the Euglish government has sent to “France, and from the result of the ** trials which have been here instituted, “has obtained a complete knowledge of “ the extensive part which the English “agents at Offenburg have had in those “horrible plots, which have been devised ** against his own person, and against the “safety of France." The requisition then proceeds to state, that the First Consul had learned that the Duke of Enghien was in the territory of Baden, and that, Hooking upon him to be amongst the most determined enemies of France, the First Consul had found it necessary to send some troops into the Baden territory, to seize these, the authors of a crime, the nature of which put them out of the protection of the law of nations. The requisition concluded by saying, that General Caulaincourt was charged with the execution of it. The seizure of the Duke did mot take place till after this notification; so that the thing was not done so suddenły, and so by stealth, as we are told it was. But still, as no permission appears

to have been given by the Elector of

Baden, there certainly was a violation of neutral rights, which I am, my Hord, not at all disposed to justify, but which f will not speak of in very violent language, lest my words should be quoted and applied to the seizure of Napper Tandy at Hamburgh; to the forcing of the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Republic of Genoa into our war of 1793; to the seizure of the Danish fleet, because the Banes refused to declare war against France; to the late affairs of Walparaíso and Fajal; to the forcible passage, by the Allies, through the Swiss territory last year; or, to many other cases, which I have not now time to particularize. The truth is, that the rights of neutrality are good for nothing, except to strong powers, as experience, during the last five and twenty years, has amply proved. In the year 1793, the Americans were sending great quantities of flour to France, where the people were supposed to be in danger of being starved. What did we do in that case? We seized on the neutral ships of America, bound to France with food; brought those ships into England, and compelled the owners of the cargoes to se!! them to us. After this, we would not expect to find people impudent enough to assert, that we cannot live at peace with Napoleon, because he has been guilty of a violation of the laws of neutrality. But, what would astonish any body, not accustomed to the perusal of the columns of these impudent and corrupt writers, is this: that, at the very moment they are insisting, that no peace can be kept with Napoleon, because he violated the territory of the Elector of Baden, they are also insisting, that the cantons of Switzerland ought to be compelled to join the coalition against France, and, that, in this war, no neutrals ought to be allowed to exist. To argue with such men is out of the question; but it can hardly fail to be useful . to expose, as far as one is able, their insincerity and then baseness. I have only to add, upon the subject of the Duke of Enghien, that the documents to which I have referred, will be found, in the fifth Volume of the Register, at pages 496, 497, 498, 499, 606. As to CAPTAIN WRIGHT, I shall speak, as in the former case, of the official documents, which have been published with regard to him; and shall offer no opinion. of my own, much lessso I attempt to - - - - - - 2 B 3 -

make any assertion. Captain Wright was made prisoner, along with his crew, upon the French coast, in a sloop of war, by some French gun-boats. He was carried to Paris, as we complained, and which was the fact, there subjected to close imprisonment in the Temple “ and obliged to “undergo repeated interrogatories, before “a court of justice, when more of the “facts alledged against him, would, if “true, authorize the French-government “to consider Captain Wright in any other “light than as a prisoner of war.” This was our statement with regard to Captain Wright. This complaint the French government did not listen to. At last, our ministry applied to the Spanish Ambassador in London, to apply to the Spanish Ambassador at Paris, to procure, if possible, from the French government, the release of Captain Wright. The Spanish Ambassadors did, at last, prevail; and the consent of the French government was obtained ; but, let us hear the language in which this consent is expressed, in a letter from the French Minister to M. Gravina, the Spanish Ambassador at Paris, dated Paris, 27th August, 1804, in the following words:–“I have laid before his Majes“ ty, the Emperor, the letter which you “ have done me the honour of communi“cating to me. By his order, I must re“capitulate to your excellency some facts, “ which relate to the object of that letter. “Mr. WRIGHT was taken by our cruis“ers, at the very moment he was land“ing Jean Marie and two other of his “accomplices, on the coast of Britan“ny. Prior to this, he had already land“ed at three times banditti of a similar description, who have since been “brought to judgment, convicted, and “punished, for having conspired against “ the state, and attempted the life of the “First Consul. These species of acts, “under whatever point of view they may “otherwise be contemplated, certainly do not appertain to WAR. There is no “ age, nor any nation, in which they “would not be regarded as crimes, and “one may, with truth, aver, that it was in “flagranti delicto, that Mr. Wright was “captured by French mariners, then offi“ciating as an armed force. According “to accounts, to which full credit must ‘‘ be given, this officer had been demanded “from the English Admiralty. The Lords

[ocr errors]

