It  is  rather  the  province  of  the  historian  than  of  the  jurist  to  trace  the
origin  and  lay  bare  the  causes  of  this  event.  But  it  must  be  observed
that  the  memoir  of  Count  *Ooertz,(p)  the  diary  of  Lord  Malmes-  r^n^gn
bury,  the  records  of  De  Flas8an,(g)  and  of  Yon  I>ohm,(r)  esta-  *-  -I
blifih,  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  reasonable  doubt,  three  things  respect-
ing it.  First,  that  it  was  the  result  of  a  cabinet  intrigue  (which  meant
nothing  less  than  the  welfare  of  nations,)  availing  itself  of  an  accident,  (s)
Secondly,  that  originally  the  Empress  had  fully  adopted  and  meant  to
carry  into  effect  the  principles  of  International  Law  contended  for  by
England.  Thirdly,  that  to  the  last  she  never  clearly  understood  what
she  had  done,  or  why  she  had  given  offence  to  Great  Britain,  (t)  Count
Panin  was  Chancellor  of  the  Empire ;  Prince  Potemkin  the  reigning
favourite  of  the  Empress.  England,  in  her  war  with  her  Colonies,  France
and  Spain,  sought  aid  in  an  alliance  with  Russia.  Potemkin  favoured,
Panin  opposed  it.  The  seizure  of  two  Russian  ships  by  Spain  at  this
time  incensed  the  Empress ;  Potemkin  availed  himself  of  her  wrath  to
induce  her  to  order  the  equipment  of  a  fleet,  destined  to  co-operate  with
England  against  Spain,  if  redress  were  denied.  Panin  discovered  both
that  the  fleet  was  ordered,  and  its  destination.  He  saw  in  these  facts,
however,  the  opportunity  *of  crushing  his  rival,  and  he  seized  it  r*274l
with  great  adroitness.  He  applauded  the  determination  of  the  I-  J
Empress,  but  artfully  suggested  that  an  occasion  now  presented  itself  to
her  of  appearing  in  the  magnificent  character  of  the  lawgiver  of  the  seas^

ip)  Mn,  I.  341-2.
[p)  M^moire  8ur  la  Neutrality  anu^e,  p.  104.
