Produced by Paul Murray, Brownfox and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
_THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND_
_Seventy-five years have passed since Lingard completed his_ HISTORY OF
ENGLAND, _which ends with the Revolution of 1688. During that period
historical study has made a great advance. Year after year the mass of
materials for a new History of England has increased; new lights have
been thrown on events and characters, and old errors have been
corrected. Many notable works have been written on various periods of
our history; some of them at such length as to appeal almost exclusively
to professed historical students. It is believed that the time has come
when the advance which has been made in the knowledge of English history
as a whole should be laid before the public in a single work of fairly
adequate size. Such a book should be founded on independent thought and
research, but should at the same time be written with a full knowledge
of the works of the best modern historians and with a desire to take
advantage of their teaching wherever it appears sound._
_The vast number of authorities, printed and in manuscript, on which a
History of England should be based, if it is to represent the existing
state of knowledge, renders co-operation almost necessary and certainly
advisable. The History, of which this volume is an instalment, is an
attempt to set forth in a readable form the results at present attained
by research. It will consist of twelve volumes by twelve different
writers, each of them chosen as being specially capable of dealing with
the period which he undertakes, and the editors, while leaving to each
author as free a hand as possible, hope to insure a general similarity
in method of treatment, so that the twelve volumes may in their
contents, as well as in their outward appearance, form one History._
_As its title imports, this History will primarily deal with politics,
with the History of England and, after the date of the union with
Scotland, Great Britain, as a state or body politic; but as the life of
a nation is complex, and its condition at any given time cannot be
understood without taking into account the various forces acting upon
it, notices of religious matters and of intellectual, social, and
economic progress will also find place in these volumes. The footnotes
will, so far as is possible, be confined to references to authorities,
and references will not be appended to statements which appear to be
matters of common knowledge and do not call for support. Each volume
will have an Appendix giving some account of the chief authorities,
original and secondary, which the author has used. This account will be
compiled with a view of helping students rather than of making long
lists of books without any notes as to their contents or value. That the
History will have faults both of its own and such as will always in some
measure attend co-operative work, must be expected, but no pains have
been spared to make it, so far as may be, not wholly unworthy of the
greatness of its subject._
_Each volume, while forming part of a complete History, will also in
itself be a separate and complete book, will be sold separately, and
will have its own index, and two or more maps._
The History is divided as follows:--
Vol. I. FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE NORMAN CONQUEST (to 1066). By
Thomas Hodgkin, D.C.L., Litt.D., Fellow of University College,
London; Fellow of the British Academy. With 2 Maps.
Vol. II. FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST TO THE DEATH OF JOHN (1066-1216). By
George Burton Adams, D.D., Litt.D., Professor of History in Yale
University. With 2 Maps.
Vol. III. FROM THE ACCESSION OF HENRY III. TO THE DEATH OF EDWARD III.
(1216-1377). By T. F. Tout, M.A., Bishop Fraser Professor of
Mediæval and Ecclesiastical History in the University of Manchester;
formerly Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford. With 3 Maps.
Vol. IV. FROM THE ACCESSION OF RICHARD II. TO THE DEATH OF RICHARD III.
(1377-1485). By C. W. C. Oman, M.A., LL.D., M.P., Chichele Professor
of Modern History in the University of Oxford; Fellow of the British
Academy. With 3 Maps.
Vol. V. FROM THE ACCESSION OF HENRY VII. TO THE DEATH OF HENRY VIII.
(1485-1547). By the Right Hon. H. A. L. Fisher, M.A., M.P.,
President of the Board of Education; Fellow of the British Academy.
With 2 Maps.
Vol. VI. FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI. TO THE DEATH OF ELIZABETH
(1547-1603). By A. F. Pollard, M.A., Litt.D., Fellow of All Souls'
College, Oxford, and Professor of English History in the University
of London. With 2 Maps.
Vol. VII. FROM THE ACCESSION OF JAMES I. TO THE RESTORATION (1603-1660).
By F. C. Montague, M.A., Astor Professor of History in University
College, London; formerly Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. With 3
Maps.
Vol. VIII. FROM THE RESTORATION TO THE DEATH OF WILLIAM III.
(1660-1702). By Sir Richard Lodge, M.A., LL.D., Litt.D., Professor
of History in the University of Edinburgh; formerly Fellow of
Brasenose College, Oxford. With 2 Maps.
Vol. IX. FROM THE ACCESSION OF ANNE TO THE DEATH OF GEORGE II.
(1702-1760). By I. S. Leadam, M.A., formerly Fellow of Brasenose
College, Oxford. With 8 Maps.
Vol. X. FROM THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. TO THE CLOSE OF PITT'S FIRST
ADMINISTRATION (1760-1801). By the Rev. William Hunt, M.A., D.Litt.,
Trinity College, Oxford. With 3 Maps.
Vol. XI. FROM ADDINGTON'S ADMINISTRATION TO THE CLOSE OF WILLIAM IV.'S
REIGN (1801-1837). By the Hon. George C. Brodrick, D.C.L., late
Warden of Merton College, Oxford, and J. K. Fotheringham, M.A.,
D.Litt., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford; Lecturer in Ancient
History at King's College, London. With 3 Maps.
Vol. XII. THE REIGN OF QUEEN VICTORIA (1837-1901). By Sir Sidney Low,
M.A., Fellow of King's College, London; formerly Scholar of Balliol
College, Oxford, and Lloyd C. Sanders, B.A. With 3 Maps.
The Political History of England
IN TWELVE VOLUMES
EDITED BY WILLIAM HUNT, D.LITT., AND
REGINALD L. POOLE, M.A.
XI.
THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM ADDINGTON'S ADMINISTRATION TO
THE CLOSE OF WILLIAM IV.'S REIGN
1801-1837
BY THE
HON. GEORGE C. BRODRICK, D.C.L.
LATE WARDEN OF MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD
COMPLETED AND REVISED BY
J. K. FOTHERINGHAM, M.A., D.LITT.
FELLOW OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD; LECTURER IN
ANCIENT HISTORY AT KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON
_NEW IMPRESSION_
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK
BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS
1919
_NOTE._
_When the late Warden of Merton undertook the preparation of this volume
he invited the assistance of Dr. Fotheringham in the portions dealing
with foreign affairs. At the time of the late Warden's death in 1903
three chapters (x., xii. and xviii.) were unwritten, and one (xx.) was
left incomplete. It was also found that the volume had to be recast in
order to meet the plan of the series. The necessary alterations and
additions have been made by Dr. Fotheringham, who has been scrupulous in
retaining the expression of the late Warden's views, and, where
possible, his words._
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
ADDINGTON.
PAGE
Mar., 1801. The new ministry 1
Condition of Ireland 2
Expedition to Copenhagen 3
Sept. Egypt evacuated by the French 6
French diplomatic successes 6
Bonaparte's concordat with the pope 7
Peace negotiations with France 8
Cornwallis at Amiens 10
25 Mar., 1802. The treaty of Amiens 12
Parliamentary criticism of the treaty 14
July. General election 15
Nov. Colonel Despard's conspiracy 16
Further aggressions of Napoleon 17
His colonial policy 18
Negotiations between Whitworth and the French government 19
18 May, 1803. Renewal of the war with France 22
CHAPTER II.
THE RETURN OF PITT.
23 July, 1803. Emmet's rebellion 23
Pitt's discontent with the ministry 24
Ministerial changes 27
Jan., 1804. The king's illness 29
April. Addington's resignation 31
The exclusion of Fox 32
18 May. Napoleon declared emperor 33
Pitt's ministry 34
The impeachment of Melville 36
July. The third coalition 37
Nelson's pursuit of Villeneuve 39
21 Oct., 1805. The battle of Trafalgar 40
Napoleon marches into Germany 41
Dec. Austerlitz: the peace of Pressburg 42
Collapse of the coalition 43
23 Jan., 1806. Death of Pitt 43
CHAPTER III.
GRENVILLE AND PORTLAND.
