_Return to the external Relations of France--Her universal
Ascendency--Napoleon's advances to the Emperor Paul--Plan of
destroying the British Power in India--Right of Search at
Sea--Death of Paul--Its effects on Buonaparte--Affairs of
Egypt--Assassination of Kleber--Menou appointed to succeed
him--British Army lands in Egypt--Battle and Victory of
Alexandria--Death of Sir Ralph Abercromby--General Hutchinson
succeeds him--The French General Belliard capitulates--as does
Menou--War in Egypt brought to a victorious Conclusion._
[Sidenote: THE EMPEROR PAUL.]
Having thus given a glance at the internal affairs of France during the
commencement of Buonaparte's domination, we return to her external
relations, which, since the peace of Luneville, had assumed the
appearance of universal ascendency, so much had the current of human
affairs been altered by the talents and fortunes of one man. Not only
was France in secure possession, by the treaty of Luneville, of
territories extending to the banks of the Rhine, but the surrounding
nations were, under the plausible names of protection or alliance, as
submissive to her government as if they had made integral parts of her
dominions. Holland, Switzerland, and Italy, were all in a state of
subjection to her will; Spain, like a puppet, moved but at her signal;
Austria was broken-spirited and dejected; Prussia still remembered her
losses in the first revolutionary war; and Russia, who alone could be
considered as unmoved by any fear of France, was yet in a situation to
be easily managed, by flattering and cajoling the peculiar temper of the
Emperor Paul.
We have already observed, that Buonaparte had artfully availed himself
of the misunderstanding between Austria and Russia, to insinuate himself
into the good graces of the Czar. The disputes between Russia and
England gave him still further advantages over the mind of that
incautious monarch.
The refusal of Britain to cede the almost impregnable fortress of Malta,
and with it the command of the Mediterranean, to a power who was no
longer friendly, was aggravated by her declining to admit Russian
prisoners into the cartel of exchange betwixt the French and British.
Buonaparte contrived to make his approaches to the Czar in a manner
calculated to bear upon both these subjects of grievance. He presented
to Paul, who affected to be considered as the Grand Master of the Order
of St. John of Jerusalem, the sword given by the Pope to the heroic John
de la Valette, who was at the head of the Order during the celebrated
defence of Malta against the Turks.[632] With the same view of placing
his own conduct in a favourable contrast with that of Great Britain, he
new-clothed and armed eight or nine thousand Russian prisoners, and
dismissed them freely, in token of his personal esteem for the character
of the Emperor.
A more secret and scandalous mode of acquiring interest is said to have
been attained, through the attachment of the unfortunate prince to a
French actress of talents and beauty, who had been sent from Paris for
the express purpose of acquiring his affections. From these concurring
reasons, Paul began now openly to manifest himself as the warm friend of
France, and the bitter enemy of Britain. In the former capacity, he had
the weak and unworthy complaisance to withdraw the hospitality which he
had hitherto afforded to the relics of the royal family of Bourbon, who
were compelled to remove from Mittau, where they had been hitherto
permitted to reside.
To gratify his pique against England, Paul gave hearing at least to a
magnificent scheme, by which Buonaparte proposed to accomplish the
destruction of the British power in India, which he had in vain hoped to
assail by the possession of Egypt. The scheme was now to be effected by
the union of the French and Russian troops, which were to force their
way to British India overland, through the kingdom of Persia; and a plan
of such a campaign was seriously in agitation. Thirty-five thousand
French were to descend the Danube into the Black sea; and then, being
wafted across that sea and the sea of Azof, were to march by land to the
banks of the Wolga. Here they were again to be embarked, and descend the
river to Astracan, and from thence were to cross the Caspian sea to
Astrabad, where they were to be joined by a Russian army, equal in force
to their own. It was thought that, marching through Persia by Herat,
Ferah, and Candahar, the Russo-Gallic army might reach the Indus in
forty-five days from Astrabad. This gigantic project would scarce have
been formed by any less daring genius than Napoleon; nor could any
prince, with a brain less infirm than Paul's, have agreed to become his
tool in so extraordinary an undertaking, from which France was to derive
all the advantage.[633]
A nearer mode of injuring the interests of England than this overland
march to India, was in the power of the Emperor of Russia. A controversy
being in dependence betwixt England and the northern courts, afforded
the pretext for throwing his weight into the scale against her at this
dangerous crisis.
