{GEORGE III. 1792–1793}
Meeting of Parliament..... Debates on the Russian
Armament..... Debate on the Affairs of India..... Pitt’s
Financial Statement..... The Slave-Trade Question.....
London Police Act..... Act to relieve the Scotch
Episcopalians, &c. Sheridan’s motion respecting the
Royal Burghs of Scotland..... Debates on Parliamentary
Reform, &c. Trial of Hastings, &e...... Bill
respecting the New Forest and Timber for the Navy.....
Prorogation of Parliament..... Changes in the
Ministry..... East India Affairs..... Progress of the French
Revolution..... Affairs of Poland..... State of the Public
Mind in England..... Meeting of Parliament..... The Alien
Bill, &c. Execution of the French King.
{A.D. 1792}
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
The British parliament did not assemble until the 31st of January.
The first topic mentioned in the king’s speech was the marriage of his
second son, the Duke of York, with the Princess Frederica, daughter of
the King of Prussia. His majesty then informed the two houses that a
treaty had been concluded, under his mediation and that of his allies,
between the Emperor of Austria and the Porte, and that preliminaries had
been agreed upon between the latter of those powers and Russia. The
king next expressed his regret that he was not yet enabled to inform
parliament of the termination of the war in India with Tippoo Sultaun,
but the success which had already attended the British arms afforded,
reasonable ground to hope that the war would speedily be concluded.
Although events in Europe at this time cast their dark shadows before
them, yet his majesty affirmed that the general state of affairs
appeared to promise to Great Britain the continuance of her present
tranquillity; and he even suggested that some immediate reduction might
safely be made in our naval and military establishments. He concluded
by recommending the house of commons to consider of such measures as
the flourishing state of the funds and of public credit might render
practicable and expedient, for a reduction in the rate of interest
of such of the annuities as were now redeemable; by stating that he
entertained the pleasing hope of their being enabled to enter upon a
gradual reduction of taxes, giving at the same time additional efficacy
to the plan for the reduction of the national debt; and by recommending
a steady, zealous, and confirmed attachment to the British constitution.
The debates on the address principally turned upon the line of policy
pursued by the ministry in their interference in the quarrel between
Turkey and Prussia, and in the hostility they had displayed towards the
latter power. Ministers were loudly condemned for this interference by
the opposition; Mr. Grey and Fox taking the most prominent part in
the attack. Fox, as usual, introdued France and her revolution and
constitution into his speech. The frequent eulogiums on the British
constitution which had been introduced into parliament, he said, had
been introduced in order to reproach him and his friends for their
admiration of what had been done in France, and to suggest the suspicion
that he and his friends were hostile to our own form of government.
The French, he contended, had done perfectly right in overturning a
constitution so radically bad as that of France; but that of Great
Britain was so good, though not absolutely perfect, that it merited the
efforts of all honest subjects to preserve it. It was hence most unjust
to insinuate that those who approved of the destruction of despotism in
France, would rejoice in the downfall of the British constitution.
Fox concluded by condemning the Birmingham riots; asserting that the
outrages had been committed through the laxity or tacit approbation of
the magistrates. He remarked:—“It would have been well if his majesty
in his speech had spoken of those riots in the terms they merited. They
were not riots for bread; they were not riots in the cause of liberty,
which, however highly to be reprobated, had yet some excuse in their
principle; they were riots of men neither aggrieved nor complaining—of
men who had set on foot an indiscriminate persecution of an entire
description of their fellow-citizens, including persons as eminent for
their ability, as blameless in their conduct, and as faithful in their
allegiance as this or any other country could boast.” In reply, Pitt
said that the Birmingham riots had better be consigned to oblivion,
especially as sufficient had been done for their atonement; and he
broadly hinted that Fox revived the subject for party purposes. He
warmly defended the conduct of the cabinet in the interference between
Turkey and Russia; asserting that the object of it was to prevent the
ruin of the Turkish empire, and to preserve that balance of power in
Europe which was essential to the interests of Great Britain. Pitt
concluded by adverting to the more pleasing topic of financial
improvement; stating that the last year’s revenue amounted to
£16,790,000, which, after all the expenditure and the annual million
devoted to the reduction of the national debt, left a surplus of
£900,000; and that, encouraged by this prosperous condition of the
finances, he contemplated taking off some of those taxes which pressed
most heavily upon the poor.
DEBATES ON THE RUSSIAN ARMAMENT.
Papers relative to the apprehended rupture between Great Britain and
Russia were laid before the house on the 6th of February. This gave rise
to several debates, in which the spirit of party was strongly displayed.
On the 13th of February Mr. Grey loudly complained that ministers had
not produced the preliminaries said to have been adjusted between
the Russian and Turkish negociators; and that large sums had been
unnecessarily spent in fitting out the armament. A week later Mr. Grey
moved for a more ample production of papers regarding various portions
of the recent diplomacy of ministers; arguing that the whole of the
correspondence was necessary, if they wished to justify the steps they
had taken. Pitt resisted the demand, conceiving that sufficient had been
disclosed to make the house master of all the essential parts of the
business, and asserting that confidence was due to the administration,
until their capacity or integrity was impeached. The motion was
negatived, but on the 29th of February the subject was revived by Mr.
Whitbread, who moved the following resolutions:—“That no arrangement
respecting Oczakow and its district appears to have been capable of
affecting the political or commercial interests of this country, so
as to justify any hostile interference on the part of Great Britain
between. Russia and the Porte: that the interference for the purpose
of preventing the cession of the said fortress and its district to the
Empress of Russia has been wholly unsuccessful; and that his majesty’s
ministers, in endeavouring, by means of an armed force, to compel the
Empress of Russia to abandon her claim to Oczakow, and in continuing
an armament after the object for which it was proposed had been
relinquished, have been guilty of gross misconduct, tending to incur
unnecessary expenses, and to diminish the influence of the British
nation.” Many members took part in the debate which followed this
motion, but the most remarkable speeches were delivered by those two
great rivals, Pitt and Fox. After reviewing our foreign policy from the
time of our joining Prussia, in order to prevent Holland becoming the
prey of France, Fox said that we were standing forward the principals
of every quarrel, the Quixotes of every enterprise, and the agitators in
all the plots and disturbances that were every day arising in Europe.
He said, if Oczakow was a place of no importance, ministers ought to be
censured for having armed and protracted war on its account; and if it
was an important place, they ought to be censured for disarming without
having obtained repossession of it from the Turks. Fox argued that
the Empress of Russia weald have granted better terms to the Turks if
England had not interfered; and bitterly complained of Pitt’s reserve
and secrecy with parliament. On the latter subject he remarked:—“This
is what puts our constitution in danger. That the pride, the folly, the
presumption of a single person shall be able to involve a whole people
in disgrace is more than philosophy can teach mortal patience to endure.
Here are the true weapons of the enemies of our constitution! Here
may we search for the source of the present outpourings of seditious
writings, meant either to weaken our attachment to the constitution by
depreciating its value, or that loudly tell us we have no constitution
at all. We may blame, we may reprobate such doctrines; but while we
furnish those who circulate them with argumenta such as these, while the
example of this day shows us to what degree the fact is true, we must
not wonder that the purposes the seditious writings are meant to answer
be but too successful. They argue that a constitution cannot be right
where such things are possible; much less so when they are practised
without punishment. Against the vain theories of men who project
fundamental alterations upon grounds of mere speculative objection I can
easily defend the constitution; but when they recur to these facts, and
show me how we may be doomed to all the horrors of war by the caprice
of an individual, who will not even condescend to explain his reasons,
I can only fly to this house, and exhort you to rouse from your lethargy
of confidence, into the active mistrust and vigilant control which your
duty and your office point out to you.” But Fox had by his intrigues
brought the country into danger from a war with Russia, more than Pitt
had by his armament. Although the laws and constitution of this country
entrust the exclusive right of treating with foreign potentates to the
king, yet without the knowledge or participation of a single member in
the house, Fox had sent an agent to St. Petersburgh to frustrate the
objects for which a plenipotentiary from the crown was authorised to
treat. And Fox succeeded in his design: it was through his influence
that the czarina still obstinately refused to give up Oczakow, And yet
Fox condemned ministers for not having succeeded in their negociations!
On this subject Pitt’s biographer, Tomline, writes:—“It is to be
presumed that Mr. Fox never would have had recourse to such a measure,
if he had not entertained a confident hope, that, having already
succeeded in rendering the Russian armament unpopular, he should overset
Mr. Pitt’s administration, provided the empress could be prevailed on to
persevere in her demands. That point he accomplished without difficulty,
yet the result did not turn out as he expected—he defeated Mr. Pitt’s
plan, and brought a certain degree of discredit and danger on his
country, by effecting the aggrandisment of an unfriendly and powerful
court, but his own personal ambition remained ungratified.” In his reply
to Fox the minister exhibited a noble mind, in not making any use of his
rival’s unjustifiable conduct: conduct which was more unconstitutional
than Pitt’s rigid reserve, and which was to a certain extent,
treasonable. In his reply Pitt defended his policy with great spirit.
He asked whether any one conversant in politics could admit that
the Turkish empire, being unable to defend itself against Russia and
Austria, should be abandoned by the other European powers, every one of
which was so visibly interested in the preservation of its independence:
whether, if other European powers were indolent, or hindered by untoward
circumstances from interfering. Great Britain could coolly leave
Turkey to its fate? and whether a British ministry could look on with
indifference, while her commerce in the Levant was threatened, and
the maritime power of England, not only in the Mediterranean and
Archipelago, but in every other sea, must receive a blow from the
increase of shipping that would accrue to Russia and Austria, were they
to become masters of European Turkey? The interest and honour of this
country, he said, required us to pay vigilant attention to the political
situation of the continental powers, lest the predominance of any one
should destroy that equipoise which was essential to the safety of the
whole. And it was evident, he remarked, that the ruin or depression
of the Turkish empire would materially affect the balance of power in
Europe. All the world knew that the object of Russia had long been to
acquire exclusive authority in the Black Sea; and were the Russians to
gain possession of its ports, a new naval power would arise, dangerous
to all Europe, but especially so to Great Britain, whose safety and
prosperity chiefly depended on the superiority of her fleets. It was
certain, also, he said, that if Great Britain had not assumed a hostile
disposition, the original demands of the court of Petersburgh would
have been insisted on to the last, and Turkey would have been forced to
submit to a dismemberment. As for Oczakow, he acknowledged that it
was not a place of great importance, but as a fortress commanding the
navigation of the Dniester, and a point to be gained by the empress in
her system of ambition, it was worth some risks, and he conceived
that he had done his duty by first attempting to secure this object to
Turkey, and afterwards relinquishing it when it could only be obtained
at the price of war. At the same time Pitt remarked, Oczakow might have
been secured had it not been for the division and opposition in this
kingdom; it was chiefly through Fox and his party that what had been
done well, had not been done better. Party divisions in this country had
encouraged the ambitious designs of Russia; and yet opposition now took
merit to themselves for rendering negociations useless; which, but for
their efforts, would have been attended with complete success. But he
did not envy them their triumph: it was not a triumph over an enemy, but
over the council of their king. Pitt concluded by a sarcastic reflection
on Fox, which must have been keenly felt by him. In the summer of
1791, the czarina finding that the Whig party was averse to the Russian
armament, directed her ambassador to request Fox to sit to Nollekens
for a bust in white marble, in order that she might place it between the
statues of Demosthenes and Cicero. In allusion to this Pitt said, that
if he and his honourable friend Dundas were to go to St. Petersburg, he
felt certain that neither of them should be found in any place of glory
between two orators of antiquity! Fox replied, vindicating his conduct,
and condemning the policy of ministers in the same unmeasured terms as
before. But the sentiments of the house were against him and his party:
Whitbread’s resolutions were all rejected, either without a division
or by very large majorities. During these debates the same question
was agitated in the house of lords; but Lord Fitzwilliam, who moved a
similar resolution to that of Mr. Grey in the commons, was outvoted by a
majority of eighty-nine against nineteen.