Feb., 1806. Formation of the Grenville ministry 45
13 Sept. Death of Fox 46
14 Oct. Jena and Auerstädt 47
General election 48
25 Mar., 1807. Abolition of the slave trade 48
Fall of the whig government 49
The Portland administration 50
General election 50
7 July. The treaty of Tilsit 52
Seizure of the Danish fleet 54
The "continental system" and orders in council 55
Fruitless expeditions 56
12 Oct. Conference of Erfurt 59
Army scandals 60
The Wagram campaign 63
July, 1809. The Walcheren expedition 64
21 Sept. Duel between Canning and Castlereagh 67
Oct. Perceval's administration 68
Capture of the Ionian Isles and Bourbon 69
25. Jubilee of George III. 69
CHAPTER IV.
PERCEVAL AND LIVERPOOL.
Jan., 1810. Debates on the Walcheren expedition 71
April. The arrest of Burdett 72
Appointment of the "Bullion committee" 73
The king's insanity: regency bill 74
11 May, 1812. Assassination of Perceval 76
1809-11. Social reforms in his ministry 77
July, 1810. Deposition of Louis Bonaparte 78
Opposition in Europe to the continental system 78
Alliances formed by Russia and France 81
Conquest of Java and Sumatra 81
June, 1812. The formation of Liverpool's cabinet 81
1811-12. Distress in town and country 83
Oct., 1812. General election 85
1813. Confirmation of the East India Company's charter 86
CHAPTER V.
THE PENINSULAR WAR.
1807, 1808. The origin of the war 87
Charles IV. and Ferdinand VII. seek the
protection of Napoleon 87
1808. Napoleon's plans for the conquest of Spain 88
24 July. Joseph Bonaparte proclaimed King of Spain 89
13 Aug. Landing of Wellesley 90
21. Battle of Vimeiro 91
Oct., 1808.- Expedition of Sir John Moore 92
Jan., 1809.
16 Jan. Battle of Coruña 95
Wellesley returns to Portugal 97
27 July. Battle of Talavera 98
Sept., 1810. Bussaco: the lines of Torres Vedras 101
Struggle for the frontier fortresses 103
16 May, 1811. Battle of Albuera 103
Jan.-April, Sieges of Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz 105
1812.
22 July. Battle of Salamanca 107
1812, 1813. Wellington reorganises the Spanish and Portuguese armies 109
21 June, 1813. Battle of Vitoria 110
Battle of the Pyrenees 113
Siege of St. Sebastian 113
8 Oct. Wellington crosses the Bidassoa 115
Battles round Bayonne 115
Feb., 1814. The investment of Bayonne 117
10 April. Battle of Toulouse 119
CHAPTER VI.
THE DOWNFALL OF NAPOLEON.
1812. French treaties with Prussia and Austria 122
Alliances made by Russia 123
June. Napoleon's advance into Russia 124
His retreat 125
War between England and the United States 126
Attacks on Canada 129
American successes at sea 131
Feb., 1813. Treaty of Kalisch 134
Austrian diplomacy 135
2, 21 May. Lützen and Bautzen 135
Aug., Oct. Dresden and Leipzig 137
France loses Saxony, Holland, and Switzerland 138
American war continued 138
1 June. Duel of the _Shannon_ and _Chesapeake_ 142
Jan.-Mar., Campaign in France 143
1814.
April. Napoleon deposed: Louis XVIII. recalled 145
24 Dec. Treaty of Ghent 147
July. Visit of Alexander and Frederick William to England 148
CHAPTER VII.
VIENNA AND WATERLOO.
30 May, 1814. The first treaty of Paris 149
English blockade of Norwegian ports 150
Union of Sweden and Norway 150
Restoration of Ferdinand VII. and Pius VII. 150
Attempts to abolish the slave trade 151
Sept., 1814- Congress of Vienna 152
June, 1815.
3 Jan., 1815. Secret treaty between England, France, and Austria 153
1 March. Napoleon's return from Elba 153
Flight of Louis XVIII.: the _Acte Additionnel_ 155
Plans of the allies 156
Defeat and death of Murat 157
June. Wellington at Brussels: his army 158
16. Ligny and Quatre Bras 159
18. Waterloo 160
July. Paris occupied by the allies 163
22 June. Second abdication of Napoleon 165
His surrender to England 165
Restoration of Louis XVIII.: treaty of Vienna 166
Resettlement of Europe 166
20 Nov. Second treaty of Paris: English gains 167
26 Sept. The Holy Alliance 168
Napoleon at St. Helena 169
CHAPTER VIII.
THE FIRST YEARS OF PEACE.
1816. Depression and discontent 171
Vansittart's financial policy 173
Union of British and Irish exchequers 174
2 Dec., 1816. Spa Fields riot 175
Prosecution of Hone 177
1818. General election 178
16 Aug., 1819. The "Manchester massacre" 178
Dec. The six acts 180
1817, 1819. Institution of savings banks: currency reform 182
6 Nov., 1817. Death of Princess Charlotte 184
1818. Royal marriages 184
29 Jan., 1820. Death of George III. 185
Royalist reaction in Europe 187
1816. Expedition against the Barbary states 187
1819. Murder of Kotzebue 189
30 Sept., Conference of Aix-la-Chapelle 189
1818.
Spain asks for assistance from the allies 190
The European alliance 190
CHAPTER IX.
THE LAST YEARS OF LORD LIVERPOOL.
1820. The Cato Street conspiracy 192
Dissolution of parliament 193
The "queen's trial" 194
7 Aug., 1821. Her death 196
1822. Changes in the cabinet 199
12 Aug. Death of Castlereagh 199
Sept. Canning foreign secretary 200
Jan. Peel home secretary 201
1823. Reform of the navigation laws 202
Agricultural discontent 203
1825. Speculative frenzy and financial panic 205
1823-26. Robinson's finance 206
General election of 1826 207
Close of Liverpool's ministry 208
CHAPTER X.
PROBLEMS IN SOUTHERN EUROPE.
1820. Revolution in Spain: policy of non-intervention 210
July, Aug. Revolutions in the Two Sicilies and Portugal 211
20 Oct. Congress of Troppau 211
Jan., 1821. Congress of Laibach 212
Mar., April. Revolution in Piedmont: Austrian intervention 213
Insurrections in the Morea and Central Greece 214
Aug. "Sanitary cordon" 215
Ultra-royalist parties in France and Spain 215
Loss of Spanish colonies in America 215
1822. Conference at Vienna 216
20 Oct. Congress of Verona 217
Offer of mediation declined 218
7 April, 1823. War between France and Spain 220
12 Oct., 1822. Independence of Brazil 221
July, 1825. Conference at London 222
2 Dec., 1823. The Monroe doctrine 223
1824-25. Conference at St. Petersburg 224
1 Dec., 1825. Death of the Tsar Alexander I. 225
CHAPTER XI.
TORY DISSENSION AND CATHOLIC RELIEF.
April, 1827. Formation of Canning's ministry 227
Additions to the ministry 228
8 Aug. Death of Canning 228
Sept. Goderich's cabinet 229
Dissensions: resignation of Goderich 230
9 Jan., 1828. Wellington accepts office 230
The Eastern question 232
20 Oct., 1827. Navarino 233
1828. Repeal of the test and corporation acts 235
May, June. Changes in the ministry 236
June, July. The Clare election 237
1821. Measures for catholic relief 239
1825. Further measures 241
George IV.'s opposition to catholic relief 244
1829. Wellington and Peel adopt catholic relief 245
Mar., April. Debates on the bill 246
13 April. The royal assent 249
21 Mar. Duel between Wellington and Winchilsea 250
Exclusion of O'Connell from Parliament 251
CHAPTER XII.
PORTUGAL AND GREECE.
10 Mar., 1826. Death of John VI. of Portugal 253
2 May. Peter abdicates in favour of his daughter Maria 254
31 July. Miguel proclaimed king by the absolutists 254
Dec. England sends troops to help the Portuguese government 255
3 Mar., 1828. Peter appoints Miguel regent for Maria 258
Dec., 1827. The sultan defies Russia 260
26 April, Russia makes war on the Turks 263
1828.
Negotiations for settlement of Greek question 264
Oct., Nov. French troops expel the Turks from the Morea 265
Terms of settlement agreed on at Poros and London 266
14 Sept., Peace of Adrianople 267
1829.
