THE REGENCY QUESTION.
The affairs of India, which played so large a part in raising Pitt to
power, brought him a question fraught with embarrassment. Annoyed by
reproofs sent out by the directors, and harassed by opposition in his
council, by the independent attitude of the Madras government, and by
difficulties arising from the conduct of officials both at Benares and
Lucknow, Hastings in 1783 declared his intention of resigning office.
His hope that the cabinet would request him to remain with extended
powers was crushed by the speech with which Pitt introduced his India
bill, and he left India in February, 1785, esteemed and honoured by the
natives of all classes in the Bengal government. His wife came to
England a year earlier, and though her conduct before her marriage with
Hastings would have debarred other ladies from appearing at so strictly
moral a court, she was received at St. James's, and the queen accepted
presents from her. On the return of Hastings the directors thanked him
for his eminent services, the king was gracious to him, the chancellor,
Thurlow, who was in the royal confidence, was loud in his praise, and
society generally smiled upon him. Pitt was cold; there was much in his
conduct which needed defence. Preparations for an attack upon him were
steadily pursued. Burke found a useful ally in Francis, who gratified
his spite by giving him information to be used against his former
antagonist. Fox and the opposition as a party adopted Burke's case. It
was believed that Pitt would stand by Hastings in order to please the
king. If he did so, they could represent him as shielding a criminal; if
he joined in bringing him to trial, he would incur the risk of offending
the king and alienating many of the supporters of the government.
[Sidenote: _CHARGES AGAINST HASTINGS._]
During 1785 Burke went on accumulating facts which were distorted by his
fervent imagination. The delay of the attack encouraged the friends of
Hastings, and on the first day of the session of 1786 his parliamentary
agent, Major Scott, an ill-advised person, challenged Burke to fulfil a
pledge made the year before that he would bring charges against him. In
February Burke announced that he would propose to impeach Hastings
before the lords, and in April exhibited charges against him. Pitt
insisted that a copy of them should be delivered to Hastings, and that
he should be heard in his defence before the house voted upon them. Fox
and Burke, who on every check to their proceedings accused the
government of a design to screen Hastings, declared with much heat that
Pitt's proposal was intended to quash the accusation. The house,
however, determined to hear Hastings, and he read his defence, which
occupied two days and wearied his audience with a number of unfamiliar
details. On June 1 Burke moved the first charge, which related to the
Rohilla war, and was ably supported by Fox. Pitt took no part in
discussing the main subject of the debate. Dundas, the most prominent
member of the India board, though condemning Hastings's conduct, refused
to consider the war as affording ground for a criminal charge; and said
that, as an act of parliament had subsequently reappointed Hastings as
governor-general, the house had condoned his previous conduct; and he
spoke of Hastings as "the saviour of India". The house rejected the
charge by 119 to 67.
The second charge, with reference to the treatment of the raja of
Benares, was moved by Fox with all his wonted ability. A treasury note
invited the supporters of the government to vote against the motion. To
the astonishment of all, and to the consternation of his supporters,
Pitt announced that he agreed to the charge; he sharply criticised the
misrepresentation of Hastings's opponents, and conclusively maintained
that the raja was bound to furnish the troops and money demanded of him,
but he considered the fine imposed on him "exorbitant, unjust, and
tyrannical". Many of the government party voted against him, but about
fifty followed his lead and the charge was accepted by 119 to 79. The
next day Hastings attended the court on the presentation of a
magnificent diamond sent by the nizam to the king, whose acceptance of
the present gave rise to much ill-natured comment. Various motives have
been suggested for Pitt's decision. None appear adequate save the most
obvious and honourable one, that he acted in accordance with his
conscience. Though his decision took the house by surprise, he clearly
defined his attitude four months before: "he was neither a determined
friend or foe to Mr. Hastings, and was resolved to support the
principles of justice and equity".[208] He did not read the papers
relating to Benares until the eve of the debate, and then, Dundas says,
after reading them along with Hastings's defence, Pitt and he agreed
that they could not resist the charge. The king in a friendly note gave
Pitt credit for acting conscientiously, adding that for his part he did
not think it possible in India "to carry on publick business with the
same moderation that is suitable to an European civilized nation".[209]
George was an eminently sensible man. There was no split between him and
his minister.
In February, 1787, Sheridan brought forward the third charge, relating
to the treatment of the begams of Oudh in a speech held by all who heard
it to be a marvellous display of oratory. He described Hastings as "by
turns a Dionysius and a Scapin," a tyrant and a trickster, with a mind
in which "all was shuffling, ambiguous, dark, insidious, and
little".[210] Indeed throughout the proceedings against Hastings his
accusers constantly disregarded moderation and even decency of language.
The third charge and other articles having been accepted by the commons,
Burke, on May 11, impeached Hastings of high crimes and misdemeanours.