The right of search at sea, that is, the right of stopping a neutral or
friendly vessel, and taking out of her the goods belonging to an enemy,
is acknowledged in the earliest maritime codes. But England, by her
naval superiority, had been enabled to exert this right so generally
that it became the subject of much heart-burning to neutral powers. The
association of the Northern states in 1780, known by the name of the
Armed Neutrality, had for its object to put down this right of search,
and establish the maxim that free bottoms made free goods; in other
words, that the neutral character of the vessel should protect whatever
property she might have on board. This principle was now anxiously
reclaimed by France, as the most effective argument for the purpose of
irritating the neutral powers against Great Britain, whose right of
search, which could not be exercised without vexation and inconvenience
to their commerce, must necessarily be unpopular amongst them.
Forgetting that the danger occasioned by the gigantic power of France
was infinitely greater than any which could arise from the maritime
claims of England, the northern courts became again united on the
subject of what they termed the freedom of the seas. Indeed, the Emperor
Paul, even before the offence arising out of his disappointment
respecting Malta, had proceeded so far as to sequestrate all British
property in his dominions, in resentment of her exercising the right of
search. But upon the fresh provocation which he conceived himself to
have received, the Emperor became outrageous, and took the most violent
measures for seizing the persons and property of the English, that ever
were practised by an angry and unreasonable despot.
Prussia, more intent on her own immediate aggrandisement, than mindful
of the welfare of Europe in general, took advantage of the universal
ill-will against England, to seize upon the King's continental dominions
of Hanover, with peculiar breach of public faith, as she herself had
guaranteed the neutrality of that country.
[Sidenote: DEATH OF THE EMPEROR PAUL.]
The consequences, with regard to the northern powers, are well known.
The promptitude of the administration sent a strong fleet to the Baltic;
and the well-contested battle of Copenhagen detached Denmark from the
Northern Confederacy. Sweden had joined it unwillingly; and Russia
altered her course of policy in consequence of the death of Paul. That
unhappy prince had surmounted the patience of his subjects, and fell a
victim to one of those conspiracies, which in arbitrary monarchies,
especially such as partake of the Oriental character, supply all the
checks of a moderate and free constitution, where the prerogative of the
crown is limited by laws. In these altered circumstances, the cause of
dispute was easily removed, by the right of search being subjected to
equitable regulations and modifications.
Buonaparte received the news of Paul's death with much more emotion than
he was usually apt to testify. It is said, that, for the first time in
his life, a passionate exclamation of "_Mon Dieu!_" escaped him, in a
tone of sorrow and surprise. With Paul's immense power, and his
disposition to place it at the disposal of France, the first consul
doubtless reckoned upon the accomplishment of many important plans which
his death disconcerted. It was natural, also, that Napoleon should be
moved by the sudden and violent end of a prince, who had manifested so
much admiration of his person and his qualities. He is said to have
dwelt so long on the strangeness of the incident, that Fouché was
obliged to remind him, that it was a mode of changing a chief
magistrate, or a course of administration, which was common to the
empire in which it took place.[634]
The death of Paul, so much regretted by Buonaparte, was nevertheless the
means of accelerating a peace between France and Great Britain, which,
if it could have been established on a secure basis, would have afforded
him the best chance of maintaining his power, and transmitting it to his
posterity. While the Czar continued to be his observant ally, there was
little prospect that the first consul would be moderate enough in the
terms which he might have proffered, to permit the British Ministry to
treat with him.
Another obstacle to peace was at this time removed, in a manner not more
acceptable to Buonaparte than was the death of the Emperor Paul. The
possession of Egypt by the French was a point which the first consul
would have insisted upon from strong personal feeling. The Egyptian
expedition was intimately connected with his own personal glory, nor was
it likely that he would have sacrificed its results to his desire of
peace with Great Britain. On the other hand, there was no probability
that England would accede to any arrangement which should sanction the
existence of a French colony, settled in Egypt with the express purpose
of destroying our Indian commerce. But this obstacle to peace was
removed by the fate of arms.