3 Feb., 1830. Greece independent: throne offered to Prince Leopold 268
France conquers Algiers 269
CHAPTER XIII.
PRELUDE OF REFORM.
1830. Amalgamation of English and Welsh benches 271
Motions for reform 271
26 June. Death of George IV. 272
General election 274
15 Sept. Death of Huskisson 275
Wellington's opposition to reform 277
Fall of his ministry 278
Nov. Grey accepts office 278
His cabinet 279
The regency bill 281
Feb., 1831. Althorp's first budget 283
Public demand for reform 285
Draft of the first reform bill 287
System of representation in the unreformed house 288
Popular excitement: second reading of the bill 291
Dissolution of parliament 292
CHAPTER XIV.
THE REFORM.
1831. General election 293
24 June. Second reform bill introduced 294
8 Oct. Rejection by the lords 296
Reform bill riots 296
Attempts at compromise in the lords 299
12 Dec. Final reform bill introduced 300
Gradual loss of the king's confidence in the ministry 302
9 May, 1832. Grey resigns 302
Wellington unable to form a ministry 303
The king recalls Grey 304
4 June. Third reading of the bill 304
Scotch and Irish reform bills carried 306
26 Oct. The cholera epidemic 309
1831. The census 311
State of Ireland 312
O'Connell's agitation 312
The "tithe-war" in Ireland 314
Legislation for Ireland 316
The Kildare Place Society 317
CHAPTER XV.
FRUITS OF THE REFORM.
1832. General election 318
1833. Irish coercion bill 320
Irish Church temporalities bill 322
Ministerial changes 325
Abolition of colonial slavery 326
Factory acts 327
The East India Company act 328
Bank charter act 330
Formation of judicial committee of the privy council 332
Act for the abolition of fines and recoveries 333
1831, 1832, Althorp's budgets 334
1833.
CHAPTER XVI.
RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS AND POOR LAW REFORM.
1833. The Tractarian movement 336
1832. First meeting of the British Association 338
Foundation of the Catholic Apostolic Church 339
1834. The "new poor law" 340
Creation of a central poor law board 343
Ministerial discord 344
9 July. Grey's resignation 346
Formation of Melbourne's ministry 347
16 Oct. Destruction of the houses of parliament 349
14 Nov. Melbourne's resignation 350
Wellington's provisional government 351
Dec. Peel's cabinet 352
The Tamworth manifesto 353
CHAPTER XVII.
PEEL AND MELBOURNE.
Jan., 1835. General election 354
Feb. Abercromby elected speaker 354
The "Lichfield House compact" 356
April. Peel's resignation 356
Melbourne's second ministry 357
Exclusion of Brougham 357
Municipal corporations act 360
Jan., 1836. Cottenham lord chancellor 363
Conflict with the lords on Irish bills 365
Tithe commutation act (English) 365
Reformed marriage law 366
Registration system 366
1835, 1836. Crusade against Orange lodges 367
1836. The paper duties lowered 369
Committee on agricultural distress 370
1836, 1837. Agitation in Ireland 371
1837. Irish municipal bill 372
Church rates 373
Burdett secedes from the whig party 374
20 June. Death of William IV. 375
CHAPTER XVIII.
FOREIGN RELATIONS UNDER WILLIAM IV.
July, 1830. The revolution of July 376
Recognition of Louis Philippe by the Powers 377
Sept. Belgian provinces in revolt 379
20 Dec. Protocol of London 381
June, 1831. Election of Leopold as King of the Belgians 383
Aug. War between Belgium and Holland 384
French troops enter Belgium 384
Nov. British and French fleets blockade the Scheldt 386
Nov., 1833. Convention between Holland and Belgium 387
1830. Insurrections in Switzerland, Poland, Italy, etc. 387
1831, 1832. Capture of Warsaw; Polish constitution abolished 388
7 April, 1831. Peter leaves Brazil for Portugal 388
Carlist rebellion in Spain 389
22 April, The quadruple alliance 389
1834.
26 May. Miguel renounces his claims 390
9 Oct., 1831. Capodistrias (Greek president) assassinated 392
1832. Otto of Bavaria becomes King of Greece 392
1831. War between Ibrahim and the Sultan 393
1833. Treaties of Kiutayeh and Unkiar Skelessi 394
8 Sept. Secret convention at Münchengrätz 395
CHAPTER XIX.
BRITISH INDIA.
1801. Annexation of the Karnátik 397
1803. Assaye and Argáum 399
1805. Resignation of Lord Wellesley 399
10 July, 1806. Mutiny at Vellore 400
Lord Minto's pacific policy 401
1801-10. Treaties with Persia 402
Elphinstone in Afghánistán 403
1813. Lord Moira appointed governor-general 404
The Pindárí war 405
1818. Subjugation of the Pindárís 407
First Burmese war 408
Abolition of satí 410
Extirpation of thagí 411
Defence of Herat 412
Communication with India 413
Burnes's mission to Kábul 413
CHAPTER XX.
LITERATURE AND SOCIAL PROGRESS.
The "Lake school" 416
Scott's novels 418
Minor poets: philosophical works 420
Newspapers and reviews 422
Essayists and historians 425
The arts: painting, sculpture 427
Scientific discoveries 428
University reform 429
Formation of London University 431
Improvements in agriculture 433
Steam navigation 434
The first railways 435
Geographical discovery 436
Philanthropy 436
Canada 437
South Africa 438
Convict settlements in Australia 438
Development of Australia 439
APPENDIX I. On Authorities 443
II. Administrations, 1801-37 451
MAPS.
(AT THE END OF THE VOLUME.)
1. Great Britain, showing the parliamentary representation after the
reform.
2. Spain and Portugal, illustrating the Peninsular war.
3. India.
CHAPTER I.
ADDINGTON.
When, early in March, 1801, Pitt resigned office, he was succeeded by
Henry Addington, who had been speaker of the house of commons for over
eleven years, and who now received the seals of office as first lord of
the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer on March 14, 1801. He was
able to retain the services of the Duke of Portland as home secretary,
of Lord Chatham as president of the council, and of Lord Westmorland as
lord privy seal. For the rest, his colleagues were, like himself, new to
cabinet rank. Lord Hawkesbury (afterwards the second Earl of Liverpool)
became foreign secretary, and Lord Hobart, son of the Earl of
Buckinghamshire, secretary for war. Loughborough reaped the due reward
of his treachery by being excluded from the ministry altogether; with a
curious obstinacy he persisted in attending cabinet councils, until a
letter from Addington informed him that his presence was not desired. He
received some small consolation, however, in his elevation to the
Earldom of Rosslyn. Lord Eldon was the new chancellor and was destined
to hold the office uninterruptedly, except for the brief ministry of Fox
and Grenville, till 1827. Lord St. Vincent became first lord of the
admiralty, and Lord Lewisham president of the board of control.
Cornwallis had resigned with Pitt, but it was not till June 16 that a
successor was found for him as master general of the ordnance. It was
then arranged that Chatham should take this office. Portland succeeded
Chatham as lord president, and Lord Pelham, whose father had just been
created Earl of Chichester, became home secretary instead of Portland.
An important change was introduced into the distribution of work between
the different secretaries of state, the administration of colonial
affairs being transferred from the home to the war office, so that
Hobart and his successors down to 1854 were known as secretaries of
state for war and the colonies. Soon afterwards Lewisham succeeded his
father as Earl of Dartmouth.
Though the Addington ministry has, not without justice, been derided for
its weakness as compared with its immediate predecessor, it is
interesting to observe that in it one of the greatest of English judges
as well as a future premier, destined to display an unique power of
holding his party together, first attained to cabinet rank; and in the
following year it was reinforced by Castlereagh, who disputes with
Canning the honour of being regarded as the ablest statesman of what was
then the younger generation. The weakness of the ministry must therefore
be attributed to a lack of experience rather than a lack of talent. It
was unfortunate in succeeding a particularly strong administration, but
is well able to bear comparison with most of the later ministries of
George III. Addington himself was in more thorough sympathy with the
king than any premier before or after. Conversation with Addington was,
according to the king, like "thinking aloud"; and with a king who, like
George III., still regarded himself as responsible for the national
policy, hearty co-operation between king and premier was a matter of no
slight importance.