DEBATES ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA.
It was not on the subject of the Russian armament alone that opposition
sought to bring ministers into contempt, and to overthrow their
administration. In their plan of campaign they had determined to attack
them on the subject of the Indian war, and accordingly, on the 9th of
February, Major Maitland moved for all papers necessary to throw light
upon the subject. It was the chief object of the opposition to prove
that the war with Tippoo Sultaun was unnecessary, and that it had been
conducted by Lord Cornwallis without spirit or talent. Such was the
substance of the arguments employed by Colonel Maitland in support of
his motion, and in which he was supported by Francis, the antagonist
of Hastings and Tupey. The motion was on the whole agreed to; Dundas
consenting to produce all the papers called for, except copys of any
proposals of peace which had been made by Tippoo Sultaun. But this
did not satisfy opposition. On the 15th of March Major Maitland moved
various resolutions on the Indian war, all tending to reprobate it as
unjustifiable, and as the result of a plan laid down by ministers
for Tippoo’s destruction. These resolutions were negatived; but on a
subsequent day the major renewed the subject, declaring that the papers
proved the correctness of his views—that a plan of conquest had been
formed, and that the war had been sought for that purpose. In order to
settle the matter, after showing the warlike character of Tippoo, and
defending the honour of Lord Cornwallis, ministers moved a resolution
declaring that the conduct of the governor-general accorded with the
true spirit and intent of the rules of government established by the
British parliament for the affairs of India, which resolution was
adopted.
PITT’S FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
The house went into committee to consider the financial affairs of the
country, on the 17th of February, when Pitt made a speech representing
the country as in a nourishing condition, almost unprecedented. The
revenue had increased so much, he said, that government would be enabled
to take off taxes, bearing chiefly upon the poor, to the amount of
£200,000, and to apply an equal sum more to increase the sinking-fund
for paying off the national debt. He proposed to take off the additional
duty on malt; the new duties on male and female servants; the duties
upon waggons, wains, carts, and other such carriages; the taxes on
houses containing less than seven windows; and a halfpenny in the
pound of the duty upon all candles, except wax and spermaceti.
These propositions were agreed to without a division. Sheridan only
questioning the truth of Pitt’s financial statement, which he did more
from the force of habit, and by way of opposition, than from any just
cause. On the same day, in a committee of supply, the house granted
£400,000 to his majesty, to be issued and paid to the governor and
company of the Bank of England, to be by them placed to the account
of the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt. So far as
Pitt’s statements on this occasion related to the actual condition
of the finances of the country they were doubtless correct; but his
sentiments on the future were too soon proved to be fallacious. He
remarked:—“From the result of the whole, I trust I am entitled to
conclude that the scene which we are now contemplating, is not the
transient effect of accident, not the short-lived prosperity of a day,
but the general and natural result of regular and permanent causes.
Though we may yet be subject to those fluctuations which often occur in
the affairs of a mighty nation, and which it is impossible to calculate
or foresee, yet, as far as reliance can be placed on human speculations,
we have the best ground, from experience of the past, for looking with
satisfaction on the present, and with confidence toward the future.”
Pitt, indeed, expressed his deep conviction that there never was a
time when a durable peace might more reasonably be expected than at the
present moment. And yet there never was a time when war was manifestly
more imminent. England was, in truth, on the verge of a war which was
to increase the national debt more than any in which she had been yet
engaged. The nation was taught to entertain brilliant hopes at the
opening of this year, but at its close those hopes were dashed to the
ground. They were called upon to indulge in visions of a total release
from national debt; but it was soon found that this debt was to increase
by a sure and rapid process. Pitt himself soon discovered that he might
be wrong; and hence, being apprehensive that in the case of a new
and protracted war, requiring large additions to the public debt, the
sinking fund might not operate with sufficient effect to prevent a
national bankruptcy, he subsequently proposed, that, whenever a loan
should be hereafter made, one per cent on the new stock thus created,
besides the dividends, should be raised and applied in the same manner,
and under the same regulations as the original £1,000,000. This bill
passed the commons without any particular opposition; but in the upper
house it was violently reprobated by Lord Chancellor Thurlow as a
provision likely to answer no good purpose, and as exhibiting an
extraordinary degree of arrogance, by dictating to future parliaments,
and prescribing to future ministers a mode of action to be adopted some
thirty years hence. He remarked:—“None but a novice, a sycophant, a
mere reptile of a minister, would allow this act to prevent him doing
what, in his own judgment, circumstances might require at the time;
and a change in the situation of the country might render that which
is proper at one time inapplicable at another. In short, the scheme
is nugatory and impracticable; the inaptness of the project is only
equalled by the vanity of the attempt.” This bill, however, passed into
a law, and was adhered to in the numerous loans advanced during the
whole of the revolutionary contest. About the same time Pitt brought
another measure into the house, which indicated that his views were
undergoing a change as to the long continuance of peace; this was a
proposition to raise £812,500 by means of a lottery. But in this he met
with decided opposition. Great surprise was expressed that, in a time of
profound peace, he should have recourse to a method of levying money so
extremely injurious to the morals and habits of the people. Instances
were adduced in which state-lotteries had led to robbery and suicide;
and a petition was presented from the grand jury of Middlesex, earnestly
praying the house to take the subject into consideration. These
representations produced such an impression, that a motion was
forthwith carried for a committee to inquire into the evils arising from
lotteries.
{GEORGE III. 1792–1793}
THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.
Although defeated in his humane endeavours to effect the abolition of
the slave-trade during the last session, yet Mr. Wilberforce resolved to
persevere in the great cause which he had undertaken. And in this he was
now supported by popular opinion; not less than five hundred and eight
petitions having been presented, in the early part of the sessions,
praying for the abolition of that abominable traffic. Thus encouraged,
on the 2nd of April, Wilberforce moved, in a committee of the whole
house, “that it is the opinion of this committee, that the trade carried
on by British subjects, for the purpose of procuring slaves from Africa,
ought to be entirely abolished.” In his speech, which was very able and
eloquent, the mover declared that he would never abandon this business
till he had obtained his object; and he intimated that if he carried his
present motion, he would follow it up by another to this effect:—“That
the chairman be directed to move the house for leave to bring in a
bill for the abolition of the slave-trade.” Wilberforce was opposed
by Jenkinson, Colonel Tarleton, and other members interested in the
slave-trade, who endeavoured to show that our West India islands would
be useless without such a traffic, and who treated the petitions on the
table with contempt, as signed by raw youths, inexperienced persons, or
needy individuals, who wrote their names for money. On the other hand,
the motion was eloquently supported by Thornton, Montague, Whitbread,
Pitt, and Fox. One of the most powerful speeches was that delivered by
the prime-minister. The subject was not made a cabinet question; but
every member of administration was left to follow that line of conduct
which their own notions of policy, expediency, or right might dictate.
Dundas, who had recently become secretary of state, by the resignation
of the Duke of Leeds, was averse to instant abolition; and he
recommended a middle course, which he thought might reconcile the
interests of the West India islands with the eventual abolition of the
trade; and he concluded by moving, that the word “gradual” should be
inserted before the word “abolition.” In reply, Pitt asked why injustice
was to be suffered to remain for a single hour? “Reflect,” said he, “on
the eighty thousand persons annually torn from their native land; on
the connexions which are broken; on the friendships, attachments, and
relationships that are rent asunder! There is something in the horror of
it that surpasses all the bounds of imagination. How shall we repair the
mischiefs we have brought upon that continent? If, knowing the miseries
we have caused, we refuse, even now, to put a stop to them, how greatly
aggravated will be the guilt of Britain! Shall we not rather count
the days and hours that are suffered to intervene, than to delay the
accomplishment of such a work? If we listen to the voice of reason and
duty, and pursue this night the line of conduct which they prescribe,
some of us may live to see the reverse of that picture from which we now
turn our eyes with shame and regret. We may live to behold the natives
of Africa engaged in the calm occupations of industry; in the pursuits
of a just and legitimate commerce. We may behold the beams of science
and philosophy breaking in upon their land, which, at some happy period,
in still later times, may blaze with full lustre; and, joining their
influence to that of pure religion, may illuminate and invigorate the
most distant extremities of that immense continent.” It was argued
by some of its supporters, that slavery was a necessary evil. On this
argument Pitt remarked:—“The origin of the evil is indeed beyond the
reach of human understanding; and the permission of it by the Supreme
Being is a subject into which we are not concerned to inquire. But where
the evil in question is a moral evil, which a man can scrutinise,
and where that moral evil has its origin within ourselves, let us not
imagine that we can clear our consciences by this general, not to say
irreligious, way of putting aside the question.” Pitt concluded by
urging on the house the influence which their decision would produce
in other countries, and that the divine blessing was to be expected
on their own, by exertions in such a righteous cause. His speech was
rapturously applauded, but he failed in obtaining total and immediate
abolition; the amendment which Dundas proposed being adopted by
one hundred and ninety-three against one hundred and twenty-five.
