parte at Eylau, was called, in the French bulletins, a drunkard, a gambler, and a barbarian!

During the negotiations at Tilsit, Bonaparte sent to the Russian commander the croix d'honneur, and wished to see him. The gallant Benningsen declined both honours! To revenge himself, he ordered the General's mother*, an old woman of eighty, residing at Zelle, in the electorate of Hanover, to be arrested and conveyed to Paris. Gens d'armes were put in her house, and preparations were making for her departure; but the poor old woman spared them the trouble-she died in consequence of the fright and ill treatment. Her property was seized. General Benningsen afterwards applied for it, but in vain.

Whilst Bonaparte was at Warsaw, a farce was performed there, well worthy of the projector. A new Turkish ambassador had arrived at Vienna, on his way to Paris. In his suite there was a secretary, by birth a Persian, Bonaparte had this man dressed up in great state, in order to personate an ambassador. He arrived at Warsaw, in company with the Turkish ambassador, and was presented to the imperial juggler, as ambassador from the Emperor of Persia. The farce was continued. In that quality the man arrived at Paris †.

* General Benningsen is a native of Hanover.

This was evidently done pour mystifier les Anglais. He had not the honour, however, of being the author of this kind

He was in Paris till very lately; but Bonaparte has become tired of him, and the Poor Persian has been obliged to subsist by selling his shawls, &c. and the presents which the French government had made him.

ACCORDING to all appearances, tranquillity was once more restored to the Continent; but Napo

of mystification; it did not originate with him. When the Duke of Richelieu was at Lisbon, he met with a Jesuit, who could speak the Persian language: after permission received from Louis XV. he had the man dressed up and conveyed to Paris, as a Persian ambassador, in order to frighten the English Government. See the Curiosities of Paris, by Saint-Foix.

In the time of the Convention, a similar farce was acted. Anarcharsis Clootz, who called himself "the orator of the "human race," went into the Fauxbourgs, where he got a number of workmen, for six livres each, whom he dressed up Like Armenians, Persians, Turks, Mamelukes, &c. and introduced them at the bar of the Convention, as representatives of these different nations, who had been sent to congratulate the Convention on the abolition of royalty, and the wishes of these worthy people to fraternize with the French Sons of Freedom!

A work appeared in this country some time ago, entitled, The Memoirs of Talleyrand, in which the author says, "that "the French government paid the expenses of the English

deputies, who were sent from this country to France, in 1792, to congratulate the Convention on the abolition of royalty, "and also for the 6,000 pairs of shoes which were sent from "this, country to the brave Sans-Culottes of the French army."

Talleyrand, who was the agent, and who paid the money for this farce, has assured me that this statement is true.

leon again proved to the world, that his restless disposition would not allow him to suffer mankind to have repose.

The secret treaty of Tilsit sowed the seeds of new mischief, and paved the way for new usurpations. His troops, whose arms still ached with slaughter, were ordered to Spain and Portugal, for the purpose, as it was held out, of attacking Gibraltar, and taking possession of the ports of Portugal. The manner he got possession of Spain, and trepanned the royal family, is very ably detailed by an eye-witness, and a person who played a conspicuous part in those transactions *. The perusal of that publication must convince every reader, that the royal family of Spain were trepanned, and, literally speaking, robbed of their kingdom, and even their private property. But

if

any doubt has been entertained of the truth of the statement of Mr. Cevallos, the Secret Treaty of Tilsit must convince the unprejudiced reader of the real state of that nefarious affair.

History does not furnish us with any. thing so wicked, "Nullum simile aut secundum." In England, only, I have heard a comparison made between the conduct of Bonaparte and our Edward the First in regard to Scotland.

In Scotland there was a disputed succession to the crown, between two principal competitors,

See the pamphlet of D. Pedro Cevallos.

Baliol and Bruce, whose titles were doubtful, from the then unsettled notions with respect to feudal successions. Edward was called in by the States of Scotland, to decide between the two, in Edward had not order to prevent a civil war.

excited this dispute; but he took advantage of it, to promote his own views. He decided in favour of Baliol, because he consented to a condition to which Bruce refused to consent-to hold Scotland as a vassal kingdom. Baliol, afterwards feeling his humiliation, refused to do homage to Edward. On this refusal, Edward deposed Baliol, as having forfeited his kingdom to his paramount lord; and, instead of giving it to Bruce, took it to himself; and probably would have kept it, had not the brave Wallace started up, to assert the liberties and independence of his country.

This may be called ancient history; what follows is quite modern.

Don Carlos, a king, imbecile I admit, but a king altogether independent of any foreign power, had been drawn, by the artifices of Napoleon Bonaparte, into an alliance with France against England. The ships of Spain were subservient to the views of Napoleon; they fought his battles by sea. The prime of the Spanish army, to the amount of 60,000, were drafted into Germany, to fight the battles of Napoleon by land; to contribute to the downfall of Russia, Prussia, and Austria. A French army, in the absence of those

D D

natural defenders of their country, is sent into Spain, under the specious pretence of taking pos session of the ports of Portugal; but his myrmidons no sooner enter Spain, than he seizes all the Spanish fortresses by force; pretends to treat those who resisted as rebels; and entices both father and son to come to him at Bayonne, under pretence of interposing his powerful influence to decide between them. He does not decide between them; but he takes them both prisoners, and sends them to an interior part of France, to drag out their days, till it shall suit his politics to have them dispatched by poison or assassination; and, in the mean time, under a pretended surrender of their rights, places the crown on the head of his brother, to hold of him as his liege lord.

I have heard it attempted to justify Bonaparte's conduct with respect to Spain, by a comparison with that of Edward to Scotland. Supposing the parallel to hold, which I do not, the iniquity of one robber will not justify that of another. But the comparison goes but a short way. Edward was chosen to decide between two real competitors, where the point was indeed doubtful; the dispute had been referred to him by a competent authority, the States of Scotland: he pursued all the formalities of a judgment; he summoned many lawyers from France and England, to assist him in his decision. It is true, he sounded both the candidates, in order to see who was the more