In the early days of the new administration Pitt loyally kept his
promise of friendly support, and it is to be deplored that Grenville and
Canning did not adopt the same course. While the issue of peace and war
was pending, domestic legislation inevitably remained in abeyance. In
Ireland serious disappointment had been caused by the abandonment of
catholic emancipation; but the disappointment was borne quietly, and the
Irish Roman catholics doubtless did not foresee to what a distance of
time the removal of their disabilities had been postponed. The just and
mild rule of the new lord lieutenant, Lord Hardwicke, contributed to the
pacification of the country. But in reality the conduct of the movement
for emancipation was only passing into new hands; when it reappeared it
was no longer led by catholic lords and bishops, but was a peasant
movement, headed by the unscrupulous demagogue O'Connell. In these
circumstances it is to be regretted that the new administration
neglected to carry that one of the half-promised concessions to the
catholics which could not offend the king's conscience, namely, the
commutation of tithe. Nothing in the protestant ascendency was so
irritating to the catholic peasantry as the necessity of paying tithe to
a protestant clergy, and its commutation, while benefiting the clergy
themselves, would have removed the occasion of subsequent agitation. The
spirit of disloyalty, however, was believed to be by no means extinct
either in Ireland or in Great Britain, and two stringent acts were
passed to repress it. The first, for the continuance of martial law in
Ireland, was supported by almost all the Irish speakers in the house of
commons, where it was carried without a division, and was adopted in the
house of lords by an overwhelming majority, after an impressive speech
from Lord Clare. The second, for the suspension of the _habeas corpus_
act in the whole United Kingdom was framed to remain in force "during
the continuance of the war, and for one month after the signing of a
definitive treaty of peace".
[Pageheading: _THE HORNE TOOKE ACT._]
The only other measure of permanent interest which became law in this
session was the so-called "Horne Tooke act," occasioned by the return of
Horne Tooke, who was in holy orders, for Old Sarum. Such a return was
contrary to custom, but the precedents collected by a committee of the
house of commons were inconclusive. It was accordingly enacted that in
future clergymen of the established churches should be ineligible for
seats in parliament, while Horne Tooke was deemed to have been validly
elected, and retained his seat. The house of commons found time,
however, for an important and well-sustained debate on India, in which
among others Dundas, now no longer in office, showed a thorough
knowledge of questions affecting Indian finance and trade.
The naval expedition which had been prepared in the last days of Pitt's
administration sailed for Copenhagen on March 12, 1801, under Sir Hyde
Parker, with Nelson as second in command. The admiral in chief was of a
cautious temper, but was wise enough to allow himself to be guided by
Nelson's judgment when planning an engagement, though not as to the
general course of the expedition. The fleet consisted of sixteen ships
of the line and thirty-four smaller vessels; all these with the
exception of one ship of the line reached the Skaw on the 18th. A
frigate was sent in advance with instructions to Vansittart, the
British envoy at Copenhagen, to present an ultimatum to the Danish
government,[1] demanding a favourable answer to the British demands
within forty-eight hours. For three days Parker waited at anchor
eighteen miles from Elsinore, and it was only when Vansittart brought an
unfavourable reply on the 23rd that he took Nelson into his counsels. He
readily adopted Nelson's plan of ignoring the Danish batteries at
Kronborg and making a circuit so as to attack Copenhagen at the weak
southern end of its defences, but set aside his project of masking
Copenhagen and making straight for a Russian squadron of twelve ships of
the line which was lying icebound at Revel. The fair weather of the 26th
was wasted in irresolution, and it was not till the 30th that the fleet
was able to weigh anchor. It passed Kronborg in safety and anchored five
miles north of Copenhagen.
Parker placed under Nelson's immediate command twelve ships of the line
and twenty-one smaller vessels, by far the greater part of the British
fleet. With these he was to pass to the east of a shoal called the
Middle Ground and attack the defences of Copenhagen from the south,
while Parker with the remainder of the fleet was to make a demonstration
against the more formidable northern defences. The wind could not of
course favour both attacks simultaneously, and it was agreed that the
attack should be made when the wind favoured Nelson. The nights of the
30th and 31st were spent in reconnoitring and laying buoys. On April 1 a
north wind brought Nelson's squadron past the Middle Ground, and on the
next day a south wind enabled him to attack the Danish fleet, if fleet
it may be called. At the north end of the Danish position stood the only
permanent battery, the Trekroner, with two hulks or blockships; the rest
consisted of seven blockships and eleven floating batteries, drawn up
along the shore. An attack on the south end of the line was also exposed
to batteries on the island of Amager. Nelson's intention was to close
with the whole Danish fleet, but three of his ships of the line were
stranded and he was obliged to leave the assault on the northern end
entirely to lighter vessels.
[Pageheading: _BATTLE OF THE BALTIC._]
The Danish batteries proved more powerful than had been anticipated, and
as time went on and the Danish resistance did not appear to lose in
strength, Parker grew doubtful of the result of the battle and gave the
order to cease action. The order was apparently not intended to be
imperative, but it had the effect of inducing Riou, who commanded the
frigate squadron, to sail away to the north. For the rest of the fleet
obedience was out of the question. Nelson acknowledged, but refused to
repeat the order, and, jocularly placing his glass to his blind eye,
declared that he could not see the signal. At length the British
cannonade told. Fischer, the Danish commander, had had to shift his flag
twice, at the second time to the Trekroner, and all the ships south of
that battery had either ceased fire or were practically helpless. The
Trekroner, however, was still unsubdued and rendered it impossible for
Nelson's squadron to retire, in the only direction which the wind would
allow, without severe loss. He accordingly sent a message to the Danish
Prince Regent, declaring that he would be compelled to burn the
batteries he had taken, without saving their crews, unless firing
ceased. If a truce were arranged until he could take his prisoners out
of the prizes, he was prepared to land the wounded Danes, and burn or
remove the prizes. A truce for twenty-four hours was accordingly
arranged, which Nelson employed to remove his own fleet unmolested.
The destruction of the southern batteries left Copenhagen exposed to
bombardment, and the Danes, unable to resist, yet afraid to offend the
tsar by submission, prolonged the time from day to day till news arrived
which removed all occasion for hostility. Unknown to either of the
combatants, the Tsar Paul, the life and soul of the northern
confederacy, had been murdered on the night of March 23, ten days before
the battle, and with his death the league was practically dissolved.
When Nelson advanced further into the Baltic, he found no hostile fleet
awaiting him, and the new tsar, Alexander, adopting an opposite policy,
entered into a compromise on the subject of maritime rights. The battle
of the Baltic is considered by some to have been Nelson's masterpiece.
It won for him the title of viscount and for his second in command,
Rear-Admiral Graves, the gift of the ribbon of the Bath, but the
admiralty, for official reasons, declined to confer any public reward
or honour on the officers concerned in it.
At the same time, the French occupation of Egypt was drawing towards its
inevitable close. Kléber, who was left in command by Bonaparte, perished
by the hand of an assassin, and Menou, who succeeded to the command, was
not only a weak general, but was prevented from receiving any
reinforcements by the naval supremacy of Great Britain in the
Mediterranean. On March 21, 1801, the French army was defeated at the
battle of Alexandria by the British force sent out under Sir Ralph
Abercromby, who was himself mortally wounded on the field. His
successor, General Hutchinson, completed his work by taking Cairo,
before the arrival of General Baird, who had led a mixed body of British
soldiers and sepoys from the Red Sea across the desert to the Nile. The
capitulation of Alexandria soon followed. In September the French
evacuated Egypt, the remains of their army were conveyed to France in
English ships, and Bonaparte's long-cherished dreams of eastern conquest
faded away for ever--not from his own imagination, but from the
calculations of practical statesmanship.