An attempt was also made to bring an impeachment against Sir Elijah
Impey, lately chief-justice of Bengal, on the ground of the execution of
Nanda-Kumar and on other charges, but the commons, having heard his
defence, refused to agree to the articles. The trial of Warren Hastings
before the lords was opened in Westminster hall on February 13, 1788,
with circumstances of dignity and splendour worthy of so great an
occasion. Burke's speech on the case for the prosecution lasted for four
days; it remains a magnificent specimen of rhetoric, though its vehement
denunciations founded on occurrences in which the accused was not
directly concerned, and its attempts to create prejudice were not likely
to affect the opinions of men conscious of their responsibility as
judges. The court sat during that session of parliament for thirty-five,
and in 1789 for seventeen days. It became evident that the trial would
last a long time and public interest in it soon flagged.
[Sidenote: _CORNWALLIS GOVERNOR-GENERAL._]
Cornwallis was chosen by Pitt in 1786 as governor-general of India under
the new act, and assumed the government in 1788. Unfettered by his
council, he was in a far better position than Hastings, and, in spite of
many difficulties arising from abuses of long standing, he effected
numerous reforms both in the civil and military services of the company
during the first three years of his administration. Meanwhile Tipu,
encouraged by his success in the late war and by the negligence of the
Madras government, was preparing for another attempt to drive the
English out of the Karnatic. He attacked their ally, the raja of
Travancore, in 1789. Cornwallis secured the alliance of the nizam and
the Marathas in 1790, and General Medows, the new governor of Madras,
successfully invaded Mysore. As, however, no further progress was made,
Cornwallis assumed the command; he carried Bangalore by storm in March,
1791, and having obtained the active co-operation of the nizam and the
Marathas, laid siege to Seringapatam in 1792, and compelled Tipu to
submit to a peace by which he surrendered half his dominions, engaged to
pay a sum equal to L3,600,000, and gave two of his sons as hostages. The
surrendered territory was divided between the peishwa and the nizam.
Tipu's power was effectually broken, and the way was prepared for his
final overthrow seven years later. Cornwallis was created a marquis as a
reward for his splendid services, and resigned his office in 1793.
Though the government escaped the dangers in which the impeachment of
Hastings threatened to involve it, a new question relating to India
brought it into some peril. When, in October, 1787, war seemed likely to
arise out of the intervention of England in the affairs of the Dutch
republic, the India board sent four regiments to India, a measure of
precaution which met with the full approval of the directors. The
storm-clouds dispersed, and then the directors objected to pay the
expense. Pitt held that the company was bound by the act of 1784 to pay
for the transport and maintenance of any troops which the board judged
to be necessary for the defence of the British possessions in India, and
brought in a declaratory bill to that effect in February, 1788. The
opposition was supported by the influence of the company, and made a
vigorous resistance. Fox, whose downfall as minister had followed his
attack on the company, appeared as a champion of its claims. The
directors were heard by their counsel, one of whom, Erskine, afterwards
lord chancellor, a strong whig, made a violent attack on Pitt. On the
other side, Scott, also (as Lord Eldon) a future chancellor, contended
as a member of the house that the bill was a true exposition of the act.
The debate on the committal lasted till 7 A.M. Pitt had drunk heavily
with Dundas the night before, and was too unwell towards the end of the
debate to reply to his opponents. His majority of 57 was considered
unsatisfactory, and so many of the regular supporters of government were
adverse or lukewarm that an ultimate defeat was thought probable. With
great tact he two days later adopted some amendments which met the chief
arguments of the opposition without injuring the principle of the
bill.[211] The danger was over, and the bill finally passed both houses.
A severer conflict and a more signal triumph were at hand.
The retirement of the aged chief-justice, Lord Mansfield, in the June of
that year, was followed by some legal appointments, which included those
of Pitt's personal friend, Pepper Arden, as master of the rolls, and
Scott as solicitor-general. Thurlow, who was annoyed by Pitt's assent to
the impeachment of Hastings, strongly objected to Arden's appointment.
The king tried to make peace between him and Pitt. Thurlow was forced to
yield, and remained sulky and hostile. About the same time Howe, the
first lord of the admiralty, who was constantly attacked with reference
to matters which arose out of the reduction of the navy consequent on
the peace, resigned office, because he considered that Pitt did not
afford him adequate support. He was created an English earl on his
retirement. In his place Pitt put his own elder brother Chatham, a
favourite with the king, but, as it proved, an indolent and inefficient
minister, and also appointed Hood to a seat on the new admiralty board.
[Sidenote: _AFFAIRS OF THE PRINCE OF WALES._]
For the most part things were going well with the king. He rejoiced in
the successes of his ministers, and his victory over the coalition
brought him popularity such as he had not enjoyed since his accession.
