ational law against
perfidious Albion, privately admitted her right to compensation, and
only demurred to its practical application when his oriental designs
were thereby compromised.

Before Whitworth proceeded to Paris, sharp remonstrances had been
exchanged between the French and British Governments. To our protests
against Napoleon's interventions in neighbouring States, he retorted
by demanding "the whole Treaty of Amiens and nothing but that treaty."
Whereupon Hawkesbury answered: "The state of the Continent at the
period of the Treaty of Amiens, and nothing but that state." In reply
Napoleon sent off a counterblast, alleging that French troops had
evacuated Taranto, that Switzerland had requested his mediation, that
German affairs possessed no novelty, and that England, having six
months previously waived her interest in continental affairs, could
not resume it at will. The retort, which has called forth the
admiration of M. Thiers, is more specious than convincing.
Hawkesbury's appeal was, not to the sword, but to law; not to French
influence gained by military occupations that contravened the Treaty
of Luneville, but to international equity.

Certainly, the Addington Cabinet committed a grievous blunder in not
inserting in the Treaty of Amiens a clause stipulating the
independence of the Batavian and Helvetic Republics. Doubtless it
relied on the Treaty of Luneville, and on a Franco-Dutch convention of
August, 1801, which specified that French troops were to remain in the
Batavian Republic only up to the time of the general peace. But it is
one thing to rely on international law, and quite another thing, in an
age of violence and chicanery, to hazard the gravest material
interests on its observance. Yet this was what the Addington Ministry
had done: "His Majesty consented to make numerous and most important
restitutions to the Batavian Government on the consideration of that
Government being independent and not being subject to any foreign
control."[231] Truly, the restoration of the Cape of Good Hope and of
other colonies to the Dutch, solely in reliance on the observance of
international law by Napoleon and Talleyrand, was, as the event
proved, an act of singular credulity. But, looking at this matter
fairly and squarely, it must be allowed that Napoleon's reply evaded
the essence of the British complaint; it was merely an _argumentum ad
hominem_; it convicted the Addington Cabinet of weakness and
improvid