International Law. A Treatise. Volume 2 (of 2): War and Neutrality. Second EditionOppenheim, L. (Lassa)
History
International Law. A Treatise. Volume 2 (of 2): War and Neutrality. Second Edition
Oppenheim, L. (Lassa)
International law
did not, however, receive instructions based on these orders until
February 22, 1800, and, therefore, when he approved of the capitulation
of El Arish in January, was not aware that he acted against orders of
the British Government.[448] Lord Keith, after having received the above
orders on January 8, 1800, wrote at once to General Kléber, pointing out
that he was not allowed to grant the return of the French army to
France.[449] On the other hand, the British Government, after having
been informed that Sir Sidney Smith had approved of the return of the
French army, sent, on March 28, 1800, fresh orders[450] to Lord Keith,
received by him at the end of April, advising him, although Sir Sidney
Smith had exceeded his competence, to allow the capitulation to be
carried out and the French army to be safely transported to France.
Meanwhile, however, circumstances had entirely changed. When General
Kléber had on March 17, 1800, received Lord Keith's letter of January 8,
he addressed a proclamation,[451] in which Lord Keith's letter was
embodied, to his troops asking them to prepare themselves for battle and
actually began hostilities again on March 20. He was assassinated on
June 14, and General Menou took over the command, and it was the latter
who received, on June 20, 1800, information of the changed attitude of
the British Government regarding the capitulation of El Arish.
Hostilities having been renewed as far back as March, General Menou
refused,[452] on his part, to consent to the carrying out of the
capitulation, and continued hostilities.
[Footnote 446: See U.S. Naval War Code, article 51.]
[Footnote 447: Martens, _R._ VII. p. 1.]
[Footnote 448: Martens, _R._ VII. pp. 8 and 9.]
[Footnote 449: Martens, _R._ VII. p. 10.]
[Footnote 450: Martens, _R._ VII. p. 11.]
[Footnote 451: Martens, _R._ VII. p. 15.]
[Footnote 452: Martens, _R._ VII. p. 16.]
It is obvious that Sir Sidney Smith, in approving the capitulation,
granted a condition which did not depend entirely upon himself and the
forces under him, but which depended upon Lord Keith and his fleet. Lord
Keith as well as the British Government could have lawfully disowned
this condition. That the British Government did not do so, but was ready
to ratify Sir Sidney Smith's approval, was due to the fact that it did
not want to disavow the promises of Sir Sidney Smith, who was not at the
time aware of the orders of his Government to Lord Keith. On the other
hand, the French Generals were not wrong in resuming hostilities after
having received Lord Keith's first information, as thereby the
capitulation fell to the ground.
[Sidenote: Violation of Capitulations.]
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