Talk:Treaty of Amiens

Untitled comments
Does "French Guinea" here refer to French Guiana, or to some section of Africa? - Montréalais


 * The text is correct: the treaty concern French Guiana, not French Guinea. --Ann O'nyme 13:54, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Someone should make a redirection thing for Peace of Amiens to point here - not sure how to do it or I would myself...

This article is rather incorrect and somewhat one-sided. For one thing, the Treaty was essentially broken by the Prime Minister, who was Addington, not Pitt as the Wiki article states. Addington was Prime Minister until 10th May 1804, and realised that his own negotiations had been wrong. He broke his own treaty because Napoleon was not holding up his own end of the bargain - the French were still occupying Holland and Savoy, and had just marched into Switzerland. He concluded that Napoleon could not be trusted and forbade the evacuation of Malta. 62.173.113.204 10:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Darkmind

I agree about the text being rather lopsided. In fact, some of it looks almost identical to the description at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/t/tr/treaty_of_amiens.htm except for a few changes to give the piece here a very-anti British spin. (Note how both pieces use the verb "balked" - but the other one I've given the link for mentions the French also weren't following the treaty). It'd be much better to give a fuller picture of both sides - such as the French annexations which raised tensions too. 86.53.37.182 12:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC) MarkP

Ok, I made a few changes. Hope it all looks ok. Darkmind1970 15:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(Cut n paste from Reference desk, in case anything might prove useful Wetman 04:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

There was a considerable amout of war-weariness in Britain by the beginning of 1802, and the peace was widely welcomed by many ordinary people. Across the country there were feasts, firework displays and congratulatory addresses of one kind or another. The mood of relief was heightened still further when corn prices started to come down, and the income tax, introduced by William Pitt the Younger, was abolished by the new ministry of Henry Addington. The war itself, moreover, had, after nine long years, being getting absolutely nowhere, and ever since the Treaty of Luneville in February 1801 between France and Austria, Britain had been fighting alone. But Amiens was never more than a breathing space, a fact clearly recognised by governing circles in both London and Paris. Even so, there were many in England who were deeply critical of Addiington's peace, particularly among his political enemies, believing the price he had paid to be far too high. William Cobbett says that the terms of the treaty were 'universally condemned', and George Canning spoke out against the "gross faults and omissions, the weakness and the baseness, and shuffling and stupidity that mark this treaty."

History has not been entirely fair to Addington, and for sound reasons. Amiens, a peace that was no peace, had only been obtained by weakening the nation's strategic position, and by virtually surrendering Europe to Napoleon. But there were good grounds for seaking a break in hostilities. The national debt had grown to alarming proportions, trade was in serious deficit and, following a succession of bad harvests, inflation was in danger of getting out of control. By the spring of 1801 food shortages were the cause of widespread rioting, under the banner of 'Bread or Blood.' Addington, who replaced Pitt as Prime Minister in March 1801, was fully aware of growing back-bench hostility in the House of Commons against the war. Peace was necessary, Addington believed, not just to allow Britain a period of recovery, but to allow powers like Austria and Prussia time to rebuild their own strength and will to fight. Britain's defences were maintained in good shape, the peace notwithstanding, and lower taxation allowed trade to recover.

There were those, of course, who embraced the peace wholeheartedly, including Charles James Fox, the Whig leader, who took the opportunity to travel to Paris and visit Napoleon, then First Consul of France. But bit by bit British opinion turned against the peace. Anti-French fervour grew in intensity towards the close of 1802, as people became ever more aware of Napoleon's expansionist policy in Europe. Addington played a careful game, placing the country's finances in order and increasing its defensive capacity in perparation for the coming rupture. The navy was improved, as was the army. In May 1803 Britain declared war on France at a time that Addington judged best, and well before Napoleon's own plans were complete. The country now had the economic strength, the will and the power to continue the fight from this point forward with no further interruption. Clio the Muse 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that the reason that Napoleon wasn't holding up to his end of the treaty, was that the British weren't holding up to theirs. If the Brits are going to violate and keep Malta, then the French will, an for an eye, keep Naples. Does this fit with the chronology? With the documentation?-A fellow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.80.42 (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Saint-Domingue
Why was the French invasion of Saint-Domingue a factor in the breakdown of the peace (as stated in the article)? Saint-Domingue was still a French colony at the time. It doesn't seem to make sense that France's sending of troops to its own colony would be in violation of the treaty. Funnyhat 07:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, it wasn't: the invasion at Cap Français actually preceded the signing at Amiens: cf my new edits. Background on the revolution that was well under way at Saint-Domingue can be found here. --Wetman 01:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. Makes more sense. Funnyhat 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Minorca
Didn´t the Treaty of Amiens also arrange for the return of Minorca to Spain? Or was it agreed in a separate, parallel treaty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Trinidad
It is not clear in the article whether Trinidad remained a British possession, or was passed back to the British (as other articles say - France–Trinidad and Tobago relations Governors of Trinidad). If, as I presume, the latter is the case, we should make it clear that the transfer occurred after the end of the treaty period (1 June 1803) and why this was (presumably the delay in communication rather than the use of armed force). Also it would be useful to know how Trinidad passed to France on this occasion - though that might belong in History of Trinidad and Tobago. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC).


 * Any improvement should be reflected in Portal:Trinidad and Tobago/On this day/June 30. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Amiens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20031125025927/http://charon.sfsu.edu/publications/ParisExpositions/NapoleonicExpos.html to http://charon.sfsu.edu/publications/ParisExpositions/NapoleonicExpos.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ceylon and Trinidad
The article states Britain cedes Trinidad and Ceylon. That would mean Britain gave up Britain and Ceylon. Is it not the opposite? Britain ceded other takeovers but got to keep Trinidad from the French and Ceylon from the Dutch Batavian Republic? https://www.napoleon-empire.com/official-texts/treaty-of-amiens.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.178.201.134 (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

^I went ahead and made changes. Corrected the changing order of ownership of Trinidad and Ceylon from being FROM Britain to be TO Britain. Trinidad was already invaded by Britain and was previously under Spain (not Dutch), so corrected language to reflect that. Removed mention of Tobago as not part of Trinidad and Tobago at that time and not mentioned in Treaty. I am not expert on this subject, so please confirm for accuracy.MachangZee (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Britain abandoned its claim to the French throne
> Britain retained Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Trinidad but abandoned its claim to the French throne.

This is unsourced in the article, and there are no other references. It's not explicitly mentioned in the treaty itself (text link)

In the page on the English claim to the French throne, it seems like this was something that the King decided with the Act of Union, prior to the treaty, and the treaty only made that clearer in its decision to recognize the Republic as a viable entity. Tccam (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

breakdown of the treaty
In the breakdown section it has the following sentence at/near the end of first paragraph: "it [war] proved to be the right choice for Britain, because in the long run Napoleon's intentions were hostile to British national interests." This is editorializing and needs removal or alteration or if it is the view of the particular historians it should stated as such. Firestar47 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)