French arms, and French diplomacy supported by armed force, were more
successful elsewhere. The treaty of Lunéville was only the first of a
series of treaties, by which France secured to herself a political
position commensurate with her military glory. By the treaty of Aranjuez
between France and Spain, signed on March 21, Spain ceded Louisiana to
France, reserving the right of pre-emption, and undertook to wage war on
Portugal in order to detach it from the British alliance. Spain and
Portugal were both lukewarm in this war, and on June 6 signed the treaty
of Badajoz, by which Portugal agreed to close her ports to England, to
pay an indemnity to Spain, and to cede the small district of Olivenza,
south of Badajoz. Bonaparte was intensely irritated by this treaty,
which deprived him of the hope of exchanging conquests in Portugal for
British colonial conquests in any future negotiations; he declared that
Spain would have to pay by the sacrifice of her colonies for the
conquered French colonies which he still hoped to recover. A French army
was despatched to Portugal and enabled Bonaparte to dictate the treaty
of Madrid, signed on September 29, whereby Portugal ceded half Guiana to
France and undertook, as at Badajoz, to close her ports against
England.
[Pageheading: _INFLUENCES MAKING FOR PEACE._]
This last condition was equally imposed on the King of the Two Sicilies
by the treaty of Florence, concluded on March 28, and before the end of
the year France had established friendly relations with the Sultan of
Turkey and the new Tsar of Russia. More important still, as
consolidating Bonaparte's power at home, was the concordat signed by him
and the pope on July 15 recognising Roman Catholicism as the religion of
the majority of Frenchmen, and of the consuls, guaranteeing stipends,
though on an abjectly mean scale, to the clergy, and placing the entire
patronage of the French Church in the hands of the first consul. Never
since the French revolution had the Church been thus acknowledged as the
auxiliary, or rather as the handmaid, of the state, and probably no one
but the first consul could have brought about the reconciliation. After
such exertions, even he may have sincerely desired an honourable peace,
as the crown of his victories, or at least as a breathing time, to
enable him to mature his vast designs for reorganising France. Perhaps
he did not yet fully recognise that war was a necessity of his political
ascendency, no less than of his own personal character. The French
people still clung to republican institutions; and the consulate was a
nominal republic, with all effective power vested in the first consul.
Time was to show how largely this unique position depended on his unique
capacity of conducting wars glorious to French arms; for the present,
France was satisfied, and longed for peace.
The English ministry, too, was impelled by strong motives to enter upon
the negotiations which resulted in the peace of Amiens. Not only was
Great Britain crippled by the loss of nearly all her allies, but the
high price of bread had roused grave disaffection,[2] and intensified
among British merchants a desire for an unmolested extension of
commerce; above all, English statesmen now recognised the consulate,
under Bonaparte, as the first stable and non-revolutionary government
since the fall of the French monarchy. Both countries, therefore, were
predisposed to entertain pacific overtures, but the very fact that these
were in contemplation stirred both sides to further endeavours in order
to secure better terms of peace. A French squadron, commanded by Admiral
Linois and containing three ships of the line besides smaller boats, was
making a movement for the Straits of Gibraltar in order to strengthen
the force at Cadiz. Sir James Saumarez with five ships of the line and
two smaller vessels engaged Linois off Algeciras on July 5, but the
French ships were supported by the land batteries, and one of the
British ships, the _Hannibal_ (74), ran aground, and Saumarez was
eventually compelled to leave her in the hands of the enemy. This
victory was hailed with delight throughout France, but it was fully
retrieved a week later. The French squadron had in the meantime been
reinforced by one French and five Spanish ships of the line, and on the
12th it made a fresh attempt to reach Cadiz; it was, however, engaged in
the Straits by Saumarez with five ships of the line. In the ensuing
battle two Spanish ships blew up, and the French _Saint Antoine_ was
captured. The remainder succeeded in reaching Cadiz, but Saumarez was
able to resume the blockade a few weeks later.
Meanwhile there was no relaxation of French preparations for an invasion
of England, or of naval activity on the part of Great Britain. No sooner
had Nelson returned from the Baltic than he was, on July 24, placed in
command of a "squadron on a particular service," charged with the
defence of the coast from Beachy Head to Orfordness. With this he not
only blockaded the northern French ports, but assumed the aggressive,
and bombarded the vessels therein collected. A more daring attempt to
cut out the flotilla moored at Boulogne by a boat attack was repelled
with some loss on the night of August 15. But couriers under flags of
truce were already passing between London and Paris, and hostilities
ceased in the autumn of the year 1801.
[Pageheading: _THE QUESTION OF MALTA._]
The history of the negotiations which ended in the peace of Amiens
derives a special interest from the events which followed it. The
earliest overtures for peace were made by Hawkesbury on March 21, 1801.
At first Bonaparte refused to listen to them, but the destruction of the
northern confederacy inclined him to more pacific counsels. On April 14
the British government stated its demands. They mark a distinct advance
on those which had been made in vain at Lille in 1797. France was to
evacuate Egypt, and Great Britain Minorca, but Great Britain claimed to
retain Malta, Tobago, Martinique, Trinidad, Essequibo, Demerara,
Berbice, and Ceylon. She was willing to surrender the Cape of Good Hope
on condition that it became a free port, and stipulated that an
indemnity should be provided for the Prince of Orange. At the outset,
Bonaparte opposed all cessions by France and her allies, but the steady
improvement in the fortunes of England in the north and in Egypt at last
determined him to grant some of the British demands, and as the
evacuation of Egypt became inevitable, he was resolved to gain something
in exchange for it before it was too late. The preliminary treaty was
accordingly signed by Bonaparte's agent Otto on behalf of France and
Hawkesbury on behalf of Great Britain on October 1, the day before the
news of the French capitulation in Egypt reached England. Great Britain
had already consented to relinquish Malta, provided that it became
independent. She now consented to relinquish all her conquests from
France, and with the exception of Ceylon and Trinidad all her conquests
from the French allies, requiring, however, that the Cape should be
recognised as a free port. The French were to evacuate not only Egypt,
but the Neapolitan and Roman States. Malta was to be restored to the
knights of St. John under the guarantee of a third power. Prisoners of
war were to be released on payment of their debts, and the question of
the charge for their maintenance was to be settled by the definitive
treaty in accordance with the law of nations and established usage.
No mention was made of the Prince of Orange, but Otto gave a verbal
assurance that provision would be made to satisfy his claims. He also
gave the British government to understand that France would be willing
to cede Tobago in consideration of the expenses incurred in the
maintenance of French and Dutch prisoners. The omission of all reference
to the continental relations of France is conspicuous. In France it was
interpreted as indicating that Great Britain renounced her interest in
continental politics. The Batavian, Helvetian, Cisalpine, and Ligurian
republics, the kingdom of Etruria, and the whole east bank of the Rhine
were, however, supposed to be already protected against French
encroachment by the treaty of Lunéville, and Great Britain had no wish
to impose terms involving a recognition of these new creations. Again,
no mention was made of commercial relations apart from the Newfoundland
and St. Lawrence fisheries, for Great Britain was too ready to believe
that a separate commercial treaty would be practicable, and was
naturally loth to delay the conclusion of peace by a difficult
negotiation.
Cornwallis was appointed to negotiate the definitive treaty, and had
some hope that he might arrive at an informal understanding with
Bonaparte at Paris before he proceeded to Amiens. But he was offended by
Bonaparte's manner, and, dreading to be pitted against so subtle a
diplomatist as Talleyrand, he left Paris before anything was
accomplished, and arrived at Amiens on November 30. There France was
represented by Joseph Bonaparte, the first consul's elder brother, and
the negotiator of Lunéville. At Amiens, the position of the British
government was compromised from the first by its renewed insistence on a
point which had been omitted from the preliminary treaty, namely, the
compensation of the Prince of Orange. This demand was accompanied by an
endeavour to obtain compensation for the King of Sardinia. Joseph
Bonaparte, on the other hand, entrenched himself behind the letter of
the treaty, and acknowledged no further obligation. Any additional
concession to Great Britain could only be purchased by British
concessions to France. Other difficulties arose over the question of
Malta, the payment for the maintenance of prisoners, and the inclusion
of allies as parties to the treaty.