Affairs in Egypt had been on the whole unfavourable to the French, since
that army had lost the presence of the commander-in-chief. Kleber, on
whom the command devolved, was discontented both at the unceremonious
and sudden manner in which the duty had been imposed upon him, and with
the scarcity of means left to support his defence. Perceiving himself
threatened by a large Turkish force, which was collecting for the
purpose of avenging the defeat of the vizier at Aboukir, he became
desirous of giving up a settlement which he despaired of maintaining. He
signed accordingly a convention with the Turkish plenipotentiaries, and
Sir Sidney Smith, on the part of the British, by which it was provided
that the French should evacuate Egypt, and that Kleber and his army
should be transported to France in safety, without being molested by the
British fleet. When the British Government received advice of this
convention, they refused to ratify it, on the ground that Sir Sidney
Smith had exceeded his powers in entering into it. The Earl of Elgin
having been sent out as plenipotentiary to the Porte, it was asserted
that Sir Sidney's ministerial powers were superseded by his appointment.
Such was the alleged informality on which the treaty fell to the ground;
but the truth was, that the arrival of Kleber and his army in the south
of France, at the very moment when the successes of Suwarrow gave strong
hopes of making some impression on her frontier, might have had a most
material effect upon the events of the war. Lord Keith, therefore, who
commanded in the Mediterranean, received orders not to permit the
passage of the French Egyptian army, and the treaty of El Arish was in
consequence broken off.
Kleber, disappointed of this mode of extricating himself, had recourse
to arms. The Vizier Jouseff Pacha, having crossed the desert, and
entered Egypt, received a bloody and decisive defeat from the French
general, near the ruins of the ancient city of Heliopolis, on the 20th
March, 1800. The measures which Kleber adopted after this victory were
well calculated to maintain the possession of the country, and
reconcile the inhabitants to the French government. He was as moderate
in the imposts as the exigencies of his army permitted, greatly improved
the condition of the troops, and made, if not peace, at least an
effectual truce, with the restless and enterprising Murad Bey, who still
continued to be at the head of a considerable body of Mamelukes. Kleber
also raised among the Greeks a legion of fifteen hundred or two thousand
men; and with more difficulty succeeded in levying a regiment of Cophts.
[Sidenote: ASSASSINATION OF KLEBER.]
While busied in these measures, he was cut short by the blow of an
assassin. A fanatic Turk, called Soliman Haleby, a native of Aleppo,
imagined he was inspired by Heaven to slay the enemy of the Prophet and
the Grand Seignior. He concealed himself in a cistern, and springing out
on Kleber when there was only one man in company with him, stabbed him
dead.[635] The assassin was justly condemned to die by a military
tribunal; but the sentence was executed with a barbarity which disgraced
those who practised it. Being impaled alive, he survived for four hours
in the utmost tortures, which he bore with an indifference which his
fanaticism perhaps alone could have bestowed.[636]
The Baron Menou, on whom the command now devolved, was an inferior
person to Kleber. He had made some figure amongst the nobles who
followed the revolutionary cause in the Constituent Assembly, and was
the same general whose want of decision at the affair of the Sections
had led to the employment of Buonaparte in his room, and to the first
rise, consequently, of the fortunes which had since swelled so high.
Menou altered for the worse several of the regulations of Kleber, and,
carrying into literal execution what Buonaparte had only written and
spoken of, he became an actual Mahommedan, married a native Turkish
woman, and assumed the name of Abdallah Menou. This change of religion
exposed him to the ridicule of the French, while it went in no degree to
conciliate the Egyptians.[637]
The succours from France, which Buonaparte had promised in his farewell
address to the Egyptian army, arrived slowly, and in small numbers. This
was not the fault of the chief consul, who had commanded Gantheaume to
put to sea with a squadron, having on board four or five thousand men;
but being pursued by the English fleet, that admiral was glad to regain
the harbour of Toulon. Other efforts were made with the same indifferent
success. The French ports were too closely watched to permit the sailing
of any expedition on a large scale, and two frigates, with five or six
hundred men, were the only reinforcements that reached Egypt.