“ directing this department were, of “course, not ignorant of the kind of service to which he was destined. The “shame attached to the premeditation “of a project as atrocious and vile, as “it was cowardly, remains entirely with “ the men who devised the plot, and “with him who undertook to accomplish “ their views. I am ordered, Sir, to de“clare to your Excellency, that his “Majesty, the Emperor, will never suf“fer Mr. WRight to be EXCHANGED, “NO FRENCHMAN BELONGING, “WITH WHATEVER RANK, HE “MAY, TO THE IMPERIAL NAVY, “CAN EVER CONSENT TO BE “PLACED IN A BALANCE WITH “TILAT PERSON, IN A CARTEL OF “EXCHANGE. But, Sir, the Emperor, “ having at heart to do every thing which “depends upon his Imperial Majesty, to “mitigate the scourges of war, and will“ing to prove, that in his breast such a “disposition preponderates over even “motives of useful and just severity, has “authorised me to declare, that his Im“ perial Majesty will give orders, that “Mr. Wright be placed at the disposal “of the English Government. May I “beg you, therefore, to make known to “Lord Harrowby, this generous determi“nation of his Majesty. You will see in “it, Sir, the marked intention of doing “what may be personally agreeable to “yourself, and his Britannic Majesty's “new ministry will be constrained to re“cognise in it, a proof of the disposition, “so often manifested, on the part of his “Imperial Majesty, to shew himself above “not only those sentiments which offences “in general excite, but even above those which might spring from the attempts, of which his own person has been the “object.” Now, my Lord, it was never denied by the English ministry, that Captain Wright had done those acts which the French imputed to him. Indeed, they seemed pretty clearly to confess, that he had done them; and, in answer to the letter of the jo. Ambassador, conveying this letter the French Government, Lord Harrowby expressly declines making any remark on the French statement. This, then, was the charge against Captain Wright; that he suffered himself to be employed in landing in France, “ban;

ditti,” who were afterwards convicted of

a design to assassinate the Chief Magistrate of France. This was the charge against him, and this charge was never denied, as to the act, though the description of the persons, so landed, was stoutly denied by the Anti-jacobins, who insisted, that Georges and Pichegru and Jean Marie and the rest of that memorable set, including Moreau, were very honest and worthy gentlemen, and that their names ought to be held in reverance; and, indeed, we have seen, that the pious Louis I.E DESIRE, while he was on the throne, ENNOBLED the family of Georgest Those who thought thus of the plot of G Forges and his associates, would, of course, think, that Captain Wright acted a very meritorious part in being so zealous in landing in France persons having such laudable designs. But those who recollected, that poisoners, assassins, and Jorgers are not looked upon, by the writers on public law, as entitled to be considered as prisoners of war, might be apt to think with the writer of the French, Jetter to the Spanish Minister; and, this Writer, be it observed, was no other than Mr. TALLEY RAND himself, whom your Lordship knows to be not only a very sensible, but a very worthy man. But, the death of Capt. Wright? The Emperor had given permission for his being placed at the disposal of the English Government. But, between that and the time for his re-ease, he was said to have killed himself in prison. He certainly found his death there. That was enough. There needed no more to authorise our writers to impute his death to Napoleon. And, by degrees, he has been, and is now, familiary called, “the murderer of Capt. *Wright.” There never has been any proof of this attempted to be produced. It is a sheer falsehood on the part of the assertors, because they possess no proof at all efthe fact. One might leave it so; and insist on their being impudent calumniators; but, let us ask, what motive could induce Napoleon to order such a murder to be committed? He had pardoned the man, and had taken credit for the act. He had, at the time of Wright's death, put down all the eonspirators and all the conspiracies; and, he had been chosen Emperor by the people of France. Besides (and this I beg you to attend to), DURING HIS YEAR OF P.XII, E, nobody was found to bring for

ward any proof of this murder. Nobody, amongst all the hireling writers, was found to publish any of the proofs of an act, which must have been known to some one, at least, besides Napoleon. In short, it is a base and infamous calumny, wich, if we were to make peace with Napoleon, the Times newspaper would be liable to be prosecuted for repeating. if I am asked to accottnt for the death of Mr. Wright, in the Temple, I say I am not bound to do it. We know, however, that persons, in such situations, frequently do put an end to their existence; and it must be confessed, that Capt. Wright's was a situation, not only of great peril, but, which is more, perhaps, in such a case, of almost insupportable mortification. He is represented as a most enthusiastic Royalist. He had seen all his efforts defeated; many of his friends brought to an ignominious death. He was himself uncertain as to his fate. He had been captured by a parcel of gun-boats. And, if he was informed of the conditions, or, rather, the manner of his release, as described in Mr. TALLEY RAND's Note, he would feel little pleasure in being know a to all Europe, to have been put at the disposal of his government, without exchange,

upon the ground, that the Emperor would not suffer any Frenchinan to be exchanged

against such a person. But, are there no ways but those of assassination and suicide, by which men come to the end of their lives : Are there no fits or fevers in French jails, as well as in English jails : And, why was this Captain not to die as well as his neighbours ? Are the English Ministers, or the Royal family, to be charged with all the deaths, or, even all the sudden deaths, in our prisons of war 2 Are they to be called murderers because prisoners of war have died in such great numbers ? What absurdity | What impudent, or what foolish, men are those, who prefer this charge against Napoleon' But, as I before observed, the object of these men is to mislead, to delude, to inflame the people; to commit them in the bloody war, which has just begun, and thus to further their own }. views. To defeat, or, at least, to endeavour to defeat, this wicked object is the duty of every mati, who has the opportunity; and this duty, as I hope your Lordship will agree, Mr. HUNT, at

« AnteriorContinuar »