Page:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu/282

262 the trickery by which English visitors were lured into remaining would have been inexcusable. The Argus, a semi-official paper printed in English, commenting on the 10th May 1803 on the hurried departure of British subjects, assured them that they would be much better protected if they remained than they could have been by Lord Whitworth, for France was no longer ruled by a Robespierre or by a system of terror. The local authorities at Brussels, Nimes, and other places, had given assurances that even expulsion was unlikely, and that in any case ample time would be allowed for departure. Talleyrand, too, had told Lord Elgin (of marble celebrity) that he might safely stay in Paris. Elgin was simply passing through France on his way home from the Constantinople Embassy, and had in Italy obtained passports from the French consuls, yet he vainly pleaded diplomatic immunity. Even Lord Whitworth's staff suffered treatment on a parallel with Lord Gower's in 1792. James Talbot was twice stopped and detained some hours on his way to Calais. James Henry Mandeville, not allowed to embark at Boulogne, returned to Paris. The Embassy chaplain and doctor, Hodgson and Maclaurin, were also refused permission to embark. Talleyrand, who may safely be acquitted of these vexatious measures, had to be appealed to before the entire