Wilberforce was now asked whether he meant to bring in a gradual
abolition bill; but he declared that he could not do any such thing;
he could not sanction for a time that which ought not to endure for
one moment longer. It was for Dundas, or some one of his supporters,
he said, to bring in such a bill; and though Dundas exhibited much
unwillingness to take up the matter, he felt called upon to do so; and
on the 23rd of April, therefore, he produced twelve resolutions, to
the effect that all that branch of the trade which did not refer to the
supply of the British West India islands, should cease forthwith; that
no male slaves above the age of twenty-five, or female slaves above
the age of twenty, should henceforth be exported from Africa in British
ships; that the tonnage employed in the slave-trade should be limited
and strictly ascertained; that the duties on slaves imported into the
colonies should be increased; that laws should be enacted against those
who maltreated their slaves; that the colonial legislatures should
be invited to concur in these measures; and that the trade should be
finally abolished in the year 1800. Wilberforce, Pitt, and Fox warmly
opposed these resolutions; and amendments were made, first, that the
trade should cease in 1793, and then 1795, both of which were lost; but
it was finally agreed, on the motion of Sir Edward Knatchbull, that
the final abolition should take place on the 1st of January, 1796. The
resolutions, as thus amended, were carried up to the lords on the 2nd
of May; on which occasion Prince William, Duke of Clarence, who, in the
course of his naval training, had visited the West India islands, and
who, conceiving that the state of society there did not justify the
pictures drawn of it by the abolitionists, opposed the abolition with
great facility of elocution. The friends of immediate abolition were
very few in the house of lords; and in order to retard the business,
a committee for the hearing of evidence at the bar of the house was
proposed. This was objected to by Lords Grenville, Porchester, Stanhope,
and Rawdon, and by Bishop Beilby Porteus; but it was carried by a large
majority. The examination of witnesses at the bar commenced forthwith;
but little progress was made in it before the prorogation, so that the
business was virtually postponed till the next session. Wilberforce
complained that it was owing to the appeal made by Dundas to the gradual
abolition of this horrid traffic, that he was defeated; but it may
fairly be questioned whether he could have carried an immediate
abolition at the present time, if this appeal had not been made; for, at
this period, there were many circumstances which operated to the injury
of his cause. Thus the abolitionists had recently determined to use
no sugar which came from the West Indies; a determination that would
materially interfere with the revenue. Then again, the massacres and
burnings in the French division of the island of St. Domingo, where the
negro slaves had been set free from their chains, gave rise to a fear
that, if a total abolition took place, these troubles might extend to
Jamaica and our other West India islands, and hence indisposed the
king and many members of parliament to support the measure. Moreover,
Clarkson, one of the most active abolitionists, and the bosom friend of
Wilberforce, openly advocated the principles of the French revolution,
whence occasion was offered of representing the friends of abolition as
levellers. Finally, the knowledge that Brissot and the other friends
of the blacks in France were fierce revolutionists, and that the
redoubtable Tom Paine ranged on the side of Wilberforce in the cause
of humanity, had the effect of depriving him of many votes. All these
circumstances, combined with the powerful motive of self-interest,
would, doubtless have ensured his defeat, had not Dundas interposed
his scheme of gradual abolition. So the murderous traffic was to be
continued unmitigated; and, as it proved, for another long twenty years.
LONDON POLICE ACT.
Complaints had long been made of the disgraceful state of the police
of the metropolis, and especially of the largest portion of it, not
included in the jurisdiction of the city of London. Every one felt that
the unpaid magistracy were altogether inadequate to the discharge of
their onerous duties; and many rules and ordinances had been enacted
at various periods, for the preservation of the public peace, which had
been nullified by their want of power and incompetency. To rectify this
defect, early in March a bill was introduced into the commons, with the
countenance and approbation of government, the plan of which was to
open five different police-offices in the metropolis, for the prompt
administration of those parts of justice which were in the hands of
magistrates. Hitherto magistrates, though nominally unpaid, had driven
a handsome trade in fees; but by this bill three were to sit in each
office, with a salary of three hundred pounds per annum, and all
fees were to be applied to the disbursement of salaries and official
expenses. The bill provided that constables should possess authority
to apprehend persons who could not give a satisfactory account of
themselves, and that magistrates should have the power of committing
such persons as rogues and vagabonds. Strong objections were made
against the bill; opposition arguing that the vesting the appointment
of these new magistrates in the crown, would give an unconstitutional
increase of strength to government; and that the summary arrest and
commitment of any individual, was an infringement on the liberty of the
subject, and contrary to the spirit of the constitution. The arguments
of its opponents, however, were overruled, and it was passed by a
considerable majority. The bill met with a warm opposition in the upper
house, by lords Rawdon and Loughborough; but it passed there likewise,
and became law.
ACT TO RELIEVE THE SCOTCH EPISCOPALIANS, ETC.
During this session, a bill was introduced in the lords for the relief
of the Scottish Episcopalians, who had long been subject to
heavy penalties, on the ground of disaffection to the revolution
establishment. The bill was opposed by Lord Chancellor Thurlow, who
ventured to intimate doubts whether bishops could exist in any Christian
country not authorised by the state; but being assured by the bishop of
St. David’s, that Christian bishops existed three hundred years before
the alliance between church and state took place under the Emperor
Constantine, his lordship expressed himself satisfied, and the bill
passed. Encouraged by this concession to the Scotch church, the
Unitarians applied for a repeal of the statutes affecting them; but
their recent advocacy of revolutionary principles made their cause more
hopeless than ever: their application was rejected.
SHERIDAN’S MOTION RESPECTING THE ROYAL BURGHS OF SCOTLAND.
Petitions had recently been presented to parliament, setting forth
the general mismanagement, misapplication of money, dilapidation of
property, and various grievances sustained in consequence of the usurped
authority of certain self-elected magistrates in the royal burgs of
Scotland. On the 18th of April Mr. Sheridan made a motion for an inquiry
into the grievances thus complained of and petitioned against. The main
grievance was considered to lie in the self-election of the magistrates;
and Sheridan required that this practice should be abolished. He
remarked, it was urged that abuses of a similar nature existed in
England; but he did not consider that this was an argument to justify
abuses in either country. Was justice, he asked, to be defeated by a
community of oppression? As there was a dread of innovation at this
period, Sheridan endeavoured to disarm this principle. Some persons, he
observed, think that the French revolution should deter us from thinking
of reform. Whatever might be the conduct of the parties engaged in it,
with regard to the event itself, there could but be one feeling upon
the subject; exultation and joy at the downfall of despotism in France,
which had been the greatest enemy England ever had. Its ambitious,
restless, and turbulent spirit, he said, had cost England thousands of
subjects and millions of money; but now that which had long disturbed
the happiness of the human race was completely destroyed. Could Sheridan
have seen into futurity, he would not thus exultingly have triumphed
over the downfall of the despotic government of France; for the
revolution was to cost England much more blood and treasures than the
monarchs of France had cost her at any period of history. Sheridan’s
speech had the very reverse effect of that which he intended; it rather
exasperated than allayed the general fear. His motion was opposed by
the Lord-advocate for Scotland, who defended the corporations and
magistrates of the royal burghs from the charges brought against them;
and asserted that the power of self-election had worked well, and
was held in sufficient restraint by public opinion. Sheridan was
ably supported by Fox; but his motion was lost by sixty-nine against
twenty-seven.
DEBATES ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETC.
The subject of parliamentary reform had many times been debated in the
house of commons, though uniformly to very little purpose. The debates
in parliament, however, on this subject, if void of any immediate
result, had their effects. From them, and from the knowledge conveyed
through the medium of the press, the nature of our representative system
became well understood by the mass of the people, and about this period
a society was instituted for the alleged purpose of effecting a
reform in parliament, on the principles formerly advocated by the
prime-minister. This society assumed the name of the “Friends of the
People,” and about thirty members of parliament, besides other persons
of note, enrolled their names as members. Frequent meetings were held
by the society, and the resolutions adopted on these occasions were
uniformly published, together with the sentiments which were entertained
by the members upon this subject. These resolutions and sentiments were
often violent and unconstitutional, whence a strong feeling was created
at court and in parliament against all parliamentary reform. This was
seen on the 30th of April, when, conformably to the plan of the society,
Mr. Gray rose to make a speech on the subject, and to give notice of his
intention to move, in the course of the ensuing session, for an inquiry
into the state of the representation. Mr. Grey said, that both Fox and
Pitt had declared themselves to be parliamentary reformers, and that the
majority of the nation were of an opinion that parliamentary reform
was required. But Pitt at least had now altered his opinion upon this
subject. In reply to Mr. Grey he remarked, that this was no time for.
moving questions that involved the peace and safety, and endangered the
constitution of the kingdom. He was, indeed, no enemy to reform if
it could be obtained peaceably and by a general concurrence, but
the present time was not proper for, and the national sentiment was
decidedly hostile to any such attempt. The present was not a season for
experiments, and he would resist every attempt of the nature to his last
hour; if he was called on either to hazard our safety, or abandon all
hopes of reform for ever, he would say that he had no hesitation in
preferring the latter alternative. It was true, that at the conclusion
of the American war he had thought a parliamentary reform necessary, in
order to quiet the clamour and confusion which had arisen from the dread
of an approaching bankruptcy; but however much he might in early life
have promoted schemes of reform, experience had taught him the danger
of tampering with the established forms of government. Pitt noticed the
society of the “Friends of the People,” and its advertisements, which
invited the public to join the standard of reform: stating that he saw
with concern the gentlemen to whom he alluded, united with others who
professed not reform only, but direct hostility to the nature of our
government, and who threatened the extinction of monarchy, hereditary
succession, and everything which promoted order and subordination in a
state. Against the whole class of revolutionary writers Pitt inveighed
in the most bitter terms; asserting that they were labouring might
and main to bring about an imitation of the revolution in France. Fox
replied to Pitt, and in allusion to the applause which the minister’s
speech had gained, he observed that he felt additional difficulty
in delivering his sentiments. He knew, he said, that the words
“parliamentary reform” were very unpopular in the house of commons, but
he believed that the public regarded them in a very different light, and
that unless something were done to quiet the minds of the people there
would be a difficulty in preserving the public tranquillity for any
length of time. He had never, he continued, been so sanguine on the
subject as the right honourable gentleman who had just spoken, but he
was more consistent, for early in life he had formed an opinion of the
necessity of some parliamentary reform, and he was still convinced of
that necessity. The danger which then existed to the liberty of the
people existed still, and the necessity for reform in Parliament, so far
from diminishing had increased more than ever since the last session
of parliament. Fox said that the opinions of that house were often at
variance with those of the people; instancing, by way of illustration,
the Russian armament, which had been carried by a ministerial majority,
notwithstanding the public voice was hostile to such a measure. The
people of England, he remarked, were at this moment paying the expenses
of an armament for which they never gave their consent, and as far as
that went, they were paying their money for not being represented in
parliament. Fox, in conclusion, made some indefinite remarks on the
books recently published upon principles of government; ridiculed the
idea of danger from innovation in the constitution of England, and
warmly applauded the principles of the French revolution, expressing his
belief that the accounts received of the calamities of the French and of
the defectiveness of their present form of government were maliciously
exaggerated. Burke rose to reply to Fox, and in doing so he loudly
declaimed against the political societies of the day. The object at
which some of them aimed, he said, might not be altogether bad, and the
motives of many individuals might be innocent, but the way they went to
work was decidedly wrong. The sense of the people had not been taken
on the subject, nor had any specific grievance been pointed out, or any
specific remedy assigned, without which innovation might be made, but it
would not be reform. The house of commons, he said, was not perfect, but
he believed it was as perfect as human nature would permit it to be. He
added:—“At any rate, while I can raise a voice or arm to prevent it, it
shall never assimilate to the national assembly. In that body there
are seven hundred members, four hundred of whom are lawyers, and three
hundred out of no description that I could name: and, out of the whole,
there are not a dozen who possess, in any way, one hundred pounds per
annum.