[Pageheading: _CORNWALLIS AT AMIENS._]
On the first of these questions the French would appear to have aimed
throughout at reducing the knights to as impotent a position as
possible. The British, on the other hand, ostensibly desiring to see the
strength of the order maintained, were chiefly interested in securing
its neutrality. At the time of the signature of the preliminary treaty,
Russia was the power that seemed to Great Britain the fittest guarantor
of the independence of the knights. On the refusal of Russia to accept
this position, Naples appeared to be the next best alternative, but it
was eventually agreed to substitute for the guarantee of a third power
the obviously futile guarantee of all the powers. Neither party foresaw
that the impossibility of obtaining such a guarantee was destined to
leave the whole clause about Malta inoperative. After much dispute over
the future constitution of the order, France proposed to obviate the
chief source of difficulty by the demolition of the forts. This plan
commended itself to Cornwallis, but was rejected by the British
government. By the end of December it was agreed that a Neapolitan
garrison was to occupy the islands provisionally, until the new
organisation should be established. Great Britain proposed that this
garrison should be maintained at the joint expense of Great Britain and
France. It did not occur to the British government to propose any
guarantee for the preservation of the property of the order, and this
omission ultimately proved material. The question of including allies in
the treaty was less complicated. France preferred a number of separate
treaties so as to keep the British interest in Europe at a minimum.
Great Britain, on the other hand, wished to make France a party to the
cessions made by her allies, and successfully insisted on the
negotiation of a single comprehensive treaty. Joseph Bonaparte granted
this point on December 11, but, as he had not full powers to negotiate
with any power except Great Britain, he continued to interpose delays
till the end of the year.
In the meantime France had failed in her attempts to meet the British
claims on behalf of the Prince of Orange by demands for further
privileges and territory in the oceans and colonies. On the whole, the
first month's negotiations had contributed much to a settlement, without
giving a decided advantage to either side. The lapse of time, however,
turned the balance in favour of the negotiator who was the more
independent of his country's desire for peace. On January 1, 1802,
Hawkesbury wrote to Cornwallis, treating the acquisition of Tobago as
unimportant; on the 2nd Addington expressed his readiness to accept a
separate arrangement with the Batavian republic for the Prince of
Orange. By the 16th Hawkesbury had yielded the claim of Portugal to be a
party to the treaty. The refusal of the French to cede Tobago in lieu of
payment for the French prisoners, and the difficulty of assessing the
payment, opened a way to the evasion of compensation altogether.
Cornwallis, preferring to sacrifice this claim rather than re-open the
war, suggested to Joseph Bonaparte on the 22nd that the treaty should
provide for commissioners to assess the payment, while it should be
secretly provided that they should not be appointed. On the same day,
Joseph Bonaparte communicated his brother's consent to a clause engaging
France to find a suitable territorial possession in Germany for the
Prince of Orange.
If Hawkesbury and Cornwallis imagined that they had made sure of an
early peace by these extensive concessions, they were greatly mistaken.
Napoleon, flushed with this unexpected success, was encouraged to make
further trial of the pliability of the British diplomatists. Two events
occurred at this stage of the negotiations which tried the temper of
both sides to the uttermost. On January 26, Bonaparte was elected
president of the Cisalpine republic, to be styled henceforth the Italian
republic. This event seems to have taken the British government by
surprise; they thought it a distinct indication that he still
contemplated further aggressions in spite of the series of treaties by
which he appeared to be securing peace, and were therefore much less
inclined than formerly to make concessions. About the same time
Bonaparte was not unreasonably enraged at the outrageous attacks made on
him in the press conducted in London by French exiles, especially by
Jean Peltier, the editor of a paper called _L'Ambigu_, and he blamed the
British government for permitting their publication. He therefore
instructed his brother Joseph to raise further difficulties over the
garrison and permanent organisation of Malta, as well as over the
proposed accession of the sultan to the treaty. Vain attempts were also
made by Joseph to retain Otranto for France till the British should have
evacuated Malta, and to secure the inclusion of the Ligurian republic in
the treaty.
[Pageheading: _THE TREATY OF AMIENS._]
At last on March 8 Napoleon agreed that no important difference
remained, and urged his brother to conclude the treaty. A little more
time was wasted in providing for a temporary occupation of Malta by
Neapolitan troops, and a more marked division of opinion arose as to the
compensation for the Prince of Orange. In spite of instructions to the
contrary from Hawkesbury, Cornwallis accepted an engagement on the part
of France to find a compensation, not defined, for the house of Nassau,
instead of charging it on the Dutch government; and the treaty was
finally concluded on March 25. It was signed by Great Britain, France,
Spain, and the Batavian republic, while the Porte was admitted as an
accessory power. It differed from the preliminary convention in no
important respect, except in the illusory safeguards for the claims of
the Prince of Orange, the secret arrangement for evading the cost of the
French prisoners, and the provisions concerning Malta, pregnant with the
seeds of future enmity. These provisions were as follows: Malta was to
be restored to the knights of St. John, from whose order both French and
British were hereafter to be excluded. The evacuation was to take place
within three months of the ratification of the treaty, or sooner if
possible. At that date Malta was to be given up, provided the grand
master or commissaries of the order were present, and provided the
Neapolitan garrison had arrived. Its independence was to be under the
guarantee of France, Great Britain, Austria, Spain, Russia, and Prussia.
Two thousand Neapolitan troops were to occupy it for one year, and until
the order should have raised a force sufficient, in the judgment of the
guaranteeing powers, for the defence of the islands.[3]
On October 29, 1801, parliament was opened with a speech from the throne
briefly announcing the conclusion of a convention with the northern
powers, and of preliminaries of peace with the French republic. General
Lauriston, bearing the ratification of the preliminaries by the first
consul, had reached London on the 10th, when he was received by the
populace with tumultuous demonstrations of joy. Soon afterwards the
"feast of the peace" was celebrated in Paris with equal enthusiasm.
Short-lived as they proved to be, these pacific sentiments were
doubtless genuine on both sides of the channel. The industrial, though
not the military, resources of France were exhausted by her prodigious
efforts during the last eight years; while England, suffering grievously
from distress among the working-classes and financial difficulties,
welcomed the prospect of cheaper provisions and easier times, as well as
of emerging from the political difficulties originating in the French
revolution.
The preliminary treaty, however, did not escape hostile criticism in
either house of parliament. It was the subject of discussion in the
lords on November 3, and in the commons on the 3rd and 4th. Its most
strenuous assailants were Lord Grenville, who had been foreign secretary
under Pitt, and the whigs who had joined Pitt's ministry in 1794, among
whom Lords Spencer and Fitzwilliam and above all Windham call for
special notice. Windham's powerful and comprehensive speech contained
more than one shrewd forecast of the future. For once, Pitt and Fox
supported the same measure, and Pitt, dwelling on _security_ as our
grand object in the war, specially deprecated any attempt on the part of
Great Britain "to settle the affairs of the continent". Fox, in
advocating peace, fiercely denounced the war against the French
republic, and gloated over the discomfiture of the Bourbons.[4] It was
admitted on all sides that France was stronger than ever in a military
and political sense. She had already made treaties with Austria, Naples,
Spain, and Portugal; other treaties with Russia and Turkey were on the
point of being signed; while the still more important concordat with the
pope was already ratified. On the other hand, Great Britain had largely
increased her colonial possessions, and the chief question now discussed
was whether she would be the weaker for abandoning some of these recent
conquests. The general feeling of the nation was fitly expressed by
Sheridan in the phrase: "This is a peace which all men are glad of, but
no man can be proud of". Malmesbury, the negotiator of Lille, was absent
from the debates; but he has recorded in his diary his disapproval both
of the peace and of the violent opposition to it The king told
Malmesbury on November 26 that he considered it an experimental peace,
but unavoidable.[5]
[Pageheading: _DEBATES ON TREATY OF AMIENS._]
The debates on the definitive treaty of Amiens took place on May 13 and
14, 1802, and though vigorously sustained, were to some extent a
repetition of those on the preliminaries of peace. The opposition to it
was headed by Grenville in the lords and in the commons by Windham, who
compared it unfavourably with the preliminaries; and the stipulations
with respect to Malta were justly criticised as one of its weakest
points. Strange to say, Pitt took no effective part in the discussion,
which ended in overwhelming majorities for the government. As in the
previous session, domestic affairs, except in their bearing on foreign
policy, received comparatively little attention from parliament. The
income tax was repealed, almost in silence, as the first fruits of
peace, and Addington, as chancellor of the exchequer, delivered an
emphatic eulogy on the sinking fund by means of which he calculated that
in forty-five years the national debt, then amounting to £500,000,000,
might be entirely paid off. The house of commons showed no want of
economical zeal in scrutinising the claims of the king on the civil
list, and those of the Prince of Wales on the revenues of the duchy of
Cornwall. Nor did it neglect such abuses as the non-residence of the
parochial clergy, and the cruel practice of bull-baiting, though it
rejected a bill for the suppression of this practice, after a
characteristic apology for it from Windham, in which he dwelt upon its
superiority to horse-racing. In this session, too, a grant of £10,000
was voted to Jenner for his recent invention of vaccination. In
supporting it, Wilberforce stated that the victims of small-pox, in
London alone, numbered 4,000 annually.