His popularity was heightened by an attempt to stab him made by an
insane woman named Margaret Nicholson on August 2, 1786. The poor woman
was sent to Bedlam. George, who behaved with the utmost calmness,
escaped unhurt, and the manifestations of loyalty evoked by the incident
deeply gratified him. He was, however, much troubled by the ill conduct
of the Prince of Wales. The prince drank, gambled, betted, and was
addicted to debauchery; he showed no sense of honour in his dealings
either with men or women, was thoroughly mean and selfish, and consorted
with low companions. He was outrageously extravagant, and, in addition
to the large sums lavished on his ordinary expenses, incurred enormous
liabilities in altering and decorating his residence, Carlton house. The
arrangement of his affairs in 1783 was not on a scale sufficient to meet
his expenditure. By August, 1784, he was so deeply in debt that he
informed his father that he intended to leave England and live abroad.
George insisted that he should give up this scheme, which would have
implied a public breach, and said that if he expected help he should
send him a full statement of his debts and some assurance that he would
keep within his income in the future. The prince was unwilling to send
details of his debts, and when Sir James Harris tried to persuade him to
please his father by ceasing to identify himself with the opposition and
by marrying, declared that he could not give up "Charles" [Fox] and his
other friends, and that he would never marry. When at last he sent his
father the required statement, it showed liabilities amounting to
L269,000, of which L79,700 was for completing the work at Carlton house.
George was very angry, and the prince finding that his father would not
help him stopped the work, dismissed his court officers, and sold his
stud. There was an open quarrel between the father and son. "The king
hates me," the prince said, and he did not consider how grievously he
had provoked his father.[212]
His friends wished to obtain the payment of his debts from parliament,
but were embarrassed by the report that he was secretly married to Mrs.
Fitzherbert, a beautiful and virtuous lady, six years older than
himself, who at twenty-seven was left a widow for the second time. After
repeated solicitations, unmanly exhibitions of despair, and a pretended
attempt at suicide, he had persuaded her to accept his offer of
marriage, and they were married privately before witnesses by a
clergyman of the established Church on December 21, 1785. This was a
most serious matter, for Mrs. Fitzherbert was a Roman catholic, and the
act of settlement provided that marriage with a papist constituted an
incapacity to inherit the crown, while on the other hand the royal
marriage act of 1772 rendered the prince's marriage invalid. In April,
1787, his friends in the house of commons took steps towards seeking the
payment of his debts from the house. Pitt refused to move in the matter
without the king's commands, and, notice of a motion for an address to
the crown on the subject having been given, declared that he would meet
it with "an absolute negative". In the course of debate, Rolle, a member
for Devonshire, alluded to the reported marriage as a matter of danger
to the Church and state. Fox explicitly denied the truth of the report,
and on being pressed declared that he spoke from "direct authority".
There is no doubt that he did so, and that the prince lied. Mrs.
Fitzherbert was cruelly wounded, and in order to satisfy her the prince
asked Grey to say something in the house which would convey the
impression that Fox had gone too far. Grey peremptorily refused to throw
a doubt on Fox's veracity, and the prince had to employ a meaner
instrument: "Sheridan must say something". Accordingly, Sheridan in a
speech in the house, while not insinuating that Fox had spoken without
the prince's authority, "uttered some unintelligible sentimental trash
about female delicacy".[213] Fox was indignant at the way in which the
prince had treated him, and is said to have refused to speak to him for
more than a year; but he evidently did not consider the prince's conduct
such as ought to prevent him from again acting with him, and in about a
year they appear to have been as friendly as before.
The denial of the prince's marriage was generally accepted. Pitt saw
that there was a strong feeling that he ought to be relieved from his
difficulties, and determined to anticipate a motion to that effect. He
and Dundas arranged terms between the father and son. George agreed that
the prince should receive an addition to his income of L10,000 a year
from the civil list, and that a royal message should be sent to the
commons requesting the payment of his debts; and he demanded that the
prince should promise not to get into debt again. The promise was given,
and a reference to it was inserted in the king's message. The commons,
without a division, voted L161,000 for the payment of the debts and
L20,000 for the completion of Carlton house. The father and son were
reconciled, and appeared together in public. In spite of his
protestations the prince did not amend his conduct. Early in 1788 he
still took an active part with the opposition, and set up a gambling
club, where he lost heavily. His example was followed by his younger
brother Frederick, Duke of York. The duke, then a lieutenant-general,
after receiving a military education in Germany, returned home in 1787,
and lived a very fast life with so little regard to decency that "his
company was thought _mauvais ton_".[214]
[Sidenote: _THE KING'S INSANITY._]
On November 5, 1788, the king, who for some time had been in bad health,
became decidedly insane. At first it was believed that his life was in
immediate danger, and that, even if he was spared, he would not recover
his reason. The Prince of Wales stayed at Windsor, and assumed charge of
the king's person, and it was universally recognised that he must be
regent. Whether the king died or remained insane, Pitt's dismissal
seemed certain, for not only was the prince closely allied with the
opposition, but he was deeply offended at the line Pitt had taken with
reference to his debts. The hopes of the opposition ran high. Fox, who
was travelling in Italy with his mistress, Mrs. Armistead, was sent for
in hot haste. In his absence Sheridan, whose convivial habits made him
acceptable to the prince, busied himself with the affairs of the party.
