History of the war in the Peninsula and in the south of France from the year 1807 to the year 1814, vol. 1Napier, William Francis Patrick
History
History of the war in the Peninsula and in the south of France from the year 1807 to the year 1814, vol. 1
Napier, William Francis Patrick
Peninsular War, 1807-1814
Article 7th stipulated for the neutrality of the port of Lisbon as
far as the Russian fleet was concerned. At first Kellerman proposed
to have the Russian fleet guaranteed from capture, with leave to
return to the Baltic; but this was peremptorily refused; and
indeed the whole proceeding was designed to entangle the Russians
in the French negotiation, that in case the armistice should be
broken, the former might be forced into a co-operation with the
latter.
Sir Arthur strenuously opposed this article: he argued, 1º, that
the interests of the two nations were not blended, and that they
stood in different relations towards the British army. 2º. That it
was an important object to keep them separate, and that the French
general, if pressed, would leave the Russians to their fate. 3º.
That as the British operations had not been so rapid and decisive
as to enable them to capture the fleet before the question of
neutrality could be agitated, the right of the Russians to such
protection was undoubted, and in the present circumstances it was
desirable to grant it, because, independent of the chances of
their final capture, they would be prevented from returning to the
Baltic, which in fact constituted their only point of interest when
disengaged from the French negotiation; but, that viewed as allies
of the latter, they became of great weight. Lastly, that it was an
affair which concerned the Portuguese, Russians, and British, but
with which the French could have no right to interfere.
Sir Hew finding that the discussion of this question became
lengthened, and considering that sir Charles Cotton alone could
finally decide, admitted the article merely as a form, without
acquiescing in the propriety of it.
Article 8th provided, that all guns of French calibre, and the
horses of the cavalry, were to be likewise transported to France.
Article 9th stipulated, that forty-eight hours notice should be
given of the rupture of the armistice.
To this article also sir Arthur objected; he considered it
unnecessary for the interests of the British army, and favourable
to the French, because if hostilities recommenced, the latter would
have forty-eight hours to make arrangements for their defence, for
the passage of the Tagus, and for the co-operation of the Russian
fleet. Upon the other hand, sir Hew thought it was an absolute
advantage to gain time for the preparations of the British army,
and for the arrival of sir John Moore’s reinforcements.
By an additional article it was provided, that all the fortresses
held by the French, which had not capitulated before the 25th of
August, should be given up to the British, and the basis of a
convention being thus arranged, general Kellerman returned to his
chief, and colonel George Murray was ordered to carry the proposed
articles to the English admiral.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account