“Such might be the perfection of representation in the eyes of some, and
I understand it to be the opinion of many of the new sect of politics;
but I trust to the good sense of the people of England never to permit
such a mob, nor any thing resembling it, to usurp the sacred office of
their legislature.” Windham, one of the most eloquent and accomplished
men of the Whig party, warmly seconded Burke, and after a few words
from Sheridan and Fox, the conversation dropped. The subject, however,
was one of intense interest and not easily to be forgotten. Government
by this time, indeed, had become alarmed at the proceedings of its
opponents, which alarm was made manifest by a royal proclamation issued
against seditious meetings and seditious writings; and exhorting the
magistrates to vigilance, and the people to submission and obedience.
This proclamation was laid before the house on the 2nth of May, when the
master of the rolls moved an address of approbation and support to
his majesty. Both in and out of the house opinions varied as to the
propriety of this proclamation: some contending that public opinion was
not to be directed by such a measure, and others arguing that it was
a timely exertion of authority in a turbulent season, and which was
indispensably requisite to restrain that lawless spirit which threatened
to subvert the established government. The address was warmly opposed
by Mr. Grey, who denounced the proclamation in severe terms, as an
insidious and pernicious measure, and who moved a counter address, which
declared that government was already vested with sufficient power to
punish any open violation of the laws; that if seditious writings had
been published, ministers had been guilty of neglect in not instituting
prosecutions against the authors; that the proclamation was not
necessary, and was calculated to create groundless alarms and
suspicions; that the house of commons was ever ready to concur with his
majesty in the suppression of all riots, tumults, or other disorders, on
whatever pretexts they might be formed; that they deeply regretted the
tumults and disorders which took place at Birmingham in the course of
last summer, to the disgrace of all good government, etc.; and that the
surest means of averting the like calamities would be to proceed with
all the severity of the law against such persons as might have been
instrumental in aiding and abetting those tumults and disorders, and
particularly to prosecute and punish such magistrates as appeared to
have been guilty of neglect in their duty. It was argued by Grey, and
others of the opposition, as Fox, Francis, Whitbread, Lambton, and Lord
John Russell, all of whom vehemently supported the counter address, that
the diligent inquiry enjoined by the proclamation after the authors and
distributors of wicked and seditious writings, tended to establish an
odious system of espionage; a system which had made the old government
of France an object of general detestation, and which was unworthy
of the sovereign of a free people. Grey, and those who supported
his amendment, uttered many bitter invectives against Pitt in their
speeches, but he declared in reply that such language should not deter
him from pursuing that line of conduct which he deemed most conducive
to public tranquillity, and the preservation of constitutional freedom.
Pitt expressed his high respect for many of the members of the society
of “the Friends of the People,” and said that they need not come—as
the opposition had presumed they would—within the scope of the
proclamation. It was, he remarked, directed against those daring and
seditious principles that had been so insidiously propagated amongst the
people, under the plausible and delusive appellation of “The Rights of
Man.” Pitt expressed his astonishment that the existence of a republican
spirit in England had been denied, when it was openly avowed and
industriously propagated, both by individuals and by societies. He
charged Fox with being the only person who saw no danger in the writings
and doctrines so widely promulgated; proclaimed him a friend, if not
an advocate, of Paine and his doctrines; and asserted that such conduct
could not be reconciled with any spark of patriotism. Fox indignantly
rejoined, and disclaimed all sympathy with Paine. At the same time, he
avowed that he saw no danger in his writings and doctrines, or of any
other writer of his class, because the good sense and constitutional
spirit of the people at large were a sure protection against them. Fox
intimated that these were once the opinions of Pitt, and that he had
only altered them when he saw, or thought he saw, the means of stirring
up division among the friends of freedom. Whether a division in the
camp of the Whigs was stirred up by Pitt or no, it is certain that such
existed at the present time, for several opposition members, as the
Marquess of Titchfield, Lord North, Windham, Grenville, with others,
spoke in favour of the address; acknowledging their conviction that the
doctrines promulgated by the press, and the conduct lately pursued by
clubs and societies demanded the vigorous interposition of government,
lest they should lead to the evils experienced in France. The address
was carried without a division, and it was then communicated to the
house of lords, and their lordships’ concurrence requested, in order
that it might be presented to the king as the address of both houses. At
this time the Prince of Wales was as closely connected as ever with Fox
and Sheridan, and it was supposed that he might share their opinions
with reference to the French revolution. On this occasion, however, he
put the public in possession of his sentiments upon this subject. As
soon as the motion for an address was made and seconded, the prince rose
for the first time, and said that he should be deficient in his duty as
a member of their lordships’ house, unmindful of the respect he owed
to the constitution, and inattentive to the peace and welfare of the
country, if he did not state openly what was his opinion upon a
subject of such magnitude, as that on which their lordships were then
deliberating. He continued:—“Having been educated in principles which
taught me to revere that constitutional liberty of the people on which
their happiness depends, to those principles I will give my firm
and constant support. The matter at issue appears to be, whether the
constitution was or was not to be maintained—whether the wild notions
of untried theory are to conquer the wholesome maxims of established
practice; and whether those laws, under which we have flourished for so
long a series of years, are to be subverted by a pretended reform, which
the people will not sanction. As a person nearly and dearly interested
in the happiness of the people, I should feel it treason against my own
principles if I did not declare my disapprobation of those seditious
publications which have occasioned the present motion. On this great and
solid basis I will vote for a concurrence with the commons in their
wise and salutary address.” In the course of the debate Lord Grenville
observed that such sentiments as those delivered by the Prince of Wales
must warm the breast of every Englishman who heard them, and would
convey the greatest satisfaction to the people at large, inasmuch as
they might expect a continuance of those essential blessings which they
had enjoyed since the accession of the present illustrious family to the
throne of these realms. The address was supported by several opposition
peers, and an amendment moved by Lord Lauderdale and seconded by
Lord Lansdowne was rejected without a division. Having received the
concurrence of the lords, the address was presented in form to the
throne, and it was followed by addresses from all parts of the kingdom.
Encouraged by the public sentiment, the ministry commenced prosecutions
against many offenders, amongst whom Paine, the author of the “The
Rights of Man,” was the most conspicuous. Paine was found guilty,
but foreseeing the event, he eluded punishment by absconding to France,
where he was elected member of the national convention. It is a question
whether it was judicious to prosecute the demagogue, for his prosecution
only served as an advertisement to his production, the sale of which
became more rapid and more extensive than ever it had been before.
{GEORGE III. 1792–1793}
TRIAL OF HASTINGS, ETC.
During this session the trial of Hastings occupied twenty-two days but
no decision took place. Towards the close of the session the attention
of parliament was also drawn to the situation of India. In presenting
his annual statement of the income and expenditure of British India,
Dundas drew a flattering picture of its happiness and prosperity;
stating that the surplus of the Bengal revenue for the preceding year
was more than one million pounds sterling. Francis denied every thing
that Dundas said; asserted that one-third of the company’s territory was
inhabited only by wild beasts; and prognosticated nothing but disgrace,
defeat, and ruin from the war which was still carried on against Tippoo.
Francis said that the seizures for non-payment of the land-revenue were
notorious, and that he held in his hand two advertisements, one of which
announced the sale of seventeen, and the other of forty-two villages.
BILL RESPECTING THE NEW FOREST AND TIMBER FOR THE NAVY.
In the course of this session Pitt introduced a bill for encouraging the
growth of timber for the navy, and improving the royal revenue
raising out of the New Forest, by the sale of certain parts, and the
enfranchisement of copyholds. This bill passed the commons without
much opposition, but on the second reading in the upper house it was
strenuously opposed by Lord Chancellor Thurlow. His lordship objected
to the principle of the bill as favouring the alienation of the crown
lands, and he asserted that it was essential to the safety of the
constitution that his majesty should have his interests blended with
those of the landed property in the country. Thurlow’s arguments seem to
have had great weight, for though the bill was committed by a majority
of forty one against twenty-nine, it was postponed and never afterwards
resumed.
PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament was prorogued on the 15th of June, when his majesty expressed
great concern at the commencement of hostilities in Europe, and stated
that his principal care would be to preserve to his people the blessings
of peace. His majesty applauded the measures which had been adopted for
the diminution of taxation, and the additional provision made for the
reduction of the existing national debt; and for the prevention of the
accumulation of debt in future. But no prudential measures could lessen
the existing debt, or prevent its accumulation, for in a few months
England was involved in the most expensive war that had ever called
forth her energies.
CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.
From the period of the king’s malady, and the lord chancellor’s
double-dealing in the matter of the Regency Bill, a misunderstanding had
existed between him and Pitt. Lord Thurlow, in fact, was the aggressor,
and the more inclined to continue the quarrel, for on no occasion did
Pitt exhibit his hostility, while my lord chancellor was continually
manifesting it both in the council and in parliament. In private society
also Thurlow was often heard to speak contemptuously of the chancellor
of the exchequer, and no remonstrance on the part of their mutual
friends could check his display of ill-feeling. In parliament, on
some occasions when the assistance of Thurlow was necessary, he
would-preserve a dogged silence; while at other times he would oppose
measures to which Pitt attached the highest importance. At length his
rough temper brought matters to a crisis. Early in this session Thurlow
severely condemned Pitt’s bill for liquidating future loans, and
irritated thereby the chancellor of the exchequer wrote to the king
stating the impossibility of his remaining in office with his lordship,
and that it was necessary for his majesty to choose between them. In
consequence of this communication, the king informed Thurlow that he
must resign; but as a change was not desirable during the session, and
as it was wished that the lord chancellor should terminate some
chancery business, it was agreed that he should hold the seals until the
prorogation of parliament, on which day the great seal was placed in
the hands of three commissioners; an event which was not followed by a
single resignation or change in any political or legal department.
There is no doubt that Pitt knew, when he wrote to his majesty, that the
choice of dismissal would fall on his rough-minded colleague, for the
chancellor of the exchequer was well aware that he stood high in his
royal master’s favour. His majesty, indeed, had often expressed his
high sense of his minister’s services in words, and soon after this he
testified it in a more tangible manner. By the death of Lord Guildford
on the 5th of August, the wardenship of the cinque ports, worth about
£3000 a-year, became vacant, and his majesty offered it to Pitt in such
pressing terms, that even if he had been inclined to refuse the boon
it would scarcely have been possible. The royal letter by which it was
offered to him was in fact imperative, and Pitt had only to obey—no
very difficult task, as the chancellor of the exchequer, though he could
guide the helm of the state with a skilful hand, nevertheless could
not manage his own affairs with sufficient skill to keep himself out of
debt.
EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.