If they came into power Loughborough had an undoubted claim to the
chancellorship. Thurlow, however, was ready to betray his colleagues if
he were assured that he should retain his office. The prince and
Sheridan arranged that he should have his price, and he secretly joined
them. From the first Pitt decided on his course; the prince must be
appointed regent by act of parliament, with such limitations as would
secure the king, should he recover, from being hampered in the exercise
of his rights.[215] For himself, embarrassed as his private affairs
were, he looked forward calmly to the loss of office, and determined to
practise as a barrister. According to the last prorogation, parliament
was to meet on the 20th. The king's insanity rendered a further
prorogation impossible; parliament met, and Pitt procured an adjournment
until December 4, to see how it would go with the king.
Meanwhile Fox returned home and unwillingly agreed to the arrangement
with Thurlow. The chancellor's colleagues were convinced that he
betrayed their counsels, and one day when the cabinet met at Windsor,
the fact that he had first had a private interview with the prince was
disclosed through the loss of his hat; "I suppose," he growled, "I left
it in the other place," the prince's apartment.[216] Pitt wisely took no
notice of his treachery. On the 3rd the king's physicians were examined
by the privy council; they stated that he was mentally incapable, that
they believed that his illness was curable, and that they could not say
how long it might continue. The opposition was anxious to make the worst
of matters, for if the illness was likely to be a long one, it would be
difficult to refuse the regent full powers. Accordingly, on the 4th, Fox
urged that the physicians should be examined by a committee of the
house. Pitt assented readily, for a new physician had been called in who
took a favourable view of the case. This was Willis, a clergyman, who
had become a doctor, and was a specialist in insanity; he took chief
charge of the king, who was removed to Kew, pursued a new line of
treatment, prohibited irritating restraints, and controlled him by
establishing influence over him. He told the committee that he had found
that such cases lasted on an average five months, and at worst about
eighteen; the other doctors, though less hopeful, held that ultimate
recovery was probable. The ministers were ready to proceed, and
reckoned that another month would see the prince appointed regent, and
that their own dismissal would follow at once.[217]
[Sidenote: _FOX ASSERTS THE PRINCE'S RIGHT._]
On the 10th Pitt moved for a committee to search for precedents. Fox
objected; it was not for parliament, he maintained, to consider who
should be regent; the Prince of Wales had a clear right to the regency,
and parliament was only qualified to decide when he should exercise his
right. When Pitt heard the authority of parliament thus called in
question, he is said to have slapped his leg and to have exultantly
exclaimed to the minister sitting beside him, "I'll unwhig the gentleman
for the rest of his life!" He declared that Fox's doctrine was in the
highest degree unconstitutional, and that no part of the royal authority
could belong to the prince unless it was conferred on him by parliament;
the question, he told the house, concerned its right of deliberation.
Fox saw his mistake, and two days later stated that the prince put
forward no claim of right; both sides agreed that he must be regent and
that before he assumed the office he must be invited to do so by
parliament; his right was an abstract question upon which it was no use
to argue. Pitt was too good a tactician to allow him to minimise the
point at issue; he denied "that the prince had any right whatever". The
difference between an irresistible claim, which Pitt acknowledged, and
an inherent right was not one merely of words; if the prince could claim
the regency as of right, parliament could not restrict his power without
his consent. The effect of Fox's false move was heightened by the folly
of Sheridan who raised a storm of indignation by a threat of the danger
of provoking the prince to assert his claim. Once again Fox made Pitt
the champion of the king and the nation against the pretensions of a
whig faction. The character of the struggle was understood, and bills
were posted with the heading: "Fox for the prince's prerogative," and
"Pitt for the privilege of parliament and the liberties of the nation".
Yet in both houses several supporters of the government ratted, for the
prince seemed the rising sun, and he and the Duke of York openly
canvassed on Fox's side.
Nevertheless the commons approved Pitt's resolutions to the effect that,
as the personal exercise of the royal authority was interrupted, it was
the duty of the two houses to supply the defect, and that it was
necessary to determine on means by which the royal assent might be given
to bills for that purpose. None of the precedents adduced by the
committee met the present case. Fox argued that to appoint a regent by a
law was to treat the monarchy as elective, and that the two houses had
no legislative power independently of the crown; and assuming that he
was about to re-enter on office taunted the ministers with a design to
weaken their successors by limiting the powers of the regent. The
ministerial majority was 268 to 204. Pitt proposed to provide for the
royal assent by placing the great seal in a commission with authority to
affix it to the bill. This daring fiction, the only means by which a
regency could be established by enactment, was approved by 251 to 178.