Meantime the English Cabinet had adopted the daring and manly resolution
of wresting from France this favourite colony by force. They had for a
length of time confined their military efforts to partial and detached
objects, which, if successful, could not have any effect on the general
results of the war, and which, when they miscarried, as was the case
before Cadiz, Ferrol, and elsewhere, tended to throw ridicule on the
plans of the Ministry, and however undeservedly, even upon the character
of the forces employed on the service. It was by such ill-considered and
imperfect efforts that the war was maintained on our part, while our
watchful and formidable enemy combined his mighty means to effect
objects of commensurate importance. We, like puny fencers, offered
doubtful and uncertain blows, which could only affect the extremities;
he never aimed, save at the heart, nor thrust, but with the determined
purpose of plunging his weapon to the hilt.
The consequence of these partial and imperfect measures was, that even
while our soldiers were in the act of gradually attaining that
perfection of discipline by which they are now distinguished, they
ranked--most unjustly--lower in the respect of their countrymen, than at
any other period in our history. The pre-eminent excellence of our
sailors had been shown in a thousand actions; and it became too usual to
place it in contrast with the failure of our expeditions on shore. But
it was afterwards found that our soldiers could assume the same
superiority, whenever the plan of the campaign offered them a fair field
for its exercise. Such a field of action was afforded by the Egyptian
expedition.
[Sidenote: BRITISH EXPEDITION TO EGYPT.]
This undertaking was the exclusive plan of an ill-requited statesman,
the late Lord Melville;[638] who had difficulty in obtaining even Mr.
Pitt's concurrence in a scheme, of a character so much more daring than
Britain had lately entertained. The expedition was resolved upon by the
narrowest possible majority in the Cabinet; and his late majesty
interposed his consent in terms inferring a solemn protest against the
risk about to be incurred. "It is with the utmost reluctance" (such, or
nearly such, were the words of George III.) "that I consent to a measure
which sends the flower of my army upon a dangerous expedition against a
distant province."[639] The event, however, showed, that in arduous
circumstances, the daring game, if previously well considered, is often
the most successful.
On the 8th March, 1801, General Sir Ralph Abercrombie, at the head of an
army of seventeen thousand men, landed in Egypt, in despite of the most
desperate opposition by the enemy. The excellence of the troops was
displayed by the extreme gallantry and calmness with which, landing
through a heavy surf, they instantly formed and advanced against the
enemy. On the 21st of March, a general action took place. The French
cavalry attempted to turn the British flank, and made a desperate charge
for that purpose, but failed in their attempt, and were driven back with
great loss. The French were defeated, and compelled to retreat on
Alexandria, under the walls of which they hoped to maintain themselves.
But the British suffered an irreparable loss in their lamented
commander, Sir Ralph Abercrombie, who was mortally wounded in the course
of the action. In this gallant veteran his country long regretted one of
the best generals, and one of the worthiest and most amiable men, to
whom she ever gave birth.
The command descended on General Hutchinson, who was soon joined by the
Capitan Pacha, with a Turkish army. The recollections of Aboukir and
Heliopolis, joined to the remonstrances and counsels of their English
allies, induced the Turks to avoid a general action, and confine
themselves to skirmishes, by which system the French were so closely
watched, and their communications so effectually destroyed, that General
Belliard, shut up in a fortified camp in Cairo, cut off from Alexandria,
and threatened with insurrection within the place, was compelled to
capitulate, under condition that his troops should safely be transported
to France, with their arms and baggage. This was on the 28th of June,
and the convention[640] had scarce been signed, when the English army
was reinforced in a manner which showed the bold and successful
combination of measures under which the expedition had been undertaken.