During this year the war in India was brought to a close. The events of
that war had been various. After the re-establishment of the Rajah
of Travancore in his dominions, as recorded in a previous page, Lord
Cornwallis, the governor-general, took the command of the army upon
himself, and laid siege to Bangalore. This important place was taken by
storm, and his lordship then determined to penetrate into the heart
of Mysore, to dictate his own terms of peace to Tippoo Sultaun at his
capital. His army burned with impatience to revenge the cruelties which
Tippoo had inflicted on their unfortunate countrymen who had fallen into
his hands by the chances of war. Lord Cornwallis began his march
early in May, 1731, and General Abercrornbie moved towards the same
destination, though by a different line. The forces under his lordship
reached Arikera, on the Cavery, and about nine miles from Seringapatam,
on the 13th of May, and Tippoo having ventured to oppose him, the
Mysorean army was defeated and obliged to seek shelter under the guns of
the capital. The road to Seringapatam was now open to the English, and
the prize seemed to be within their reach, but at this time General
Abercrornbie had not arrived, and Lord Cornwallis convinced that his
force was not sufficient to invest the city, his camp being half-filled
with the sick and dying, was compelled to retreat. He sent orders to
General Abercrornbie, who had reached Periapatam, about three marches
from Seringapatam, to retire towards the coast, while he himself
retreated towards Bangalore. He had scarcely left the scene of his
victory, having first demolished his heavy artillery, when he was joined
by the Mahratta army, under the command of Purseram Bhow, a celebrated
Mahratta warrior, and Harry Punt, a Brahmin of the highest rank, who
was likewise charged to act as minister plenipotentiary to the whole
Mahratta league. Had these chiefs arrived before the recent battle,
Tippoo Sultaun would have been besieged in his capital, but the swelling
of the rivers, the sickly state of his soldiers, and the loss of his
artillery forbade all thoughts of returning, and Lord Cornwallis
therefore continued his march towards Bangalore. Tippoo boasted that
he had gained a great victory, though at the same time he made some
fruitless attempts at negociation. During the following autumn great
preparations were made for renewing the war in Mysore. The ensuing
campaign opened early in February, 1792, the forces under Lord
Cornwallis and General Abercrornbie resuming their former plan of
operations. This time both armies met under the walls of Seringapatam;
while the forces of the Peishwa and of the Nizam encamped at a little
distance from the city, and furnished to the British army a plentiful
supply of stores and provisions. Tippoo’s forces awaited the approach of
Lord Cornwallis under the walls of his capital, but they were defeated,
and Seringapatam was in consequence closely and completely invested. The
first parallel, with a large redoubt in the rear, was finished by
the 21st of February, and two days afterwards the second parallel was
completed, and breaching-batteries were commenced and furnaces prepared
for heating shot. In a few days Seringapatam would have been taken by
storm, but Tippoo seeing his situation hopeless sent a _vakeel_ to sue
for peace. The treaty which Tippoo was forced to accept contained the
following articles:—That he should cede one-half of his territories to
the allies: that he should pay three crores and thirty lacs of rupees to
indemnify them for the expenses of the war; that he should release all
his prisoners; and that he should deliver two of his sons as hostages
for the due execution of the treaty. The young princes were conducted
to the camp of Lord Cornwallis with great ceremony on the 26th of
February, and were received by him with all possible demonstrations of
kindness and affection. But though Tippoo had delivered his sons into
the hands of Lord Cornwallis as pledges of his good faith, he still
reluctantly fulfilled the articles of the treaty. His chief objection
was the cession of the principality of Coorg, nor would he consent to it
until Lord Cornwallis had sent off his hostages in the direction of the
Carnatic, ordered his guns to be replaced in the batteries, and made
preparations for renewing the siege. Then, when he saw that there was
no alternative, on the 19th of March Tippoo signed the definitive
treaty which was delivered to Lord Cornwallis by the young princes, his
hostages, with great solemnity. By this treaty the English obtained all
the dominions of Tippoo on the coast of Malabar, a district surrounding
Dindigul and some territory on the western frontier of the Carnatic;
the Mahrattas recovered possession of the country as far as the river of
Toombuddra, which had once been their frontier line; and the Nizam
had for his share all the country from the river Kistna to the Pennar,
including the forts of Gunjecottah and Cudapa. When the princes were
delivered into the hands of Lord Cornwallis some of the money exacted
from Tippoo was paid, but the whole not being forthcoming they remained
under the safeguard of his lordship for sometime longer. Out of the
money paid by Tippoo the commander-in-chief made a spontaneous gift to
his troops, equal to six months batta, in order to soothe them for
the disappointment of their expectations of booty in the storming of
Seringapatam, and for their good conduct during the war. His lordship
and General Meadows even resigned their own share, in order that the
soldiers might have the more. Their conduct deserved reward, for though
they burned with impatience to revenge the wrongs which their countrymen
had received at the hands of Tippoo, yet when they found that Lord
Cornwallis had agreed to a treaty of peace, they rendered all due
obedience to his injunctions not to commit any violence, and to abstain
from making use of any kind of insulting expression towards a fallen
enemy. Even though fired upon by the Mysoreans after their own fire had
been suspended, the troops obeyed his commands to the very letter: a
proof of their admirable discipline, and their devotedness to their
general. As for Tippoo Sultaun, although humbled, he still remained the
same inveterate foe to the English as before. No act of kindness shown
to himself, or his captive sons, by Lord Cornwallis, could soften
his bitter resentment: every generous action shown towards him by
the conqueror was considered rather as an insult than as a proof of
friendship, and nothing in his conduct could justify the hope that peace
would be permanent.
PROGRESS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
During this year the principles of the French revolution were more
clearly manifested to the world. Early in the year the state of foreign
affairs assumed a more menacing aspect. Austria was collecting troops,
and the only ultimatum on which the emperor would agree to discontinue
preparations, was the re-establishment of the French constitution on
the basis of the declaration of June, 1789; the restitution of their
property to the clergy; and the cession of Alsace to the German princes,
and of Avignon to the pope. But these terms were “like a summons
directed to the torrent, or a command to the whirlwind:” the assembly
replied to them by a declaration of war, to which Louis was compelled
to assent. Nor was this the only effect produced by the demands of the
Emperor of Austria. The assembly required of Louis that he should
freely resign himself to the current of the revolution, or be dethroned.
Influenced, however, by the queen and by Dumouriez, who finding himself
in office broke with the Girondists as he had previously with the
Constitutionalists, he fearlessly resisted their counsels. The
friendship of Dumouriez raised the drooping spirits of the old royalist
party, and Louis was once more induced to listen to their plans for the
restoration of the former government. But this party was now a broken
reed, on which no hope of support could be placed. Events on the
frontiers conduced likewise to render the cause of Louis and the
Royalists more hopeless. In their first action the revolutionary
soldiers were defeated, and on the news of this reverse the populace
turned their rage against the monarch. Orders were issued by the
assembly for the disbanding of his guard, by which he was at all times
exposed to the irruptions of the rabble; and two decrees were likewise
issued in opposition to the royal will: one for the exile of the
refractory priests, and another for the establishment of a camp of
20,000 men under the walls of Paris. This was another crisis in the
reign of Louis, and had he made proper use of it he might have prevented
the supremacy of the populace. Aroused by a sense of danger from this
federal camp, thousands of the national guards and of the respectable
citizens petitioned against it; at the same time exhibiting an
inclination to rally round the throne. Dumouriez advised the monarch to
throw his whole influence into the scale of this party, and he was about
to act upon this advice, when he was prevented by a deep laid stratagem
of the Girondists. Being assured that he would resist the decree
relative to the nonjuring and seditious priesthood, they sent it to him
for the purpose of provoking his resistance, that the citizens might see
his lack of cordiality towards the revolution. This scheme succeeded.
Exasperated by the insults daily heaped upon him and his family, he
defied the Girondists, and yet at the same time neglected to rally round
him either the national guards or the citizens. The Girondist ministers
were now dismissed, and both their decrees were rejected, all which
tended to accelerate the fearful catastrophe which had been long
hovering over the throne of France, and the nation at large. The new
administration was chosen from among the Feuillants, but it possessed no
weight either with their own party or the people. The Feuillants joined
with the royalists to repress the growing spirit of insubordination, but
all their exertions were vain. Lafayette also wrote an energetic letter
to the assembly, denouncing the Jacobin faction, and demanding the
dissolution of the clubs, but he only stirred up the rage of the
populace against himself, without curbing their evil passions. The
Girondists, moreover, became as dangerous a set of men as were the
hot-headed and coldblooded Jacobins. Chagrined at the loss of place
and power, they allied themselves with the mob, and inflamed them by
petitions and harangues. Nay more: by direction of the Girondists, a
general insurrection was prepared in the fauxbourgs, and a body of ten
thousand men organised in the quarter of St. Antoine. A pretext
for arming was found in the non-success already mentioned, of the
revolutionary forces on the frontier. Under the pretence of fear of the
Austrians and Prussians, pikes were forged, and distributed among men
who thirsted to commit outrage and wrong on their monarch and their
fellow-citizens. Revolt broke out on the 20th of June: pikemen from the
suburbs of St. Antoine and St. Marceau marched from the place of
the Bastille towards the Tuilleries. At their head was the ferocious
Santerre, a brewer, who proved himself to be the worthy hero of this
horrible day. Their approach was made known by shouts of “Down with
the Veto,” and by the revolutionary chorus of _Caira_. The “Tree of
Liberty,” and the “Rights of Man” were borne before them as banners, and
in this manner they forced an entrance into the palace. On discovering
the monarch, some of them exclaimed that they had a petition, and Louis
led the way to the largest saloon of the suite. The petition was not
forthcoming, but placing the “Rights of Man” before the king they
demanded his assent to the decrees for the federal camp and the
transportation of the priests. Never did the unhappy Louis exhibit so
much fortitude as on this trying occasion. He bore all their insults
with calmness, and to their reiterated demands, merely replied; “This is
neither the time nor the way to obtain them from me.” This storm passed
by: the Girondists, on hearing that the insurrection was likely to prove
serious, persuaded the rabble to retire. All good citizens manifested
abhorrence at the outrage committed, and indignation was exhibited in
the provinces and among the armies. His admirable coolness extorted
admiration even from his enemies. The Duke de la Rochefaucault, who
commanded at Rouen, offered him an asylum there; Lafayette implored him
to throw himself into the arms of the constitutional forces; and the
national guard offered to protect his person. Louis, however, declined
all these proposals, for he still hoped that the allied powers would
deliver him from his rebellious subjects. Lafayette made a last effort
to save the throne, by appearing in person before the legislative
assembly, and demanding, in his own name and in that of the army, the
rights of constitutional royalty; but the Jacobins threatened him
with destruction, and Louis refused to be saved by a person whom he
considered as the author of his misfortunes, and Lafayette returned to
his troops with the loss of both influence and popularity. The
situation of Louis became daily and hourly more critical. Emboldened by
Lafayette’s failure, the Girondists and Jacobins aimed at the monarch’s
dethronement. The minds of men were inflamed by the harangues of
demagogues, and it was proclaimed that the country was in danger.