The parliament, which had now lasted six years, was dissolved by the
king in person on June 28, and a general election was held during the
month of July. The new house of commons did not differ materially from
the old, and even in Ireland the recent national opposition to the union
did not lead to the unseating of a single member who had voted for
it.[6] Meanwhile the ministry was strengthened by the admission to
office of Lord Castlereagh, already distinguished for his share in the
negotiations precedent to the union with Ireland. On July 6 he was
appointed president of the board of control in succession to Dartmouth,
and was admitted to a seat in the cabinet in October. The new parliament
did not meet till November 16. During the interval members of both
houses, with vast numbers of their countrymen, flocked to Paris, which
had been almost closed to English travellers since the early days of the
revolution. Fox was presented to Napoleon, as Bonaparte, since the
decree which made him consul for life, preferred to be styled. Napoleon
conceived a great admiration for him, and afterwards persuaded himself
that, had Fox survived, the friendly relations of England and France
would not have been permanently interrupted. On the very day on which
parliament assembled, a conspiracy was discovered, which, however insane
it may now appear, attracted much attention at the time. A certain
Colonel Despard with thirty-six followers, mainly labourers, had plotted
to kill the king and seize all the government-buildings, with a view to
the establishment of what he called the "constitutional independence of
Ireland and Great Britain" and the "equalisation of all civic rights".
The conspiracy had no wide ramifications, and the arrest of its leader
and his companions brought it to an immediate end. Despard was found
guilty of high treason and was executed on February 21, 1803.
When parliament met, the king's speech referred ominously to fresh
disturbances in the balance of power on the continent; and votes were
passed for large additions to the army and navy, in spite of Fox's
declaration that he saw no reason why Napoleon, satisfied with military
glory, should not henceforth devote himself to internal improvements in
France. Nelson, on the contrary, speaking in the house of lords, while
he professed himself a man of peace, insisted on the danger arising from
"a restless and unjust ambition on the part of our neighbours," and
Sheridan delivered a vigorous speech in a like spirit. On the whole, in
January, 1803, the prospects of assured peace and prosperity were much
gloomier than they had been in January, 1802, before the treaty of
Amiens. The funds were going down, the bank restriction act was renewed,
and Despard's conspiracy still agitated the public mind. In the month of
February a strong anti-Gallican sentiment was roused by Mackintosh's
powerful defence of the royalist Jean Peltier, accused and ultimately
convicted of a gross libel on the first consul. On March 8 came the
royal message calling out the militia, which heralded the rupture of the
peace.
The renewal of the war, fraught with so much glory and misery to both
nations, can have taken neither by surprise. The ink was scarcely dry on
the treaty of Amiens when fresh causes of discord sprung up between
France and Great Britain. More than one of these, indeed, had arisen
between the signature of the preliminary convention and the actual
conclusion of peace. During the negotiations, the first consul had, as
we have seen, never ceased to protest against the violent attacks upon
himself in the English press, while Cornwallis persistently warned his
own government against the menacing attitude of France in Italy and
elsewhere. The proclamation of the concordat in April, 1802, and the
recognition of Napoleon as first consul for life in August, however they
may have strengthened his position in France, were no legitimate
subjects for resentment in England; but his acceptance of the presidency
of the "Italian" republic in January, followed by his annexation of
Piedmont in September, revived in all its intensity the British mistrust
of his aggressive policy.
[Pageheading: _FRENCH AGGRESSIONS._]
The month of October witnessed a renewed aggression on Switzerland. A
French army, commanded by Ney, advanced into the interior of the
country, and forced the Swiss, who were in the midst of a civil war, to
accept the mediation of Napoleon. The new constitution which he framed
attempted, by weakening the federal government, to place the direction
of Helvetian external relations in the hands of the French first consul.
Our government vainly endeavoured to resist this interference by sending
agents with money and promises. In Germany the redistribution of
territory necessitated by the peace of Lunéville was carried out
professedly under the joint mediation of France and Russia, but really
at the dictation of Napoleon. The final project, which destroyed all
except three of the spiritual principalities and all except six of the
free cities, was proposed by France on February 23, 1803, and accepted
by the Emperor Francis on April 27.
Against these rearrangements, Great Britain could have nothing to say;
their importance is that while the negotiations were pending, Austria,
Prussia, and Russia all had a strong motive for standing well with
France. Bonaparte's attitude towards Switzerland was, in so far as it
was backed by force, an infringement of the treaty of Lunéville, to
which, however, Great Britain was not a party. The neutrality of
Piedmont had not been safeguarded either at Lunéville or at Amiens; it
had already been occupied by France before the treaty was signed, and
Napoleon claimed to have as much right to annex territory in Europe
without the consent of Great Britain as Great Britain had to annex
territory in India without the consent of France.
Napoleon's schemes of colonial expansion, though equally within the
letter of the treaty, were not less disconcerting. The reconquest of San
Domingo appeared necessary in order to obtain a base for the effective
occupation of the new French possession, Louisiana. The despatch of an
expedition for this purpose in December, 1801, had excited grave
suspicion, and when two-thirds of the army had died of yellow fever and
the remainder had returned home, fresh troops were sent out to take
their place. A new naval expedition was prepared in the Dutch port of
Helvoetsluis, but it was impossible to persuade British public opinion
that its real destination was San Domingo. Finally, on the eve of
hostilities, in the spring of 1803 Napoleon, despairing of advance in
this direction and disregarding the Spanish right of pre-emption, sold
Louisiana to the United States for 80,000,000 francs. Still more
embarrassing was Bonaparte's eastern policy. In September, 1802, Colonel
Sébastiani was sent as "commercial agent" to the Levant. He was
instructed to inspect the condition of ports and arsenals, to assure the
sheykhs of French favour, and to report on the military resources of
Syria, Egypt, and the north African coast. His report, which was
published in the _Moniteur_ of January 30, 1803, set forth the
opportunities that France would possess in the event of an immediate
return to hostilities, and was naturally interpreted as disclosing an
intention to renew the war on the first opportunity. Six thousand French
would, he said, be enough to reconquer Egypt; the country was in favour
of France. In March, 1803, Decaen left France with open instructions to
receive the surrender of the five towns in India restored to France, but
with secret orders to invite the alliance of Indian sovereigns opposed
to Great Britain. On his appearance at Pondicherri, the British
commander prepared to seize him, but he escaped to the Mauritius, which
he put in a state of defence, and made a basis for attacks on British
commerce which lasted from 1803 to 1811.
[Pageheading: _CAUSES OF MISTRUST AFTER AMIENS._]
Ireland also was visited by political spies, passing as commercial
agents. It may not be easy to say how far Emmet's rebellion, to be
recorded hereafter, was the result of these visits. At all events a
letter fell into the hands of the British government, addressed by
Talleyrand to a French agent at Dublin, called Fauvelet, directing him
to obtain answers to a series of questions about the military and naval
circumstances of the district, and "to procure a plan of the ports, with
the soundings and moorings, and to state the draught of water, and the
wind best suited for ingress and egress". The British government
naturally complained of these instructions, but Talleyrand persistently
maintained that they were of a purely commercial character.[7] It is, of
course, true that these preparations in view of a possible recurrence of
hostilities, however obvious their intention, were not in themselves
hostile acts. Still, they were just grounds for suspicion, and, with our
retrospective knowledge of Napoleon's later career, we may seek in vain
for the grounds of confidence which had made the conclusion of a treaty
possible. Great Britain was guilty of more direct breaches of the peace
of Amiens. Russia refused her guarantee for the independence of Malta,
and the British government was therefore technically justified in
retaining it. No similar justification could, however, be alleged for
the retention of Alexandria and the French towns in India. These
measures were, as will be seen, defended on broader grounds of public
policy. Not the least of the causes of discontent with the new situation
was the refusal of Napoleon to follow up the treaty of peace with a
commercial treaty. He had even retained French troops in Holland, and
thus shown that he meant to close its ports against British commerce.
