duct; and to crown the whole, "should there arise doubts as to the "meaning of any article, it will be explained favourably to the "French army!" The Russian fleet, (which with its officers and men, we were daily expecting to arrive in our ports) is indeed to be held in deposit till the conclusion of a definitive treaty of peace; but, what the Russians are most in want of, the officers and men to the amount of nearly 6000, are to be conveyed to Russia without any condition or stipulation as to their future services at the expence of his Britannic Majesty.

The recognition of the title of the French Emperor as "his IMPERIAL and ROYAL MAJESTY NAPOLEON I. has added to the popular indignation. But, although, as it has been remarked by the editor of the Times, "Sir ARTHUR WELLESLEY is the first "officer with a British uniform on his back, that has put his signa"ture to the bottom of a treaty, at the head of which the title was "recognised," we perceive no ground in this respect for censuring his conduct. The French Emperor possesses as legitimate a claim to his title, as any of the sovereigns of Europe to theirs. The British government has acknowledged his title as the head of the French government, and Sir A. WELLESLEY has done nothing more.

But what renders the conduct of Sir ARTHUR peculiarly galling to our ministers is, that the treaty which thus recognised the imperial title, was signed but a short time after the right hon. GEORGE CANNING, one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state, had, in an official dispatch to the Spanish Chiefs, styled the head of the French government, the ATROCIOUS USURPER OF FRANCE! The point therefore remains to be settled between the secretary of state and the British officer. We have no doubt how it must be settled. The right hon. secretary, although he has committed the honour of his country, must ere long retract his rash and foolish language. If ever he signs a treaty with France he must recognise the Emperor's title in precisely the same language as that adopted by Sir A. WELLESLEY. He must style the head of the French government, "His Imperial and Royal Majesty NAPOLEON I." or he must resign his place. Which of these alternatives, he will, without any great degree of hesitation prefer, it requires but little sagacity to determine.

By the last advices from Portugal, it seems that the convention is as unpopular, almost, in the British and the Portugueze armies, as it in this country. There are, as may naturally be supposed, a variety of reports, which so fruitful a subject has given rise to, many of which are not to be depended on; but we may form some opinion of the sentiments of the Portugueze army by a protest against several articles of the convention which has been published by the General; it is. however somewhat remarkable that his most prominent objections are

hot those which have so agitated the minds of our countrymen. Although he states "that the horses which our commanders have agreed to send to France, and the magazines are chiefly the pro"perty of the Portuguese, yet he protests generally on account of "the treaty being wholly void of that deference due to his royal highness the Prince Regent, or the government that represents "him.... because the articles determine the surrender of Portuguese fortified places, stores, and ships to the English forces, "without solemnly declaring that this surrender is momentary, and "that it is intended they should be immediately restored to the "Prince Regent of Portugal, or the government that may represent "him, to whom they belong, and in whose aid the English forces came as auxiliaries". There appears to be reason in these objections: it will be matter for serious inquiry whether our officers in adopting such a line of policy, by which the suspicions and jealousies of the Portuguese against their ally has been excited, have followed their own inclinations or the instructions of ministers.

There seems to be a general disposition in our countrymen to divide the blame of the convention pretty equally between the three commanders, Sir H. DALRYMPLE, Sir H. BURRARD, and Sir A. WELLESLEY. A feeble attempt has been made by the editor of the Morning Post, whose paper it is generally understood has been for a considerable time under the powerful influence of the Wellesley family, to shield the character of Sir ARTHUR. The editor pleads in apology, "the workings of Sir ARTHUR'S over delicate mind, "and his punctilious observance of the rigid injunctions of military "subordination, which induced him, for a moment, to forget his country and himself." The same writer, in a day or two afterwards, assumes a somewhat bolder tone, and informs us," that “Sir ARTHUR, although he was compelled to sign the armistice, "yet immediately protested against it, and declared his disapproba❝tion of it publicly." From this circumstance the writer endeavours to impress it on the people, “that he (Sir ARTHUR) ought not to suf“fer blame; nor to be called to any account for his conduct; as "he only acted as the mere instrument of Sir HEW, who as com"mander in chief must be the responsible person."

This pitiful apology made for the conduct of Sir ARTHUR, can answer no other purpose than to confirm every impartial person in the opinion that he is equally censurable with Sir HEW DALRYMPLE and Sir Harry Burrard, in this disgraceful business. To sign an armistice which he disapproved," to forget his country and *** himself," and this out of deference to the commander in chief, and as soon as he had affixed his signature publicly to protest against his own act,—such a tale is utterly incredible; and indeed,

VOL. IV.

it is so absurd, that we now hear no more of " the protest," which it seems pretty generally understood never had an existence.

From the documents already published there is some reason to apprehend, that Sir ARTHUR WELLESLEY was the original adviser, or at least that he had the principal hand in settling the armistice, which contained the most offensive articles adopted in the definitive treaty. One article which Sir ARTHUR had agreed to, and which would have given up not only the officers and seamen but the Russian Fleet unconditionally, was objected to, and afterwards considerably altered by Sir CHARLES COTTON. After all the attempts made by the partisans of Sir ARTHUR to blacken the character of Sir HEW DALRYMPLE, it is scarcely credible that the latter should act in so important an affair without consulting the former. Sir HEW acknowledges that " he landed in Portugal entirely unacquainted with the actual state of the French army, and many "circumstances of a local and incidental nature, which doubtless "had great weight in deciding the question:" he therefore must have acted from the information and on the opinions of others who had been with the army from the commencement of its operations, of whom Sir ARTHUR WELLESLEY was the most conspicuous, But the letter of Sir ARTHUR " to the most excellent and Reve"rend, the Bishop, President, and governor of Oporto," puts this matter out of all doubt. Congratulating his military reverence on the "conclusion of the armistice," he observes-" This agreement " contains nothing remarkable, with the exception of a provision for securing the neutrality of the port of Lisbon, and the Russian "squadron." The articles to which Sir ARTHUR set his hand, stipulated-"That the French army shall in no case be considered as prisoners of war; that all those of whom it consists shall be con"veyed to France, with arms and baggage, and all their private property of every description, no part of which shall be wrested from "them." Now, although there appears "nothing remarkable" to Sir ARTHUR in these articles, his countrymen are of an opinion so diametrically opposite, that unless he can assign some very re"markable" reasons for the justification of his conduct, such as shell satisfy a court martial, his character will be considered by his country and by Europe in such a "remarkable" point of view, as will by no means render him an object of envy even to the most insignificant subaltern, or the poorest soldier in the ranks.