On this question, and throughout the whole course of the struggle, Burke
spoke with a violence and impropriety which injured his party and
suggested a disordered mind. He called Pitt the prince's competitor,
referred to the chancellor as Priapus and as "a man with a large black
brow and a big wig," and later disgusted the house by speaking of the
king as "hurled from his throne" by the Almighty. In the lords the
proceedings followed the same lines as in the commons. Willis's account
of the king convinced Thurlow that he was playing a wrong game, and when
the question of the prince's right was discussed in the lords' he spoke
strongly on the government side. Several members of the lower house were
present to hear him. He referred to the favours he had received from the
king, "When I forget them," he said, "may God forget me!" "Forget you!"
said Wilkes with exquisite wit, "He will see you damned first." "The
best thing that can happen to you," said Burke. Pitt left the house
exclaiming, "Oh, the rascal!" On the 25th Thurlow formally severed his
connexion with Fox. After a warm debate the ministerial resolutions were
affirmed by the lords by 99 to 66.
[Sidenote: _RESTRICTIONS ON THE REGENT'S POWER._]
The restrictions which the cabinet proposed to place on the power of the
regent were laid before the prince. He was to be debarred from
conferring peerages except on the king's issue of full age; from
granting reversions or any office or pension except during pleasure, and
from disposing of the king's property; and the charge of the king's
person and the management of the household were to be in the queen's
hands. These restrictions were based on the idea that the king would
speedily recover; if his illness was prolonged they were to be open to
revision by parliament. The prince promised to accept the regency, and
stated his objections to the restrictions. The existence of the
government seemed drawing to an end. Pitt was extremely popular, and the
London merchants, expecting that he would soon be driven from office,
offered him a gift of L100,000, which he declined to accept. Before he
could bring the restrictions before the commons, the speaker, Cornwall,
died, and on January 5, 1789, William Wyndham Grenville, joint-paymaster
of the forces, was elected in his place. A fresh examination of the
physicians was urged by the opposition. Willis told the committee that
good progress was made; Dr. Warren's account was less favourable. Willis
was represented by the prince's party as a charlatan, and Warren was
pitted against him as the doctor of the opposition. After this delay
Pitt laid the restrictions before the house as resolutions. They
certainly impaired the power of the executive, and would have weakened
any ministry appointed by the regent. No exact date was fixed for their
duration, and it is conceivable that, after the regency had lasted for
some years, the upper house would have refused to remove the restriction
as to the creation of peers, and would, as in 1719, have attempted to
limit their number by withholding from the regent a part of the royal
prerogative. And as the management of the household would have placed a
patronage of over L80,000 a year[218] at the disposal of the queen, who
was hostile to Fox, a court influence might have been established in
favour of Pitt and adverse to the new ministry. The queen was accused of
intrigue and violently attacked by the opposition press. Fox urged his
objections to the resolutions with much force, but they were adopted by
both houses, and on the 31st the prince accepted the offer of the
regency made by the lords and commons on those terms, on the
understanding that the restrictions were temporary.
His party was in high glee; medals were struck to commemorate his
regency, whig ladies wore regency caps and ribbons, and a list of new
ministers was drawn up. The conduct of the prince and the Duke of York
caused much scandal. Stories of the ill-treatment of the king while in
the prince's charge may be dismissed as unfounded; it is alleged that
the prince made sport of his father's ravings, it is certain that his
associates did so, and that he and his brother behaved with brutal
callousness and openly indulged in riotous merry-making during the
king's illness.[219] Before the resolutions could be made law it was
thought that a formal opening of parliament was necessary in order to
invest it with legislative capacity, and this was effected on February 3
by a commission under the great seal. Pitt then brought in the regency
bill, and while it was before the commons, agreed that all restriction
should terminate in three years if the king remained ill so long. The
bill passed the commons after warm debate, and had reached the committee
stage in the lords when, on the 19th, the king was declared to be
convalescent. His recovery progressed steadily, and on March 10 he
announced to parliament, through commissioners, his complete restoration
to health. Both on that night, and on April 23, when he returned thanks
in St. Paul's, there were great rejoicings, for his illness enshrined
him in the hearts of his people. The skill and temper which Pitt
exhibited throughout the long crisis strengthened his position in
parliament and his place in the esteem of the public, and from that time
more cordial relations were established between him and the king, who
warmly acknowledged his obligations to him. Though he was fortunate in
the king's timely recovery, he owed much also to Fox's bad management.
The hasty assertion of the prince's rights and the delays interposed in
the proceedings in the commons put off the settlement of the regency
until it was no longer needed, while the attack on the authority of
parliament on behalf of the prince's prerogative and the reckless
attempt of Fox and his party to displace a ministry which had the
confidence of the nation, in order to obtain office for themselves,
brought general censure upon them and added to Pitt's popularity.