An army of seven thousand men, of whom two thousand were sepoys, or
native Indian troops, were disembarked at Cosseir, on the Red Sea, and,
detached from the Indian settlements, now came to support the European
part of the English invasion. The Egyptians saw with the extremity of
wonder, native troops, many of them Moslemah, who worshipped in the
mosques, and observed the ritual enjoined by the Prophet, perfectly
accomplished in the European discipline. The lower class were inclined
to think, that this singular reinforcement had been sent to them in
consequence of Mohammed's direct and miraculous interposition; only
their being commanded by English officers did not favour this theory.
In consequence of these reinforcements, and his own confined situation
under the walls of Alexandria, Menou saw himself constrained to enter
into a convention for surrendering up the province of Egypt. He was
admitted to the same terms of composition which had been granted to
Belliard; and thus the war in that quarter was, on the part of Great
Britain, triumphantly concluded.
The conquest of this disputed kingdom excited a strong sensation both in
France and Britain; but the news of the contest being finally closed by
Menou's submission, are believed to have reached the former country some
time before the English received them. Buonaparte, on learning the
tidings, is reported to have said, "Well, there remains now no
alternative but to make the descent on Britain." But it seems to have
occurred to him presently afterwards, that the loss of this disputed
province might, instead of being an argument for carrying the war to
extremity, be considered as the removal of an obstacle to a treaty of
peace.[641]
FOOTNOTES:
[632] Gourgaud, tom. ii., p. 131.
[633] Las Cases, tom. iii., p. 248; O'Meara, vol. i., p. 381.
[634] "Mais enfin, que voulez vous? C'est une mode de destitution propre
à ce pais-là!"--S.--"I told him, that whatever might be the mode of
deposition practised in Russia, luckily the south of Europe was a
stranger to such treacherous habits and attempts; but my arguments could
not convince him; he gave vent to his passion in ejaculations, stampings
of the foot, and short fits of rage. I never beheld so striking a
scene."--FOUCHÉ, tom. i., p. 205.
[635] The remains of Kleber were interred with great pomp, and a
monument was raised to his memory. Buonaparte evinced sincere regret at
the loss of this excellent officer, and caused a medal to be struck upon
the occasion, with the words "General Kleber, born in 1753, assassinated
at Cairo, the 14th of June, 1800;" and on the reverse, "Surnamed, from
his stature and intrepidity, the French Hercules; he braved death a
thousand times in the field, and fell under the dagger of an assassin."
Kleber and Desaix were Napoleon's favourite lieutenants. "Both," he
said, "possessed great and rare virtues, though their characters were
very dissimilar. Kleber's was the talent of nature: Desaix's was
entirely the result of education and assiduity: Kleber was an
irreparable loss to France; he was a man of the brightest talents and
the greatest bravery."
[636] His body was embalmed and brought by the French savans from Egypt,
to be deposited in the museum of natural history at Paris.
[637] Montholon, tom. i., p. 78; Memoirs of the Duke of Rovigo, vol. i.,
p. 243; Las Cases, tom. i., p. 226.
[638] Henry Dundas, created in 1802, Baron Duneira and Viscount
Melville, died in May, 1811.
[639] At an after period, the good King made the following
acknowledgment of his mistake. When Lord Melville was out of power, his
majesty did him the honour to visit him at Wimbledon, and partook of
some refreshment. On that occasion the King took an opportunity to fill
a glass of wine, and having made the company do the same, he gave as his
toast, "The health of the courageous minister, who, against the opinion
of many of his colleagues, and even the remonstrances of his king, had
dared to conceive and carry through the Egyptian expedition."--S.
[640] For a copy of the Convention, see Annual Register, vol. xliii., p.
221.
[641] "Napoleon never ceased to repeat, that Egypt ought to have
remained in the possession of the French, which, he said, would
infallibly have been the case, had the country been defended by Kleber
or Desaix."--LAS CASES, tom. i., p. 230.--"However great was the
displeasure of the first consul at what had taken place, not an
expression of ill-humour escaped him against any one. He showed at all
times a marked preference for those who formed a part of the army of
Egypt, with the exception of a few officers who had made themselves
conspicuous by their bad spirit and ingratitude; and the only revenge he
took on these was to forget them altogether."--DUKE OF ROVIGO, vol. i.,
p. 251.