of war. The alarm of an invasion was soon dissipated. By repeated attacks on the French flotilla, great numbers of the vessels were destroyed, taken, or dis. persed. A debarkation of about 3500 men, Corsicans and Neapolitans, was effected, September 18th, near the Faro. Of these, not being supported by any other corps, 900 were taken prisoners by two of our regiments, commanded by Major-General Campbell. The rest made their escape to their gun-vessels. On the 3d of October, King Murat proclaimed to his soldiers, “ that the expedition to Sicily was adjourned. The object of the Emperor in menacing that island had been fulfilled the problem had been solved. It had been proved, that the enemy's flotillas could not obstruct the passage, and that Sicily might be conquered whenever it should be seriously intended." An obstinate contest was carried on between the Turks and the Russians in Bulgaria. Several bloody battles were fought, but none of them decisive. The number of Russian troops engaged was computed at 200,000; that of the Turks, in garrisons and in the field, at 300,000. The Russians took Widdin, Cristow, Georgivo, and other places of inferior importance on the Danube. But their progress was arrested at Rudschuck, Schumla, and Warna. At the first two of these places the conflict appears to have been very sanguinary-both parties claimed victory; but both ultimately admitted that they were dearly bought, by the necessity they were under of suspending their operations until they should receive reinforcements. The Turks were driven from the town of Rudschuck, but not from the fortress. The Ottoman government was far from being deficient either in activity or enterprise. They sent a fleet into the Black Sea, to prevent the Russians from receiving any communication through that channel. Demonstrations were made of attacking the Crimea, in order to oblige the Russians to divide their forces, and thus create a diversion in favour of the Grand Vizier at Schumla. The Russians continued to concentrate their corps, with the intention, it was supposed, of marching into Romania. The Grand Vizier, therefore, leaving a part of his troops in the entrenched camp at Schumla, retreated with the remainder over the Bukanian mountains in good order and without molestation, in order to take post between the Russians and Adrianople. The Grand Seignior, having issued a proclamation calling on all faithful Mussulmen to support the cause of Mahomed, and displayed the standard of the prophet, advanced with a body of troops to David Bashaw, two miles from Constantinople, where he established his head-quarters, and whither all his ministers and other troops followed him. The troops proceeded to join the Grand, Vizier. The Sultan returned to his capital. While the grand Turkish army passed the winter undisturbed in their winter quarters, the fleet lay in the harbour of Constantinople. There appeared, in 1810, in the Turkish government an unusual And so perhaps it in some measure was, by detaining in Sicily a force that might have been landed on the bay of Rosas, or at some other point of Spain. degree degree of vigour. Pressed as the Divan were by the Russians, they yet sent troops to Syria against the powerful sect of the Waughabites, who had renounced all fealty and obedience to the eldest son of the prophet. The Waughabites betook themselves to piracy, as well as rapine and conquest on land. In April, 1810, an expedition was fitted out to the Persian Gulph against the Waughabite pirates, by the English government at Bombay. War was carried on between the Turks and Servians with various success. But the advantage, on the whole, was greatly on the side of the Servians. The infatuation of the Turks and Russians in continuing a bloody war against each other, in 1810, would scarcely appear credible to posterity, if there were not similar instances of infatuation in history, both ancient and modern. Their whole faculties seemed to be absorbed in mutual hostility and rage. They seem never so much as once to have bestowed a serious thought on the tremendous power that hovered over them, ready to pounce on one or both, whenever sufficiently debilitated by their mad conflicts. But the party most blameable, and the maddest too, was, beyond a doubt, the Russians. CHAP. CHAP. XVII. · History of the Dispute between Great Britain and the United States of America.-Naval and Colonial Affairs of Great Britain.—In the Mediterranean-In the West Indies-The East Indies-And on the Coast of Germany.-Meeting of the British Parliament.-Indisposition of the King-During this, the Prince of Wales appointed Regens of the Kingdom. N our last volume *, a general land revoking its nostile edicts, was suspended might tions between Great Britain and the United states of America, about the middle of the year 1809. But it may, perhaps, be expected that some account should be given of the circumstances, and means, by which so extraordinary a transaction as that between the British resident and the American government was brought about. A treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, was concluded by the British and American plenipotentiaries, in December 1806. The British government readily acquiesced in it; but it was rejected by the American president. Towards the close of 1808, it was known that the choice of a new president to succeed Mr. Jefferson had fallen upon Mr. Maddison. A non-intercourse act, in respect of Great Britain and France, was substituted soon after for a general embargo; by the operation of which the American commerce, and the revenue dependent on it, had been nearly annihilated. But, in case of either France or Eng Hist. Eur. p 288. newed with the nation so doing. In this alteration of circumstances, and the spontaneous declaration of the new government of their wish to come to a right understanding with England, our resident minister in † America, thought he saw an opportunity of effecting what several preceding negociators had not been able to accomplish. He represented to his court, what he was perfectly convinced of himself, that the new president would bring with him to his high office very different sentiments from those which were known to animate Mr. Jefferson; that Mr. Maddison could not be accused of having a bias towards France; that he was, on the contrary, an admirer of the British constitution, in general well disposed towards our nation, and entirely free from any enmity to its general