But after all, the commanders of our forces have a right to a fair trial: their own characters, the character of the army, and the navy, the national character, the interests of our allies, all loudly demand a solemn and an impartial investigation of this extraordinary business, respecting which we should not be surprised if circumstances should transpire which may tend somewhat to alter the

opinions of our countrymen on the subject. The letters of our commanders by sea and land, refer our ministers to the different officers by whom they sent their dispatches for " an explanation of "the motives inducing them to ratify the convention in question." Much blame rests somewhere: whether with ministers, or our officers; with Sir H. DALRYMPLE, Sir H. BURRARD, Sir A. WELLESEY, or Sir C. COTTON, must be the subject of serious inquiry. One thing appears clear, that the nation has been grossly imposed on by the accounts of glorious and complete victories, or that in the convention that immediately followed, and which seems to have been dictated by the French General, the interests of Britain, Portugal, and Spain, have been shamefully sacrificed, and the national honour shamefully degraded in the eye of all Europe! The paroxisms of rage into which some of our newspaper editors have been transported on this occasion, have rendered them totally insensible to every principle of honour, justice, common sense, and common humanity. Some of them openly recommend the violation of the convention, and rather than that the French army should escape, the national honour should be blasted. One writer exclaims in the following infuriated language. "Had the "commander in chief instead of signing this convention, returned "home with a few thousands of his army, after having lost the rest. "under the walls of Lisbon to compel the French to an uncondi❝tional surrender, we would have thanked him for his confidence "in British magnanimity and resources; had he in the smoking "ruins of that capital, torn from the plunderers their booty, and "their arms, and put them to the sword, whilst we regretted the ka action we would have defended their conduct. Had they even in "violation of all the laws of nations, been guilty of the atrocity of disregarding the engagement they had solemnly made, and sacrificing afterwards the whole of the French army, we would "have received the account with less horror than we did this con"vention. The only motive of consolation we feel is that government will not ratify the convention. It is better to be guilty of " injustice than infamy."* Injustice then, has in it nothing infanrous, in the opinion of some people. Such are the effusions of unprincipled party writers, the disgrace of the country, and of human nature.

"

With respect to the general indignation which has burst forth on this occasion, we wish we could contemplate it as arising from the principles of purity, honour, and patriotism; happy would it have made us, and proud of our country, had the same flame been kindled this time twelvemonth, when the plunder which the com

* National Register, Sept 19. If the proprietors of this paper have any regard for their own reputation they will not again suffer such a writer to disgrace their columns.

manders of the Danish expedition at Copenhagen had acquired, was conveyed to England under circumstances as disgraceful as the plunder acquired by the French commander in Portugal is now conveying to France. We hope, however, that the moral sense of our country-. men which has been somewhat quickened by this event, will be rendered still more alive by proper reflections on the subject. As to the WELLESLEYS, they have been such frequent spectators of scenes of plunder, in the EAST INDIES, in IRELAND, and at CoPENHAGEN, that we are not surprised that Sir ARTHUR should perceive "nothing remarkable" in a convention, which secures an invading army the full possession of its booty; but as our countrymen now begin to perceive the enormity of the crime, we hope they will extend their views so that they may attain the most just and impartial sentiments on this subject; and it may tend somewhat to abate the severity of their indignation against the French who have plundered the Portuguese, and our commanders who have suffered them to escape with the plunder, if they compare the crimes of the two countries in their plundering expeditions undertaken during the course of the past twelvemonth. The public prints inform us-" The value of the plunder, collected by JUNOT "at Lisbon, and intended to be packed up for exportation to "France, under permission of Messrs DALRYMPLE and Co. is. "said to be two millions English." The plunder collected by Lord. GAMBIER, Lord CATHCART, and Sir A. WELLESLEY at Copen hagen, amounted to many millions: the plunder collected by, order of Messrs CANNING, CASTLEREAGH, PERCEVAL and Co, the produce of the Danish vessels in our harbours, &c. amounted to additional millions. We leave our countrymen to attend to the circumstances of the robberies committed in Denmark and in Portugal, to follow the calculation, and then to determine on which, side lies the balance of guilt. When they have made up their minds on the subject, we trust the salutary result will be to render. their moral sense still more lively: that it will be carefully preserved, so that in future they may hold in equal abhorrence plun derers of every description, whether FRENCH or ENGLISH, in the CHURCH or the STATE, in the FIELD, or the CABINET !

SPAIN.

The Emperor of France has at length amply detailed his senti. ments and views respecting the affairs of Europe in general and of Spain in particular. Four importaut state papers on these subjects will be found in our following pages. These are 1st. A sort of manifesto addressed to the Spanish nation, and which has been pretty generally circulated amongst the people at large. 2d. An