In Ireland the parliament met in 1789 when the regency question was
still before the English parliament. Buckingham, who as Earl Temple was
lord-lieutenant in 1782-83, had succeeded Rutland in 1787. He hoped that
the Irish would adopt the English plan. He was disappointed by their
extreme jealousy of anything which might look like dependence. The
functions of the viceroy rendered the question of restrictions of little
importance, and, under the guidance of Grattan, an address was voted
inviting the prince to assume the regency of the kingdom without
limitations. Buckingham refused to forward it on the ground that it
purported to invest the prince with a power not conferred on him by law;
for the prince could not lawfully take any part of the royal authority
without an act of parliament, and no Irish bill could be enacted without
the royal assent under the great seal. The cabinet approved of his
refusal. The parliament sent commissioners over with the address; but by
the time that it was presented the king was virtually recovered, and the
matter ended ineffectually. No serious consequences probably would in
any case have arisen from the course adopted by the Irish parliament,
but the difference between the two countries on so important a question
enforced the need of a legislative union. Soon after the conclusion of
this business Sydney resigned the home office. He differed from Pitt on
the slave trade question, and Pitt was probably glad to get a colleague
more thoroughly at one with him. He was succeeded by William Grenville
on June 5, and Henry Addington was elected speaker in Grenville's place.
[Sidenote: _THE FRENCH REVOLUTION BEGINS._]
In the summer news of a revolution arrived from Paris. The reforming
movement, in which all European states had some share, was promoted in
France by ideas of constitutional government borrowed from England, by
the attacks of Voltaire on medievalism and religious authority, by the
advance of science, by the teaching of the encyclopaedists, by the
exaltation of individual liberty by political economists, by Rousseau's
romantic theories on the foundations of society, and by sympathy with
the American revolution. It was supplied with practical aims by the
misery of the poor, the injustice done to the lower classes, which alone
paid the heaviest of the taxes, the privileges of the nobles and clergy,
the harshness of the laws, and arbitrary methods of government. England,
as we have seen, shared in the reforming movement. Here, however, it had
no such violent results as in France. No sharp lines divided class from
class; the laws were the same for all, there was no difference in
taxation, and no privileged caste, for a peer's younger sons were
commoners, as was his eldest son so long as his father lived.
Parliamentary and other free institutions, imperfect as they were,
secured the liberties of the people. The life of the agricultural poor
though hard was not intolerable; landowners lived upon their estates and
directed local affairs, and the poor were at least kept from starvation.
France was almost bankrupt, ruined by the prodigality of her two last
kings and their neglect of their duties to their people. Louis XVI. was
forced to summon the states-general, which met at Versailles on May 4,
1789. Political discontent was rife and was rendered dangerous by the
distress of the poor; the winter had been hard, prices were rising, and
Paris was full of destitute persons, of labourers out of work, and along
with them a large number of criminals and ruffians.
The deputies of the "third estate," who were about equal in number to
those of the two privileged orders and were supported by a few nobles
and a large minority of the clergy, demanded that the three estates
should form a single chamber. The king upheld the privileged orders in
their refusal. The third estate voted itself a "national assembly," and,
after a struggle of six weeks, gained its point, and the estates were
constituted as a single assembly. Paris was in a ferment of excitement.
The king dismissed Necker, the minister of finance, who was trusted by
the popular party, and refused to withdraw his troops from the city. A
riot broke out, and on July 14 the Bastille, an ancient fortress and
prison, then little used, which was guarded by a few Swiss and some old
soldiers or _invalides_, was taken by the mob, and the governor and some
others were murdered. The king's brother, the Count of Artois, the
Prince of Conde, and several unpopular nobles fled from France. A new
municipality was established and Lafayette was chosen to command a new
civic militia or national guard. Disorder and rioting prevailed in the
provinces, country-houses were burnt and pillaged, and many murders were
committed. Louis was forced to assent to all the demands of the people;
he recalled Necker, and showed himself at the Hotel de Ville wearing the
national cockade or tricolour. The assembly voted decrees sweeping away
the feudal system, abolishing the privileges of classes and
corporations, and ecclesiastical tithes, and promulgated a flatulent
declaration of the rights of man. Bread-riots broke out in Paris on
October 5; a mob marched on Versailles and invaded the palace, and on
the 6th the national guard brought the king and queen to Paris, where
they remained in virtual captivity.