The contest of parties was fierce in the extreme; their madness being
heightened by the collection of formidable masses of hostile armies on
the frontiers. The approach of a crisis became evident on the 14th of
July, when a _fête_ was held in commemoration of the destruction of the
Bastille. On that day the king with the queen and dauphin went to the
Champ de Mars, and it was with difficulty that the soldiers saved
them from the rage of the rabble. The fermentation of the public
mind received a fearful acceleration, when it was discovered that the
Prussians and Austrians were advancing upon the capital, under the
command of the Duke of Brunswick. All France was put in motion thereby,
and thousands of hot-brained youth resorted to the capital to join
the already overwhelming rabble there. Thus supported the legislative
assembly determined on the deposition of the king, having first
appointed a commission to examine what grounds could justify such a
step, and whether such grounds existed. The blow was struck on the 10th
of August. On the preceding day the popular excitement was extreme, and
at midnight the tocsin for a scene of wild fury was sounded throughout
Paris. Obeying its horrid summons, the self-called patriots poured into
the fauxbourg Saint Antoine, the centre of the insurrection, from the
different rallying points; and by the dawn of day their columns, which
had been organized under the direction of the assembly, were ready
for the work of destruction. The palace of the Tuilleries was in vain
defended by some Swiss and royalist troops; after a great slaughter on
both sides it fell into the hands of the rabble. Before the combat took
place the king had fled to the legislative assembly, to place himself
under their protection. He imagined that he would there be safe, but the
first act of the assembly told him that his hopes were fallacious: under
the plea that his presence marred the freedom of debate, he was removed
from the side of Vergniaud, the president of the chamber, where he
instinctively took his seat, to the box reserved for the reporters. This
was the last day of the monarchy. The assembly concluded the crimes
of that day by a decree suspending Louis from his kingly functions, by
ordering the formation of a national convention, and by the appointment
of a new ministry, the members of which were taken conjointly from the
ranks of the Girondists and Jacobins. The national convention was to
have unlimited authority to decide in the name of the people upon all
the interests of the country, and its session was to commence on the
20th of September. In the meantime several important events took place.
Lafayette, having in vain endeavoured to re-establish the constitutional
throne, fled with his staff over the frontier, and was arrested in Liege
by an Austrian general, and thrown into prison. The allied armies
had taken Longwy and Verdun, and a report was spread that they were
advancing upon the capital. These successes alarmed the patriots, and
made them turn their rage upon each other. The Girondists conceived the
plan of abandoning the capital and defending the country behind the
Loire; but the Jacobins opposed this, and it was resolved that, rather
than surrender the capital, the population should be buried beneath its
ruins. Division was in the camp, and bloodthirsty men were now to
rule. Thousands suspected of being unfavourable to the principles of
the revolution were thrown into prison, and thousands were barbarously
massacred. The Jacobin faction of Paris ruled France; and such
sanginuary fanatics as Robespierre and Marat carried the sway. The
guillotine was declared permanent, and many members of the legislative
assembly were themselves menaced by the fatal axe. At length this
assembly, after having passed a great many decrees—decrees which were
partly fanatical and partly inefficacious—closed its session, and
the national convention rose upon its ruins. This new assembly was
principally composed of the Jacobin or republican party; the elections
preponderating in their favour. This spirit was manifested almost in the
first hour of its session; the legislative assembly had transferred the
king and his family to the prison of the Temple; the national convention
came to a speedy and unanimous resolution that royalty should be for
ever abolished, and that France should henceforth be a republic. But,
although united in this principle tendency, this assembly, like the one
which preceded it, was divided into two hostile parties; the moderates,
or Girondists, and the Republicans, or Jacobins. In the national
convention these two parties took the names of the Mountain and the
Plain; and from the very commencement of its sitting the assembly was
threatened with new convulsions, through the struggles of these
parties. But the populace now, in reality, possessed the power, and they
naturally permitted themselves to be led only by men whose character and
principles were in accordance with their own; hence the triumph of the
Mountain, or the Jacobins. On one point, however, both parties came to
a perfect agreement. Encouraged by recent successes over the allied
armies—for the French generals had everywhere defeated them—the
Parisian populace loudly demanded the blood of their monarch; and, after
violent contests, it was resolved that the inviolability of Louis was
forfeited, and that the convention had power to decide on his life or
death. These resolutions were passed on the 3rd of December, and on the
11th of that month, an act of accusation was drawn up, and the King of
France was brought before the bar of his revolutionary subjects. His
trial and death will be noticed in a future page.
{GEORGE III. 1792–1793}
AFFAIRS OF POLAND.
France was not the only European state now in commotion. It has been
seen that the two imperial courts of Austria and Russia had seized a
great portion of Poland as their prey, and that they had imposed their
yoke upon the nation. This ignominious situation of Poland remained
unchanged until the year 1788, when, encouraged by the war which had
broken out between their oppressors and the Porte, and by the secret
promises of Prussia, the Poles meditated the means of effecting their
salvation. The Russians had requested them to conclude a defensive
alliance against the Porte; and, under these circumstances, a diet
assembled in Warsaw, which immediately declared itself a confederated
diet, in order that it might not be dissolved by the right of
veto, which, under the old constitution, belonged to every deputy
individually. Those who were in the interests of Russia were completely
overpowered by the patriotic party, and the proposed alliance was
rejected. The confederative diet further decreed the increase of the
army, granted imposts on the property of the nobility and clergy, and
established a commission of war dependent on the diet only, in order
to check the influence of the permanent council of state, which their
spoliators had created, for the purpose of destroying the national
power. All these regulations were expressly sanctioned by Prussia, and
that power solemnly promised to respect and protect the independence
of Poland. Thus supported, the Polish diet demanded the removal of
the Russian troops from their territory; and Catherine, alarmed at the
terrible energy with which the demand was made, felt herself compelled
to recall her soldiers. The diet now commenced the work of remodelling
the constitution of Poland. The new constitution was finished in the
space of a year; and though it was opposed by some aristocrats it was
adopted by the majority, and solemnly sworn to and proclaimed. By this
constitution the Catholic religion was fixed as the dominant religion of
the kingdom, though liberty was granted to other confessions; the
Polish throne was declared hereditary; Frederic Augustus of Saxony was
appointed the successor of Stanislaus, the reigning king, with right of
succession for his descendants; the king, with his council of state, was
to exercise the executive power, and was to have some influence on the
legislative; the diet, which was composed of two chambers, one of the
deputies, and the other of the senators, was to assemble every two
years, and was to possess the right of making war or peace; independent
judges were to administer justice in the name of the king; the ministers
of the crown were to be responsible, and the person of the king
inviolable; the prerogatives of the nobility were to remain untouched;
the royal cities were to be endowed with the right of personal liberty
for their citizens; the citizens of these cities were to possess the
right of electing their magistrates, as well as the right of acquiring
titles of nobility, and the estates of nobles; at every diet a number of
citizens were to be elevated to the rank of nobles; the cities in which
were courts of appeal were to have the privilege of sending a deputy to
the diet; the peasantry were to be protected from an aggravation of
their hard lot by the laws; and personal liberty was to be possessed
by foreign settlers. By the mass of the nation this constitution was
received with gratitude and joy; but some of the aristocracy protested
against it, and their resistance was encouraged by Russian gold. At
first, however, their opposition was fruitless, and everything promised
well for the establishment of this new order of things. Russia, it is
true, threatened to subvert them; but the Porte, Sweden, and Prussia,
with other European powers, looked upon them in a friendly manner.
Prussia, indeed, solemnly promised assistance; and in the month of
March, 1790, Frederic William even concluded a defensive alliance with
Poland. But the friendship of courts is variable, and the favour of
monarchs fickle. The King of Prussia had attached himself to the cause
of Poland, not from any respect for her rights, but from a spirit of
jealousy towards Russia, and in the hopes of obtaining something for
himself. He was to have Dantzic and Thorn for his support; and when the
republic refused to cede these cities, his ardour on the behalf of
the Poles underwent a great change. He grew cool, and when peace was
concluded between Russia and the Porte, Frederic William withdrew
from the cause of Poland altogether, and even joined with her old and
inveterate enemy. When the Russian hordes entered the Polish territory,
under the pretext of assisting those aristocrats who protested against
the new constitution, he not only refused his promised assistance, but
took a menacing attitude. But the Poles were not discouraged by his
perfidy. The diet summoned the nation to its defence; and the army
fought valiantly, under the command of the celebrated Kosciusko. The
enemy, however, proved too strong for Poland. The king was not in heart
on the side of the patriots; and Kosciusko himself deserted them and
went over to the aristocratic party. The patriots now fled; and the
Russians having advanced to within three days march of the capital,
compelled the king to save his throne by consenting to the abolition
of the new constitution. On the 23rd of July, 1732, an armistice was
concluded, and the command of the Polish troops consigned to a Russian
general. Vengeance soon followed. On the 29th of October a diet
assembled in Grodno, to which diet it was declared, on the part of
Russia and Prussia, that a second division of Poland was necessary, and
that its members would be called upon to comply with this measure.
There was no alternative; for, at this time, Prussian as well as Russian
troops had entered Poland, and there was no means of defence against
their combined operations. So that whatever Russia and Prussia chose to
demand, that they were sure of obtaining; for what, it has been asked,
can feeble justice do against exorbitant power? But it was not till the
spring of the succeeding year that the diet were called upon to give
their consent to this second spoliation of their fatherland.
STATE OF THE PUBLIC MIND IN ENGLAND.
At the commencement of this year, and even as late as the month of
August, when it was known that the French monarch was deposed, there
appears to have been no disposition on the part of government to take
part in the war against France. On the contrary, in pursuance of a
recommendation from the throne, the army and navy were reduced; and when
our ambassador was ordered to leave Paris, on the virtual extinction of
monarchy, he was directed to renew his assurances of British neutrality.
But there were many causes at work which, before the year closed,
induced the government to exhibit signs of a change of policy. Although
the generality of the people were struck with terror at the deposition
of the monarch, and the horrid massacres which preceded and followed
that event, yet the revolutionary societies in England, grew daily
bolder and bolder in their proceedings. Some there were, it is true, who
were convinced of their evil tendency, and who, in consequence, gave up
all connexion with them; but still they existed in all their original
vigour. So enthusiastic were these societies in their admiration of the
French revolution, all stained with blood as it was, that they even
transmitted addresses of applause to the national convention. The
London Corresponding Society, the Manchester Constitutional Society, the
Norwich Revolution Society, the Society for Constitutional Information
in London, and the London Constitutional Whigs, these all joined in
addresses of congratulation on the victory which the French people had
gained over their hapless and ill-fated monarch. All these addresses
received a warm response from those to whom they were addressed. For
once in the annals of history the French hailed Englishmen as brethren;
and a hope was expressed that the day would soon arrive when they
might join the hands of fraternity. But these addresses and responses
contained something more than mere compliments; they breathed
destruction to the English constitution. It was evident, indeed, that,
unless checked by the popular voice or by government, the revolutionary
societies in England would one day produce corresponding fruits to those
of France. Happily the nation at large and the government joined in
stemming the onward tide of revolutionary principles. Among the first
to take the alarm at the political societies and publications, were the
established clergy, who sent up addresses from all parts to his majesty,
thanking him for his late wise and provident proclamation. Towards the
close of the year the alarm became general; and clubs and associations
began to be formed with the avowed object of counteracting the baneful
influence of those which were founded upon revolutionary principles.
