STRAWBERRY HILL, _July_ 8, 1778.
I have had some conversation with a ministerial person, on the subject
of pacification with France; and he dropped a hint, that as we should
not have much of a good peace, the Opposition would make great clamour
on it. I said a few words on the duty of Ministers to do what they
thought right, be the consequence what it would. But as honest men do
not want such lectures, and dishonest will not let them weigh, I waived
that theme, to dwell on what is more likely to be persuasive, and which
I am firmly persuaded is no less true than the former maxim; and that
was, that the Ministers are _still_ so strong, that if they could get a
peace that would save the nation, though not a brilliant or glorious
one, the nation in general would be pleased with it, and the clamours of
the Opposition be insignificant.
I added, what I think true, too, that no time is to be lost in treating;
not only for preventing a blow, but from the consequences the first
misfortune would have. The nation is not yet alienated from the Court,
but it is growing so; is grown so enough, for any calamity to have
violent effects. Any internal disturbance would advance the hostile
designs of France. An insurrection from distress would be a double
invitation to invasion; and, I am sure, much more to be dreaded, even
personally, by the Ministers, than the ill-humours of Opposition for
even an inglorious peace. To do the Opposition justice, it is not
composed of incendiaries. Parliamentary speeches raise no tumults: but
tumults would be a dreadful thorough bass to speeches. The Ministers do
not know the strength they have left (supposing they apply it in time),
if they are afraid of making any peace. They were too sanguine in making
war; I hope they will not be too timid of making peace.
What do you think of an idea of mine of offering France a neutrality?
that is, to allow her to assist both us and the Americans. I know she
would assist only them: but were it not better to connive at her
assisting them, without attacking us, than her doing both? A treaty with
her would perhaps be followed by one with America. We are sacrificing
all the essentials we _can_ recover, for a few words; and risking the
independence of this country, for the nominal supremacy over America.
France seems to leave us time for treating. She mad no scruple of
begging peace of us in '63, that she might lie by and recover her
advantages. Was not that a wise precedent? Does not she _now_ show that
it was? Is not policy the honour of nations? I mean, not morally, but
has Europe left itself any other honour? And since it has really left
itself no honour, and as little morality, does not the morality of a
nation consist in its preserving itself in as much happiness as it can?
The invasion of Portugal by Spain in the last war, and the partition of
Poland,[1] have abrogated the law of nations. Kings have left no ties
between one another. Their duty to their people is still allowed. He is
a good King that preserves his people; and if temporising answers that
end, is it not justifiable? You, who are as moral as wise, answer my
questions. Grotius[2] is obsolete. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Frederic, with
four hundred thousand commentators, are reading new lectures--and I
should say, thank God, to one another, if the four hundred thousand
commentators were not in worse danger than they. Louis XVI. is grown a
casuist compared to those partitioners. Well, let us simple individuals
keep our honesty, and bless our stars that we have not armies at our
command, lest we should divide kingdoms that are at our _bienséance_!
What a dreadful thing it is for such a wicked little imp as man to have
absolute power! But I have travelled into Germany, when I meant to talk
to you only of England; and it is too late to recall my text. Good
night!
[Footnote 1: A partition of Poland had been proposed by the Great
Elector of Brandenburgh as early as the middle of the seventeenth
century, his idea being that he, the Emperor, and the King of Sweden
should divide the whole country between them. At that time, however, the
mutual jealousies of the three princes prevented the scheme from being
carried out. But in 1770 the idea was revived by Frederic the Great, who
sent his brother Henry to discuss it with the Czarina. She eagerly
embraced it; and the new Emperor Joseph had so blind an admiration for
Frederic, that it was not hard to induce him to become a confederate in
the scheme of plunder. And the three allies had less difficulty than
might have been expected in arranging the details. In extent of
territory Austria was the principal gainer, her share being of
sufficient importance to receive a new name as the kingdom of Galicia;
the share of Prussia being West Prussia and Pomerania, with the
exception of Dantzic and the fortress of Thorn; while Russia took Polish
Livonia and the rich provinces to the east of the Dwina. But the
spoilers were not long contented with their acquisitions. In 1791
intrigues among the Polish nobles, probably fomented by the Czarina
herself, gave her a pretence for interfering in their affairs; and the
result was a second partition, which gave the long-coveted port of
Dantzic and a long district on the shore of the Baltic to Prussia, and
such extensive provinces adjoining Russia to Catharine, that all that
was left to the Polish sovereign was a small territory with a population
that hardly amounted to four millions of subjects. The partition excited
great indignation all over Europe, but in 1772 England was sufficiently
occupied with the troubles beginning to arise in America, and France was
still too completely under the profligate and imbecile rule of Louis XV.
and Mme. du Barri, and too much weakened by her disasters in the Seven
Years' War, for any manly counsels or indication of justice and humanity
to be expected from that country.]
[Footnote 2: Grotius (a Latinised form of Groot) was an eminent
statesman and jurist of Holland at the beginning of the seventeenth
century. He was a voluminous author; his most celebrated works being a
treatise, "De jure belli et pacis," and another on the "Truth of the
Christian Religion."]
[Illustration: VIEW OF GARDEN, STRAWBERRY HILL, FROM THE GREAT
BED-CHAMBER.]
_UNSUCCESSFUL CRUISE OF KEPPEL--CHARACTER OF LORD CHATHAM._