The hope of a renewal of trade with France had been a main cause of the
popular desire for peace, and had reconciled the British public to the
sacrifices with which the treaty of Amiens had been purchased. It soon
became clear that further concessions would be made the price of a
commercial treaty, and it was felt in consequence that the sacrifices
already made were made in vain.
In September, 1802, Lord Whitworth was sent as ambassador extraordinary
to the French Republic. The instructions which he carried with him from
Hawkesbury fully reflect the prevailing spirit of mistrust. He was to
watch for any new leagues which might prejudice England or disturb
Europe; he was to discover any secret designs that might be formed
against the East or West Indies; he was to maintain the closest
surveillance over the internal politics of France, but especially over
the dispositions of influential personages in the confidence of the
first consul, as well as over the financial resources and armaments of
the republic.[8] Two months later, he was expressly warned in a secret
despatch not in any way to commit His Majesty to a restoration of Malta,
even if the provisions made at Amiens for this purpose could be
completely executed; and the principle was laid down, from which the
British government never swerved, that Great Britain was entitled to
compensation for any acquisitions made by France since the treaty was
signed. Accordingly, the retention of Malta was justified as a
counterpoise to French extensions of territory in Italy, the invasion of
Switzerland, and the continued occupation of the Batavian republic.[9]
This resolution was naturally confirmed by the publication of
Sébastiani's report.
[Pageheading: _NAPOLEON AND WHITWORTH._]
The long negotiations between Whitworth and the French government,
during the winter of 1802 and the spring of 1803, only bring into
stronger relief the importance of the issues thus raised, and the
hopelessness of a pacific solution. Napoleon firmly took his stand
throughout on the simple letter of the treaty, which pledged Great
Britain, upon certain conditions, to place the knights of St. John in
possession of Malta, but did not contemplate the case of further
accessions of French territory on the continent. Although the conditions
specified were never fully satisfied, it is abundantly clear that the
British ministers, having at last grasped the value of Malta, created
all the difficulties in their power, and determined to cancel this
article of the treaty. They alleged, in self-defence, that the spirit of
the treaty had been constantly violated by Napoleon, in repeated acts of
hostility to British subjects, in the refusal of all redress for such
grievances, and, above all, in that series of aggressions on the
continent which he declared to be outside the treaty and beyond the
province of Great Britain.[10] None of the compromises laboriously
discussed in the winter of 1802 betoken any desire on the part of
either government to retreat from its main position, though it does not
follow that either sought to bring about a renewal of the war. Whitworth
constantly reported that no formidable armaments were being prepared,
and clung for months to a belief that Napoleon, knowing the instability
of his own power and the ruinous state of his finances, would ultimately
give way. On the other hand, Talleyrand and Joseph Bonaparte never
ceased to hope that Great Britain would make concessions which might be
accepted.
Such hopes were rudely dispelled by the king's message to parliament on
March 8, 1803, complaining of aggressive preparations in the ports of
France and Holland, and recommending immediate measures for the security
of his dominions. This message, with the consequent embodiment of the
militia, startled the whole continent, and was followed five days later
by the famous scene in which the first consul addressed Whitworth in
phrases little short of insult. During a public audience at the
Tuileries on the 13th, Napoleon, after inquiring whether the British
ambassador had received any news from home, broke out with the words:
"And so you are determined to go to war". The altercation which ensued
is best told in Whitworth's own words[11]:--
"'No, first consul,' I replied, 'we are too sensible of the advantages
of peace.' 'We have,' said he, 'been fighting these fifteen years.' As
he seemed to wait for an answer, I observed only, 'That is already too
long'. 'But,' said he, 'you desire to fight for fifteen years more, and
you are forcing me to it,' I told him that was very far from his
majesty's intentions. He then proceeded to Count Marcoff and the
Chevalier Azzara, who were standing together at a little distance from
me, and said to them, 'The English are bent on war, but if they are the
first to draw the sword, I shall be the last to put it back into the
scabbard. They do not respect treaties. They must be covered with black
crape.' I suppose he meant the treaties. He then went his round, and was
thought by all those to whom he addressed himself to betray great signs
of irritation. In a few minutes he came back to me, to my great
annoyance, and resumed the conversation, if such it can be called, by
something personally civil to me. He then began again, 'Why these
armaments? Against whom these measures of precaution? I have not a
single ship of the line in the French ports; but if you wish to arm, I
will arm also; if you wish to fight, I will fight also. You may perhaps
kill France, but will never intimidate her.' 'We wish,' said I, 'neither
the one nor the other. We wish to live on good terms with her.' 'You
must respect treaties then,' replied he; 'woe to those who do not
respect treaties; they shall answer for it to all Europe.'"
Too much stress has been laid upon this incident, so characteristic of
Napoleon's studied impetuosity. Little more than a fortnight later he
received the British ambassador with courtesy. Overtures now succeeded
overtures, and much was expected on both sides from the influence of the
Tsar Alexander, to whom France suggested that Malta might be ceded.[12]
At the last moment, a somewhat more conciliatory disposition was shown
by the French diplomatists; and the British government was blamed by its
opponents, alike for having failed to break off the negotiations earlier
on the broadest grounds, and for breaking them off too abruptly on
grounds of doubtful validity. But we now see that national enmity,
fostered by the press on both sides, rendered friendly relations
impossible, and that, even had Napoleon been willing to refrain from
aggressions, peace was impossible. On May 12, two months after the
king's message, Whitworth, having presented an ultimatum, finally
quitted Paris. A few days later an order was issued for the detention of
all British subjects then resident in France, and justified on the
ground that French seamen (but not passengers) were liable to capture at
sea. On June 10 Talleyrand announced the occupation of Hanover and the
treatment as enemies of Hanoverian soldiers serving under the King of
Great Britain. Meanwhile, on May 16, the rupture of peaceful relations
was announced to both houses of parliament; on May 18 war was declared,
and in June volunteers were already mustering to resist invasion.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] So Vansittart himself, in Pellew, _Life of Sidmouth_, i., 371.
Southey and Captain Mahan have erroneously supposed that Vansittart
accompanied the naval expedition and was sent by Parker in the frigate
from the Skaw.
[2] _Annual Register_, xliii. (1801), chapter i. The average price of
wheat in 1800 was 112s. 8d. the quarter, whereas the highest annual
average in the half century before the war had been 64s. 6d. On March 5,
1801, the price of the quartern loaf stood as high as 1s. 10½d. On
July 23 it was still 1s. 8d. The harvest of this year was, however, an
excellent one. The price fell rapidly during August, and by November 12
was as low as 10½d.
[3] Cornwallis, _Correspondence_, iii., 382-487.
[4] In a letter to Charles Carey, dated October 22, Fox went the length
of expressing extreme pleasure in the triumph of the French government
over the English (_Memorials of C. J. Fox_, iii., 349).
[5] Malmesbury, _Diaries_, iv., 60, 62.
[6] Lecky, _History Of Ireland_, v., 465.
[7] Lanfrey, _Napoleon I._ (English edition), ii., 202; Pellew, _Life of
Sidmouth_, ii., 164.
[8] Browning, _England and Napoleon in 1803_, pp. 1-6.
[9] Browning, _ibid._, pp. 6-10.
[10] See especially Hawkesbury's despatch in Browning, _ibid._, pp.
65-68, and Whitworth's despatches, _ibid._, pp. 73-75, 78-85.
[11] Whitworth's despatch of March 14, in Browning, _England and
Napoleon_, p. 116.
[12] Browning, _England and Napoleon_, p. 218.