maintenance of that respect which two independent nations owe to each other, the general maxims of the law of nations would formally condemn so revolting an abuse of the liberty of the press. It cannot be believed, that the law can give more latitude to a libellist than to any other individual, who, without deelaration of war, should permit himself to violate the duties of good neighbourhood. The offence in question is so much the more serious, as its object is evidently to disturb the harmony which subsists between the two govern ments. It is not to Peltier alone, but to the editor of the "Courier Francois de Londres," to Cobbet, and to other writers who resemble them, that I have to direct the attention of his majesty's government. The perfidious and malevolent publications of these men are in open contradiction to the principles of peace; and if it could ever enter into the mind of the French government to permit retaliation, writers would, doubtless, be found in France, willing to avenge their country men, by filling their pages with odious reflections on the most respectable persons, and on the dearest institutions of Great-Britain. The want of positive laws against these sorts of offences cannot palliate the violation of the law of nations, according to which, peace should put a stop to all hostilities; and, doubtless, those which wound the honour and the reputation of a government, and which tend to cause a revolt of the people, whose interests are confided to that government, are the most apt to lessen the advantages of Letter from Lord Hawkesbury to M. Otto, dated July 28, 1802. Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter on the subject of the last number of Peltier. It is impossible that his majesty's government could peruse the article in question, without the greatest displeasure, and without an anxious desire that the person who published it should suffer the punishment he so justly deserves. The calumnies, however, to which his majesty's government, and many of the best subjects in this country, are frequently exposed in the public prints, must necessarily convince all foreign governments of the difficul ties which exist in a constitution like that of Great-Britain, in preventing the abuse which is often unavoidably attendant on the greatest of all political benefits; and though publications of this nature are, as they certainly ought to be, by the law of England, subject to punishment, it is often difficult to prove the guilt of an individual so satisfactorily as to obtain the judgment of a court of justice; and the inconvenience which arises from prosecution, unless there is a reasonable prospect of success, is frequently sufficient to deter both the government and individuals from undertaking it. In the present case, I have thought it my duty to refer the article article in question to his majesty's attorney-general, for his opinion, whether it is or is not a libel, according to the construction of the law of England, and whether it is such a libel as he would, under all the circumstances, recommend for prosecution. As soon as I receive his report, I shall have the honour of communicating it to you. I have the honour to be, &c. No. 12. Note from M. Otto to Lord Hawkes bury, dated August 17, 1802. The undersigned minister plenipotentiary of the French republic, having submitted to his government the letter which his excellency lord Hawkesbury, minister and principal secretary of state of his Britannic majesty, did him the honour of writing, under date of 27th July, is directed to offer the following observations: If the British government tolerates censures upon the acts of its administration, and the personal abuse of the most respectable men, it does not suffer even the slightest attempt against the public tranquil lity, the fundamental laws of the empire, and supreme authority which arises from them. Every nation is, moreover, at liberty to sacrifice any advantage whatever in its interior, in order to obtain another to which it attaches a higher value; but the government which does not repress the licentiousness of the press, when it may be injurious to the honour or the interests of foreign powers, would afford an opportunity to libellists to endanger the public tranquillity, or, at least, the good understanding that forms the basis of it; and whenever such serious injuries are continued in a regular and systematic manner, doubts must arise as to its own dispositions. The particular laws and constitu. tion of Great Britain are subordinate to the general principles of the law of nations, which supersede the laws of each individual state. If it be a right in England to allow the most extensive liberty to the press, it is a public right of polished na. tions, and the bounden duty of go. vernments, to prevent, repress, and punish, every attack which might, by those means, be made against the rights, the interests, and the honour of foreign powers. This general maxim of the law of nations has never been mistaken without paving the way for the greatest divisions, and has even furnished, in England, a plausible pretext to those who have written volumes to prove the necessity of the last war against France. Are these men now desirous of presenting to the consular government, a weapon which they have wielded with so much address? and can they flatter themselves that the authority which has signed the peace has not power to maintain it? By the first article of the treaty of Amiens, the two powers agree to afford no protection, either directly or indirectly, to those who should cause prejudice to any of them. But the greatest of all injuries, doubtless, is that which tends to debase a foreign government, or to excite, within its territory, civil and religious commotions; and the most decided of all protections, is that, which places under the safeguard of the laws, men who seek not only to disturb the political tranquillity U u 3 of maintenance of that respect which p neighbourhood. The o. It is not to Peltis of his majesty' perfidious and tions of these tradiction to and if it c mind of th permit re doubtless ling to a filling th tions o sons, of Gr TH these Jiate " 2 1 Former bishops of France. can no longer be consi rebels against both po religious authority; and, heir reiterated attempts to the good understanding be the two governments, their ace in England militates openinst the spirit and letter of the y of peace. meetings, likewise, which are taken place in the island of rsey, and the odious plots which re there framed, in spite of the representations which the undersigned minister has already taken care to make on this subject, also demand immediate measures to be taken by a government, the neighbour and friend of France. Other