These societies came to certain resolutions, and made certain
declarations, which they caused to be published both in the newspapers
and in the form of pamphlets. One grand end at which they aimed was to
expose the fallacy that all men are born equal and must remain so; an
argument which the revolutionists had ever on their lips, and which
was the very root and life of their factious disposition. Nor did these
societies labour in vain. Their spirit spread rapidly throughout
the kingdom, and in every county, and almost every town and village
resolutions were subscribed, expressive of loyalty and attachment to
the king and constitution. It became manifest that though the French
had some few thousands of admirers in England, yet the great mass of
the people abhorred their proceedings; that, though there were many who
wished to bring about a revolution in their own country, yet there were
more who were ready to maintain the constitution as it existed, against
all its enemies, native or foreign. The public feeling encouraged
government, at the close of the year, to assume a hostile appearance
towards the French. Alarmed at the circumstances that the national
convention held out the hand of fraternity to other countries, and
especially to England; that Savoy was now incorporated with France, in
contradiction to the formal renunciation of all plans of conquest, that
Belgium was declared independent, under the protection of France; that
the navigation of the Scheldt was opened, in disregard of all existing
relations between European states; and that a decree of the 16th of
November ordered the French troops to pursue the Austrians, whom
they had recently defeated, into the Dutch territories, the British
government placed the country in a state of defence. The militia were
called out; the Tower was strengthened; a second royal proclamation was
issued; and parliament summoned to meet on the 13th of December.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
When parliament met, the speech from the throne was full of alarm. All
the expressions of the first proclamation were repeated in it; and,
towards the conclusion, the king remarked:—“I have carefully observed
a strict neutrality in the present war on the continent, and have
uniformly abstained from interference in the internal affairs of France;
but it is impossible to see, without serious uneasiness, the strong and
increasing indications which have there appeared, of an intention to
excite disturbances in other countries, to disregard, the rights of
neutral nations, and pursue views of conquest and aggrandisement; as
well as to adopt towards my allies, the States-general, measures which
were neither conformable to the laws of nations, nor to the positive
stipulations of existing treaties.” Under all these circumstances, his
majesty added, he had thought it right to adopt precautionary measures,
and to make some augmentation of his naval and military force.
The address was moved by Sir James Sanderson, lord-mayor of London, who
affirmed that seditious practices were prevalent; that various
political societies were established in London, which corresponded
and confederated with other societies in different parts of the
United Kingdom; and that these societies, whose aim was to subvert the
constitution and to destroy monarchy, root and branch, were circulating
a vast number of pernicious pamphlets and publications among the lower
orders of people. A memorable debate arose on the address. Fox, who was
yet enchanted with French liberty, condemned every part of the speech
and of the address. It was his firm conviction, he said, that every fact
asserted in the king’s speech was false; that no insurrection existed;
and that the alarm was occasioned by the artful designs and practices of
ministers. Fox reprehended the system of intellectual oppression, which
induced ministers to represent the tumults and disorders that had taken
place, as designed to overthrow the constitution; and that the
various societies instituted for discussing questions relative to the
constitution, were so many schemes for propagating seditious doctrines.
He was aware that he was advancing opinions not likely to become
popular; but he was as ready to meet the current of popular opinion,
which was running high in favour of the high lay doctrines now existing,
as he was, in times past, to meet the opposite torrent, when it was said
that he wished to sacrifice the people to the crown. He remarked:—“One
extreme naturally leads to another. Those who dread republicanism fly
for shelter to the crown; those who desire reform, and are calumniated,
are driven by despair to republicanism. And this is the evil I dread.
These are the extremes into which these violent agitations hurry the
people, to the gradual decrease of that middle order of men, who dread
republicanism as much on the one hand, as they do despotism on the
other. That middle order of men, who have hitherto preserved to this
country all that is dear in life, I am sorry to say, is daily lessening;
but while my feeble voice continues, it shall not be totally extinct;
there shall be at least one who will, in this ferment of extremes,
preserve the centre point.” In adverting to the affairs of France, Fox
said that he rejoiced in the triumph of men, fighting for liberty, over
the armies of despots. He bitterly condemned the calling out of the
militia, and as bitterly condemned ministers for not sending a new
ambassador to treat with the present executive government of France. As
for England, he did not think that it was in a state to go to war;
nor did he think that we should be justified in taking such a step for
anything which had occurred in France, or in Belgium, or in Savoy, or
anywhere else. In conclusion, Fox praised the English constitution as
the best adapted to England, because the people loved it best; and moved
an amendment, pledging the house that inquiry should be made into the
facts stated in his majesty’s speech. Pitt was not in the house on this
occasion; but Fox was effectively answered by one of his own party one
who had figured for many years as one of the leaders and most eloquent
chiefs of the Whig opposition, and who had been linked in close
friendship with the man whom he now opposed. Mr. Windham said that
he felt himself constrained to vote on this occasion with those whose
measures he had uniformly and conscientiously reprobated. The alarm, he
said, which existed in the country, was not, he believed, greater than
the existing danger. It was well known that constant communication was
maintained between persons in Paris and persons in London; and that the
object of this communication was the destruction of our present form of
government. These worthy gentlemen, he said, had their agents throughout
the country, in order to disseminate their pamphlets; which, as these
agents were poor men, was at once a proof that there must be a society
somewhere who defrayed the expense. In adverting to France, Windham
said, he believed that the motives of the combined armies, that
had attempted to march to Paris were good; and he justified their
interference by demonstrating that France herself had intermeddled with
the affairs of neighbouring countries. The amendment was supported by
Mr. Grey, who said that he was no friend to Paine’s doctrines; but he
would not be deterred by a name from acknowledging that he considered
the rights of man as the foundation of every government, and those who
opposed these said rights as traitors against the people. Dundas replied
to Grey, and justified the measures which government had adopted. A
universal and serious alarm, he said, pervaded the country gentlemen,
farmers, and others, and this had rendered some active steps absolutely
necessary on the part of government, in order to restore confidence.
Dundas remarked, that the national convention had been eager to
countenance every complaint of grievance from the factious and
discontented in this country; and in proof of it he read some of the
addresses which the convention had received with applause from the
political societies of England. He asked, “Was not this, on the part
of the French, an unjustifiable interference in the internal affairs
of another country? And had not the leading members of the convention
declared that they would not look to the sovereign, but to the people
of Great Britain; that they would appeal from the government to
the republicans of England.” He maintained that, under all the
circumstances, government were fully justified in all they had done, and
would have merited impeachment if they had remained inactive at such a
critical juncture. Sheridan, in a flippant manner, endeavoured to show
that the alarm was ridiculous, and had been created by ministers for
their own selfish and wicked purposes. The republicans said to exist
in England, were, he said, men of buckram; and should any French army
attempt to invade England, with the idea of effecting any change in
our government, every hand and heart in the country would be united to
resist them. He condemned a war with France, and asserted that he would
vote for the impeachment of that minister who should enter into such
a war, for the purpose of re-establishing the old despotism of the
Bourbons. The deep earnestness of Burke, who next spoke, contrasted
strangely with the flippancy of Sheridan. Burke said that this day
was indeed a trial of the constitution. He agreed with an honourable
gentleman, in regarding the present as a momentous crisis; but for
reasons different from those which he had assigned. Liberty and
monarchy, he continued, are connected in this country; they were never
found asunder; they have flourished together for a thousand years; and
from this union has sprung the prosperity and glory of the nation. With
impassioned eloquence Burke affirmed, that there was a faction in this
country who wished to submit it to France, that our government might be
reformed upon the French system; and that the French rulers, cherishing
views on this country encouraged that faction, and were disposed to aid
it in overturning our constitution. As a proof of this, Burke read an
address, which men, calling themselves Englishmen, presented at the bar
of the convention on the very day in which there had been a discussion
respecting the union of Savoy with France; and to which address the
president, in his reply, remarked:—“That royalty in Europe was in the
agonies of death; that the declaration of right, now placed by the side
of thrones, was a fire which, in the end, would consume them; and he
even hoped that the time was not far distant when France, England,
Scotland, Ireland, all Europe! all mankind! would form but one peaceful
family.” Burke asked, whether, if Englishmen had applied to Louis XVI.
to reform our government, such language would not have been considered
as an aggression? Burke declared that the question now was, not whether
we should present an address to the throne, but whether there should
be a throne at all; and he concluded with recommending unanimity, and
representing the danger which might arise from the progress of French
armies, if not speedily resisted. Mr. Erskine, who was a member of the
Society for Parliamentary Reform, justified that society and himself,
and blamed ministers for delaying to prosecute the author of the “Rights
of Man” till nearly two years after its publication. Erskine charged
Burke with inconsistency; and concluded with recommending the house to
meet the complaints of the people, not with abuse, but by removing the
grounds of their dissatisfaction; by reforming parliament, and granting
them a fair representation. The people, he said, were already taxed
to an enormous extent; and should a war be the consequence, when it
appeared every precaution had not been taken to prevent it, ministers
would incur a heavy responsibility, both to the public and to that
house, for having precipitated the nation into so great a calamity.
The debate lasted till midnight; and when the house divided there was
a majority in favour of the address of two hundred and ninety against
fifty.
This large majority snowed that a great portion of the Whigs had parted
company with Fox. Nothing daunted, however, at this desertion, he gave
notice that to-morrow he would move an amendment upon the report. The
object of this amendment was to induce his majesty to open a negociation
with France, for the purpose of preventing the calamities of war. In the
speech which Fox made in support of it, he threw the whole blame of the
horrid scenes which had occurred in France upon the coalition; and he
eulogised the spirit and valour of the French republicans in the warmest
strains of panegyric, he thanked God, he said, that nature had been true
to herself; that tyranny had been defeated; and that those who fought
for freedom were triumphant. All the inhabitants of Europe, he said,
sympathised with the French and wished them success, regarding them
as men struggling with tyranny and despotism. Sheridan seconded this
amendment, and Burke opposed it, affirming “that to send an ambassador
to France would be a prelude to the murder of our own sovereign.” Fox
had said, in the course of his speech, that the republic of this country
was readily acknowledged by European courts in the time of Cromwell,
after the execution of Charles I.; but Burke shattered this argument,
in favour of acknowledging the French republic, at a blow. He remarked:
“The French republic is _sui generis_ and bears no analogy to any other
republic or system of government that has ever existed in the known
world. The English commonwealth did not attempt to turn all the states
of Christendom into republics. It did not wage war with kings,
merely because they were not democrats; it professed no principles
of proselytism. The same might be said, of the republic of the United
States of America. But France wanted to make all the world proselytes to
her opinions and dogmas: France was for turning every government in the
world into a democratic republic. If every government was against her,
it was, because she had declared herself hostile to every government.
This strange republic may be compared to the system of Mahomet, who,
with the Koran in one hand and a sword in the other, compelled men to
adopt his creed. The Koran which France held out was the declaration of
the Rights of Man and universal fraternity; and with the sword she was
determined to propagate her doctrine, and conquer those whom she could
not convince.” Burke said that he did not wish to hurry the nation into
a war, but only to make the people of England see that France had in
reality declared war against them. The national convention had passed
a variety of decrees, every one of which might be considered as a
declaration of war against every government in Europe; and the people of
France had resolved to wage an eternal war against kings, and all kinds
of kingly government. Moreover, in contempt of the king and
parliament, the convention had received Englishmen at its bar, as the
representatives of the people of England. In the absence of Pitt, his
colleague, Dundas, entered into a long and elaborate vindication of the
measures of administration; concluding with a confident prediction that,
“if we were forced into a war, it would prove successful and glorious.”