prosperity. The communications made to him by the president, and other leading members of the American government, Mr. Erskine believed to proceed "from + Mr. David Erskine. Mr. Rose, who had been sent to negociate a peace with the Americans, returned to England in the spring of 1808, re infecta. He was sucseeded by Mr. Erskine, an an unfeigned desire that they might produce, if possible, an adjustment of their differences with Great Britain, so as to enable the govern ment and the nation to extricate themselves from the very distressing dilemma in which they were involved." Messrs. Smith and Gallatin, who were considered as the confidential ministers or agents of the president, spoke with great freedom and apparent openness, as of their own knowledge of the views of the American government, of the general means to be employed for their attainment, and even of the precise manner in which their designs were to be carried into execution. Mr Gallatin said, that he knew that it was intended by the United States "to abandon the attempt to carry on a trade with the colonies of belligerents in time of war, which was not allowed in time of peace." The president expressly said, that the United States would at once side with that power which should discontinue its aggressions. On the whole, the conversations of the American ministers were admirably calculated to work upon a mind eager to be the instrument of conciliation between the two countries. Accordingly our envoy made a separate report to his government of what had been said to him, though unofficially, by the president's two agents. Mr. Maddison spoke with more caution than his ministers. He dealt more in general observation, except upon one topic, which he appears to have wished particularly to impress on Mr. Erskine's mind, viz. the probability of the United States going to war with both England and France, although he did not attempt to disguise the difficulties of that alternative. On all other points, those especially which related to the concessions to be made to Great Britain, in return for those required of her, there was a remarkable obscurity in his language. As to the sincerity of his sentiments, and the reality of his professed views, he gave no other pledge than an observation of the obvious advantages, that would result from an adjustment of differences, to both countries. To the reports made by Mr. Erskine, it is proper to add, that the American minister in London had told the Secretary of State that there would be no objection to the capture, by British cruizers, of American vessels that should attempt to trade with France, notwithstanding the prohibition, which, on the revocation of the orders in council, would remain in force against that country. Whatever might have been the sincerity of these communications from the Americans, they met with an immediate and serious attention from the British ministers, who seem to have been anxious to catch at every opportunity, however visionary, on which to ground the hope of a change of policy in America. Accordingly two sepa rate sets of instructions were sent to Mr. Erskine: the first on the affair of the Chesapeak, in which the terms of satisfaction and concession which were to be agreed to by his majesty, and those which were to be required in return, were distinctly specified. But it was also proposed to wave on both sides, the retrospective concessions, as the means of avoiding fruitless controversy, and to restore the men men taken from the Chesapeak as the simple and sufficient act of reparation to which, however, His Majesty would still be willing to add, as a spontaneous act of his own generosity, a provision for the widows and orphans of the men killed in action. The second dispatch of Mr. Secretary Canning to Mr. Erskine, dated the 23d of January 1809, disclosed the principal objects of the negotiation, and stated clearly and distinctly, the conditions to be stipulated on both sides. The same anxiety which led to a reconsideration of the subject in general, seems to have suggested to the British Secretary of State, the alternative of making those conditions immediate or eventual: from which alternative, however, proceeded, subsequently, an unfortunate misunderstanding; as was, indeed, undoubtedly to have been expected. If time had been taken to reduce the respective pretensions of the two parties to the form of a treaty, or other solemn instrument, that equivocation which afterwards took place would have been prevented. On these instructions was founded the engagement entered into with the Americans, by the envoy and plenipotentiary, on the behalf of his government. But government considered Mr. Erskine's arrangement not only as inconsistent with, but as being directly in opposition to his instructions. Mr. Canning, in dispatches to Mr. Erskine, specified wherein that inconsistency and contradiction consisted; and be added, that by these reasons His Majesty was compelled to disavow the arrangement he had made with the Americans; that no loss, however, should accrue to the American merchants, or captains of ships, who had proceeded to England under the idea that Mr. Erskine had understood and accomplished the object of his mission, as has been already stated in our last volume *. Attempts were repeatedly made to prove that the agreement made, by the envoy Erskine, was not unauthorized by our government. A very heavy charge against the good faith of our government was made in both houses of parliament, which was supported by another charge, viz. that ministers had presented, in justification of their conduct, a defective account of the documents relating to it, and withheld those which, if published, would have justified the arrangement. These charges, accompanied with strong expressions of indignation at such an instance of duplicity, called forth repeated denials, in the session of parliament 1810, both from Mr. Canning, who was no longer in the foreign office, and from Mr. Perceval, who was now prime minister. They maintained that Mr. Erskine had not only acted without authority, but in direct contradiction to his instructions. Of these instructions those relating to the orders in council was all that was at first communicated to parliament, because, it was said, the negotiation was still pending. But, in the subsequent session, when the assertion was renewed, that the envoy would be justified in what he had done by other parts of his in Hist. Europe, p. 228. structions, |