persons (attached, by ree collections never to be effaced, and by regrets too long fostered, to an -order of things which no longer ex17-ists in France) find themselves daily ng and pb pa hari. habi- cable sidue to ex ke the much go- implicated by the plots of those who pretend to serve them. A sense of their own reputation will, without doubt, lead them to avoid a focus of intrigues, with which they ought not to have the least connexion. Peace happily re-established, the mutual desire of the two countries to render it solid and lasting, and the general interests of humanity, require that all these causes of dissatisfaction should be done away, and that his majesty's ministry should, by frank and energetic measures, manifest their disappro bation of all the attempts made to produce new divisions. The undersigned has, in conse quence, received especial order to solicit, 1st. That his majesty's govern • *g been ment will adopt the most effectual measures to put a stop to the unbe ditious publications the newspapers and inted in England are At the individuals menthe undersigned minister's the 23d July last, shall be of the island of Jersey. That the former bishops of and St. Pol de Leon, and all who, like them, under the text of religion, seek to raise disturbances in the interior of Trance, shall likewise be sent away. 4th. That Georges and his adherents shall be transported to Canada, according to the intention which the undersigned has been directed to transmit to his government at the request of lord Hawkesbury. 5th. That, in order to deprive the evil-disposed of every pretext for disturbing the good understanding between the two governments, it shall be recommended to the princes of the house of Bourbon, at present in Great Britain, to repair to Warsaw, the residence of the head of their family. 6th. That such of the French emigrants as still think proper to wear the orders and decorations belonging to the ancient government of France, shall be required to quit the territory of the British empire. These demands are founded upon the treaty of Amiens, and upon the verbal assurances that the undersigned minister has had the satisfaction to receive; in the course of the negociations, with regard to a mutual agreement for maintaining tranquillity and good order in the two countries. If any one in particular of these demands does not proceed so immediately from the treaty concluded, it would be easy to justify it by striking examples, and to prove how very attentive the British government has been, in times of internal fermentation, to remove from the territory of a neighbouring power, those who might endanger the public tranquillity. Whatever may be the protection which the English laws afford to native writers, and to other subjects of his majesty, the French government knows that foreigners do not here enjoy the same protection; and that the law, known by the title of the Alien Act, gives the ministry of his Britannic majesty an authority which it has often exercised against foreigners, whose residence was prejudicial to the interests of Great Britain. The first clause of this act states, expressly, that any order in council which requires a foreigner to quit the kingdom shall be executed, under pain of imprisonment and transportation. There exists, therefore, in the ministry, a legal and sufficient power to restrain foreigners, without having recourse to courts of law; and the French government, which offers, on this point, a perfect reciprocity, thinks it gives a new proof of its pacific intentions, by demanding that those persons may be sent away, whose machinations uniformly tend to sow discord between the two people. It owes to itself, and to the nation at large (which has made it the depository of its power and of its honour), not to appear insensible to insults and to plots during profound peace, which the irritation of open war could not justify, and it is too well acquainted with the conciliatory dispositions of the British ministry, U u 4 not 1 1 of Europe, but even to dissolve the first bonds of society. The undersigned minister must moreover observe, that this is not a question respecting some paragraphs, which, through the inadvertence of an editor, might have been accidentally inserted in a public print; but it is a question of a deep and continued system of defamation, directed not only against the chief of the French republic, but against all the constituted authorities of the republic; against the whole nation; represented by these libellers in the most odious and degrading terms. It has ever been remarked, the many of these prints contain an ap peal to the French people, agai the government and fundam laws of their country. If these observations apply English writers, who, for the months past, have deluged · lic with the most perfidious becoming publications, th more applicable to a clas calumniators, who app themselves of the as them in England, onl pose of the better hatred against Fra mining the foundat It is not merel seditious writing lished with a vi France, but by pers distribute. time departme the evil-disp tants to resi concordate, enemies of ercise host just indig vernment exists of compose and by the form h J a. The of con-y has deterreasons of the to which this note motives on which and it is to be hoped explanation will have of putting an end to a proceeding, which can to perpetual irritation bee two governments, and ht ultimately tend to the rious consequences. first consideration that natuarises on this transaction, is of the peculiar circumstances er which the note of M. Otto been presented. It cannot be gated that some very improper pagraphs have lately appeared in me of the English newspapers gainst the government of France; cannot be denied, likewise, that publications of a still more improper and indecent nature have made their appearance in this country, with the names of foreigners affixed to them. Under these circumstances, the French government ans would have been warranted in expecting every redress that the laws ach of this country could afford them; try, but as, instead of seeking it in the ale as ordinary course, they have thought fit to resort to recrimination themselves, or, at least, to authorise it in others, they could have no right to complain, if their subsequent appeal to his majesty had failed to produce the effect that otherwise would have attended it. od aprest to the pre and to the whole ere to temper, 1986-712, Jut whe Whatever may have been the nabe referred ture of the prior injury, they have, , the effects in fact, taken the law into their own the same: it is hands; and what is this recrimination and retort? The paragraphs in the English newspapers, the publi the utmost imrank explanation cations |