[Sidenote: _ENGLISH OPINIONS ON EVENTS IN FRANCE._]
The first tidings of the movement were received in England with
satisfaction. It was generally believed that the insurrection would
shortly end in the establishment of constitutional government, that
while the troubles lasted France would cease to be formidable, and that
consequently a continuance of peace and relief from taxation might be
expected. Before long, however, the acts of violence and the spoliation
effected by the decrees of the assembly roused widespread disgust. As
late as February, 1790, Pitt, while stigmatising the liberty proclaimed
in France as "absolute slavery," believed that the commotions would end
in order and true liberty. Burke from the first held that the outburst
of "Parisian ferocity" proved that it was doubtful whether the French
were fit for liberty; he maintained that, though the power of France
might cease to be formidable, its example was to be dreaded, and
expressed his abhorrence of the destruction of the institutions of the
kingdom. Fox, on the other hand, as he had delighted in the American
revolution, delighted in the revolution in France. Of the fall of the
Bastille, which had made hardly any impression on French public opinion,
he wrote: "How much the greatest event it is that has happened in the
world; and how much the best!" While he regretted the bloodshed which
accompanied the revolution, he constantly declared his exultation in its
successes. A comparatively small party of democrats, supported by the
political dissenters under the leadership of the Unitarian ministers
Price and Priestley, noisily expressed their sympathy with the French
democrats; and some men of high position, such as Lords Stanhope and
Lansdowne, professed more or less republican principles. The revolution
society under the presidency of Stanhope sent an address to the French
assembly, and clubs were formed in many large towns "avowedly affiliated
to the democratic clubs in France".[220]
The difference between Burke and Fox on this matter was openly declared
in the debate on the army estimates in February, 1790. Fox in a
mischievous speech referred to the part taken by the French army in
forwarding the revolution, and said that it was a time when he should be
least jealous of an increase in the army, since the example of France
had shown that "a man by becoming a soldier did not cease to be a
citizen". Burke declared that France was setting an example of anarchy,
fraud, violence, and atheism, and that the worst part of its example was
the interference in civil affairs of "base hireling mutineers" who
deserted their officers "to join a furious licentious populace". He
protested against a comparison between the revolution in France and the
revolution of 1688, between the conduct of the soldiery on that occasion
and the behaviour of some of the French troops. His speech, which was
received with general applause, had a strong effect on opinion, and Pitt
and others expressed their agreement with it. Fox answered him in a
conciliatory tone. Sheridan fanned the flame; he taunted Burke with
inconsistency, and pronounced a panegyric on the revolutionary leaders.
Burke replied that thenceforth he and Sheridan were separated in
politics. A rift in the opposition was started, and an attempt to close
it by a conference two days later was ineffectual. The opinion of
parliament on two other questions during the session was, seemingly,
influenced by events in France. Fox renewed the attack on the test acts.
He was opposed by Pitt; and Burke, whose speech, Fox said, filled him
"with grief and shame," animadverted on the overthrow of the Church in
France, and maintained that Price, Priestley, and other dissenters hoped
to overthrow the Church of England. Fox's motion was defeated by 294 to
105. A motion for parliamentary reform by Flood, who then represented an
English constituency, was opposed by Pitt, Windham, and Burke, and was
rejected without a division. The session ended on June 10, and
parliament was dissolved.
[Sidenote: _SPANISH CLAIM TO NOOTKA SOUND._]
England reaped material benefit from the temporary extinction of France
as a factor in the affairs of Europe, consequent on the proceedings of
the assembly. Some difficulties with Spain had been removed by a
convention arranged in 1786, by which Great Britain agreed to withdraw
the settlers from the Mosquito coast, and the Spanish king allowed them
to occupy a district in Honduras. As this compliance on the part of
England checked the smuggling of goods into the Spanish colonies, it was
well received by Spain. Hostile feelings towards England soon revived.
Florida Blanca, the Spanish minister, was anxious to increase trade with
the colonies, and was determined to keep it exclusively for the
mother-country. It was impossible to prevent English ships from
interfering with it. The colonies of Spanish America were discontented;
some insurrections had been made with the object of gaining direct trade
with other nations, and the malcontents hoped for help from
England.[221] Florida Blanca believed that England sought first to
establish direct commercial communication with her Spanish American
colonies, and, finally, to separate them from the mother-country.[222]
He was determined to prevent these designs, which had no existence in
England, and was upheld in his purpose by the extravagant opinion held
by himself and his nation as to the strength of their country. He found
his opportunity in 1789. Some English merchants had established a
settlement at Nootka Sound, off Vancouver's island, for trade in furs
and ginseng with China. In April one of their ships with its cargo was
seized in the Sound by a Spanish frigate, the officers and crew were
maltreated, and two more ships were seized shortly afterwards.
Satisfaction was demanded by the English government, and was refused by
Spain on the grounds that all lands on the west coast of America as far
as 60 deg. north latitude were under the dominion of Spain, and further that
Nootka belonged to Spain, because it had been discovered and occupied by
a Spanish captain four years before Cook visited those coasts.