The amendment was rejected without a division.
Still undismayed, Fox, on the 15th of December—which was a Saturday—a
day when parliament did not usually meet—moved, “that a minister be
sent to Paris, to treat with those persons who exercise provisionally
the executive government of France.” Fox contended that this measure
would neither imply approbation nor disapprobation of the conduct of the
existing government; and that it was the policy and practice of every
nation to treat with the existing government of every other nation with
which it had relative interests, without inquiring how that government
was constituted, or by what means it acquired possession of power. He
illustrated his argument by asserting that we had more then once sent
embassies to the government of Morocco, when men sat upon that throne
who had waded to it through blood. We had, likewise, he said, ministers
at the German courts at the time of the infamous partition of Poland;
and we had a minister at Versailles when Corsica was bought and
enslaved. Yet, he argued, in none of these instances was any sanction
given, directly or indirectly, by Great Britain to these nefarious
transactions. But this line of argument was more specious than sound;
for, although there was nominally a government in France, it was
self-constituted, and founded in anarchy. This motion was seconded by
Mr. Grey, who declared that an immediate embassy to Paris was the only
means of averting war; a war which he deemed the most dangerous that had
overtaken this country. Lord Sheffield, who had been an ardent admirer
of Fox, reprobated the object of this motion, and, with many others,
censured him for his conduct during the last three days. Fox, however,
was resolute, and the debate continued. In combating his arguments, Mr.
Jenkinson asked, what government we could acknowledge where there was
virtually no government? and how England could recognize a constitution
which the French themselves were every day violating? and how we
could negociate with men who had declared a universal war against all
governments? He added,—“On this very day, while we are here debating
about sending an ambassador to the French republic; on this very day is
the king to receive sentence, and, in all probability, it is the day
of his murder. What is it, then, that gentlemen would propose to their
sovereign? To bow his neck to a band of sanguinary ruffians, and address
an ambassador to a set of regicides, whose hands are still reeking with
the blood of a slaughtered monarch? No, sir, the British character
is too noble to run a race of infamy; nor shall we be the first to
compliment a set of monsters who, while we are agitating the subject,
are probably bearing through the streets of Paris—horrid spectacle—the
bloody victim of their fury.” The master of the rolls, Sheridan,
Windham, Burke, Sir William Young, and others took part in this debate;
but the motion was negatived without a division.
In the meantime the address had been carried in the lords almost
unanimously; the Duke of Norfolk, and lords Lansdowne, Hawdon, and
Stanhope only speaking against it. In both houses the opposition had, at
this time, suffered a severe defection. At the head of the seceders
in the lords were the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Portland, Lords
Fitzwilliam, Spencer, Mansfield, and Loughborough, the last of whom, on
the resignation of Lord Thurlow, had been created chancellor; the chief
seceders in the commons, besides Burke, were Mr. Windham, Sir Gilbert
Elliot, Mr. Anstruther, Lord Sheffield, &c., who by their secession
acquired the appellation of alarmists.
Yet, though Fox was thus deserted, on the 17th of December he returned
to the charge. On that day Mr. Grey complained that the loyalists and
high churchmen had been committing riots in Manchester and other towns
in the kingdom. The Manchester riots, he said, had risen out of a loyal
meeting held in that town, at which meeting he represented that Mr.
Peel—the father of Sir Robert—declared that it was time for the people
to rouse from their lethargy, as there were incendiaries in the country.
He called upon Mr. Peel to name these incendiaries; and then called
the attention of the house to a paper issued by the association against
republicans and levellers, which was entitled “One Penny-worth of Truth
from Thomas Bull to his Brother John.” Mr. Grey said, that this
pamphlet contained some unfounded and libellous invectives against the
dissenters; and that it was calculated to produce alarming effects,
by exciting the people against them. He moved, that the said libellous
paper should be delivered in at the table and read. In reply to his
demand of Mr. Peel, that gentleman said that there was no truth in any
part of the report to which Mr. Grey had alluded, except that “God Save
the King” had been sung at the meeting: and he proved that, so far from
exciting the people against their fellow-subjects, the resolutions of
the committee of the Manchester Society were calculated to dissuade the
populace from outrage and wrong. Many members opposed the motion;
but Fox strenuously supported it. In the course of his speech, Fox
criticised the loyal associations and subscriptions which had been
set on foot, for the purpose of aiding in the prosecution of affected
persons. He treated the associations as tending to hinder the
improvement of the mind, and as a mobbish tyranny; and he compared them
with Lord George Gordon’s mob; declaring, at the same time, that he
had advised his friends in Westminister to sign the said associations,
whether they agreed with them or not, in order that they might avoid
destruction to their persons or their houses, or a desertion of their
shops. Burke was very severe in his remarks upon this last assertion. He
observed:—“This insidiuous advice will tend to confound those, who wish
well to the object of the association, with the seditious against whom
the association is directed. By this stratagem the confederacy intended
for preserving the British constitution and the public peace, will be
wholly defeated. The magistrates, utterly incapable of distinguishing
the friends from the enemies of order, will in vain look for support
when they stand in the greatest need of it.” Mr. Grey’s motion was
negatived without a division.
Pitt was not in the house when these debates occurred; but on the 18th,
having been re-elected for the university of Cambridge, he resumed
his seat; and in doing so he referred to the recent discussions, by
declaring his conviction of the facts stated, and his approbation of
the arguments used in support of the address. To send an ambassador to
France, he said, under present circumstances, would be incompatible with
the dignity of the crown, and contrary to the interests of the public;
counteracting and disclaiming those very principles on which the
whole of our conduct was founded. The decided opinion expressed by all
parties, that if war was necessary, it should be prosecuted with vigour,
gave him pleasure; but, at the same time, he assured the house, that
nothing consistent with the dignity of the crown, the safety of the
country, and the security of Europe should be omitted by government to
preserve the blessings of peace.
THE ALIEN BILL, ETC.
At this period many of our provincial towns were filled with Frenchmen.
Most of these were royalists; but there were some who mixed with the
royalists in order to serve the cause of the republic; and there were
others who were professed republicans, and who were using their utmost
efforts to seduce the people. As the English laws were not made for
foreigners, on the 19th of December, Lord Grenville brought forward
a bill in the house of lords, for subjecting aliens to certain
regulations. Thus the bill proposed that all foreigners arriving in the
kingdom, should give an account of themselves, and surrender such arms
as they might have in their possession; that they should be obliged,
in their removals from one part of the country to another, to use
passports; that all emigrants, who received allowances from the British
government, should be distributed in certain districts, where they would
be more under the cognizance of the civil power; and that particular
attention should be paid to such foreigners as had arrived within the
present year, or as might afterwards arrive without obvious reasons.
This bill, though opposed by several lords, passed the three readings
in the upper house without a division, and was then sent down to the
commons. It was there treated by Fox and his party as a measure
contrary to the existing treaties between Great Britain and France; as
a violation of the law of nations; and as an outrage on Magna Charta.
Burke supported the measure as strenuously as Fox opposed it. Having
commented in severe terms on the exultation which Fox had manifested on
the success of the French, he then expatiated on the nature of French
fraternization, and of that liberty which the revolutionists were so
anxious to propagate throughout Europe, and which he denounced as a
liberty without property, morals, order, government, and security. The
apostles of liberty in France, he said, had destroyed the Bastille,
while they had converted every man’s house in Paris into such a prison.
He quoted the speech of M. Dupont in the convention, to show that
Atheism was the first-fruits of French liberty: that fierce demagogue
had declared that the religion of Jesus Christ was unfit to be tolerated
in a republic, because it was a monarchical religion, and preached
subjection and obedience to God; a declaration which was received by the
convention with shouts of impious applause. Burke feelingly deplored the
natural effects of a profligacy, which went to deprive man of happiness
in life, and consolation in the hour of death. On the subject of the
Alien Bill, Burke remarked, that he thought it calculated to save the
country, for although the number of suspicious aliens might be small, it
should be remembered that the horrid massacres in Paris in the preceding
autumn had been perpetrated by a body of men not exceeding two hundred.
Burke alluded to the fact that three thousand daggers had been ordered
and manufactured in Birmingham, and it was on this occasion that he had
recourse to a stroke of oratorical acting which has been often commented
upon. Drawing a concealed dagger from his bosom, and throwing it down
upon the floor of the house, he exclaimed:—“This is what you are to
gain by an alliance with the French! Wherever their principles are
introduced, their practice must follow. You must equally proscribe their
tenets and their persons! You must keep their principles from our minds,
and their daggers from our hearts.” The debates on the bill were renewed
in its different stages: on the third reading Fox endeavoured to prove
that the anxiety about a few French aliens in England was ridiculous;
that no Alien Act could guard against the introduction of opinions; and
that if dangerous principles were propagated in this country it must be
by the English themselves, and not by foreigners. But all opposition was
vain. The bill was carried by a great majority, as was also another bill
to prevent the circulation in England of French assignats, bonds, and
promissory notes. A third bill was passed to enable his majesty
to restrain the exportation of naval stores, saltpetre, arms, and
ammunition, after which Mr. Pitt moved an adjournment to the 23rd of
January, which was unanimously accorded.
{GEORGE III. 1792–1793}
EXECUTION OF THE FRENCH KING.
At length Louis fell a prey to the fury of his subjects. In order to
fortify the new-born republic it seemed necessary to the republicans
that all institutions and usages that reminded them of royalty and the
ancient order should be abolished. The convention applied itself to this
work with fanatical zeal, but first of all the Jacobins demanded the
blood of the fallen monarch. Fierce contests arose between them and
the Girondists on this demand, but the Jacobins were sustained by
the Parisian populace, and their opponents were compelled to yield: a
resolution was carried that Louis had forfeited his inviolability, and
that the convention was authorised to judge him. The unfortunate monarch
was brought before the bar of his subjects on the 11th of December, and
he was nobly defended by Tronchet, Malesherbes, and Deseze; but after
having heard their defence, and after a stormy deliberation that lasted
some days, the convention resolved that the yeas and nays should be
taken upon the following questions: First, Is Louis Capet guilty of
conspiracy against the liberty or safety of the state? Second; Shall the
judgment to be pronounced upon him be submitted to the sanction of the
people in the primary assemblies? Third: What punishment ought to be
inflicted upon Louis? The first of these questions was decided in the
affirmative; the second was negatived; and as to the third question,
five votes over half demanded death unconditionally. And such a small
majority was deemed sufficient for pronouncing the sentence of
death. The monarch was executed on the 21st of January, 1793, under
circumstances that augmented the horror of the deed, and no nation in
Europe endeavoured to save him from his fate. The King of Spain pleaded
for his life, but the plea of a crowned head was not likely to be heard
by men who had sworn eternal war against royalty.