[Sidenote: _CONVENTION WITH SPAIN._]
The English government held that these pretensions were inadmissible,
for there was no effective occupation by Spain; it refused to discuss
them, and claimed that the king's subjects had a right to navigate and
fish in those waters and settle on unoccupied lands.[223] Spain prepared
for war, and Florida Blanca seems to have made overtures to Austria and
Russia in the vain hope that they would enter into an active alliance
with his court.[224] The affair was kept secret in England until May 3,
when the preparations of Spain demanded immediate action. On that day an
order in council was passed for pressing seamen in every port in the
kingdom, and the commons unanimously agreed to a vote of credit of
L1,000,000 for expenses. The matter was laid before the two other
members of the triple alliance; the Dutch at once fitted out a squadron
to act with the British fleet, and a favourable answer was received from
the Prussian king. The French ministers, moved by the news of the naval
preparations of Great Britain, and expecting to be called on to fulfil
the obligation expressed in the family compact, ordered the armament of
fourteen ships of the line. On this the national assembly voted that it
had the right to decide on questions of war, and on May 22 declared that
the French nation renounced wars of conquest. This grandiloquent decree
destroyed the effect of the armament. Nevertheless, Spain was set on
war; fleets were gathered at Ferrol and Cadiz, and a loan of L4,000,000
was arranged. Florida Blanca seems to have relied on help from the
United States, and made some efforts to gain their good-will, but they
did not respond to them.[225] From France he peremptorily demanded the
assistance to which Louis was pledged by the family compact. His demand
was laid before the national assembly, and on August 25 it was decided
to substitute a new _pacte national_ for the _pacte de famille_, and to
invite the king to arm forty-five ships for defence, and to revise the
treaty; and a suggestion was made to Spain that she might confirm the
new compact by the cession of Louisiana. This was mere folly. The
English ministers notified the French government that any help given to
Spain would be promptly resented,[226] and Florida Blanca seeing that no
reliance was to be placed on France entered into negotiations with
England. During their progress a fresh cause of offence was given to
England; for in September McDonald, captain of a British West Indiaman,
reported that his ship had been stopped by a Spanish frigate in the Gulf
of Florida, that he had been forced to go aboard the Spaniard, and had
there been cruelly tortured, being set in the bilboes in the blazing
sun.[227] For this outrage satisfaction was promptly made, and on
October 28 a treaty was signed between Great Britain and Spain by which
Spain yielded to the demands of the British court with reference to the
Nootka Sound affair and restored the disputed territory. The submission
of Spain marks a complete change in her policy; she sought by compliance
towards England to gain the security no longer to be looked for from
alliance with France. It was a signal triumph for Pitt, who as usual had
directed the proceedings of the foreign office, for Carmarthen, who
succeeded his father as Duke of Leeds in 1789, was a feeble person. Pitt
had broken up the family compact and could reckon on the compliance of
Spain. France was isolated and had exhibited her weakness before the
eyes of Europe. The despicable proceedings of the national assembly
saved England from a war, and dissolved the alliance which had so long
threatened her.[228]
FOOTNOTES:
[208] _Parl. Hist._, xxv., 1094.
[209] George III. to Pitt, June 14, 1786, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, quoted
in Stanhope's _Life of Pitt_, i., App. xix.
[210] _Parl. Hist._, xxvi., 287.
[211] Bulkeley to Buckingham, March 10, 1788, _Court and Cabinets of
George III._, i., 360-61; _Parl. Hist._, xxvii., 115-27.
[212] Copies of correspondence relating to the Prince of Wales given by
the king to Pitt in Jan., 1787, MS. Pitt Papers, 105; Malmesbury,
_Diaries_, ii., 126-31.
[213] Holland, _Memoirs of the Whig Party_, ii., 123-42; Langdale,
_Memoirs of Mrs. Fitzherbert_, pp. 28-30; _Parl. Hist._, xxvi., 1019,
1048-56, 1070, 1080.
[214] _Court and Cabinets_, i., 363-64; _Auckland Corr._, i., 456.
[215] Grenville to Buckingham, Nov. 13, 1788, _Court and Cabinets_, i.,
448-49.
[216] Same to same, Nov. 30, _ibid._, ii., 23; _Administrations of Great
Britain_, p. 122 n.
[217] Grenville to Buckingham, Dec. 9, 1788, _Court and Cabinets_, ii.,
41.
[218] _Parl. Hist._, xxvii., 1010.
[219] Compare Massey, _Hist._, iii., 383-84, 388, with Jesse, _Memoirs
of George III._, iii., 85 _sqq._, and Lecky, _Hist._, v., 147 _sqq._;
see also _Court and Cabinets_, ii., 12, 25, 122; _Auckland Corr._, ii.,
306.
[220] _Annual Register_, xxxii. (1790), 65.
[221] Despatches and Papers, MS. Pitt Papers, 345.
[222] Fitzherbert to Leeds, June 16, 1790, MS. Spain, R.O.
[223] Del Campo to Leeds, Feb. 10, 1790; Memorial, Spain, 18; Leeds to
Fitzherbert, Aug. 17, 1790, all MSS. Spain, R.O.
[224] Merry to Leeds, Feb. 8, 1790; Fitzherbert to Leeds, Nov. 8, 1790,
MSS. Spain, R.O.
[225] Fitzherbert to Leeds, June 16, 1790, MS. Spain, R.O.; Bond to
Leeds, Jan. 3, 1791, _Letters of P. Bond_.
[226] Leeds to Lord Gower, Sept. 1, 1790, MS. France, R.O.
[227] McDonald's Affidavit, Sept. 25, 1790, MS. For. var., 816, R.O.
[228] A. Sorel, _L'Europe et la Revolution Francaise_, ii., 84-95.