DECLARATION OF WAR BY FRANCE.
For the sake of clearness it will be convenient in this chapter to
notice first some matters of domestic interest debated in parliament
from 1790 to 1792, next to take a general view of English foreign
policy, and, lastly, to trace the effects of the French revolution on
English politics down to the outbreak of the war with France. The
general election of 1790 proved that Pitt had thoroughly gained the
confidence of the nation, for it increased his already large majority.
The election presented one noteworthy incident; Horne Tooke, though in
holy orders, and consequently supposed to be disqualified, presented
himself for election at Westminster; he retired before the close of the
poll, and the question of the qualification of clergymen to sit in
parliament was not decided until 1801. In consequence of the hostility
of the chancellor, Pitt needed some one to lead his party in the lords,
and chose William Grenville, the secretary of state for home affairs,
who was created Baron Grenville. The expenses of the armament against
Spain amounted to nearly L3,000,000; the prosperity of the country
warranted Pitt's decision not to allow any interruption in the progress
of the reduction of debt; he obtained L500,000 from the Bank of England
without interest, on the strength of unclaimed dividends, and proposed
to obtain the remainder by taxation. The question was raised whether the
dissolution put an end to the prosecution of Hastings. That an
impeachment was not "abated" by a dissolution had been affirmed by the
lords in the case of Lord Danby in 1679, but this decision was reversed
in 1685. Precedents were obscure, and the great lawyers differed. Pitt,
who on this question sided with Fox and Burke, argued on broad
constitutional grounds that an act of the crown should not hinder the
commons in the exercise of a right, and it was agreed by both houses
that an impeachment should remain _in statu quo_ from one parliament to
another. The trial was resumed in 1791. After lasting for seven years it
ended in 1795 in the acquittal of the accused on every count. The
decision was generally approved. If in the midst of extraordinary
difficulties Hastings did some things hard to justify, he was at the
least a great ruler, firm, self-reliant, patient, and enlightened, who
served his country well. He lived until 1818, honoured in his old age.
[Sidenote: _PITT ON THE SLAVE TRADE._]
The relief granted to English Roman catholics in 1778 was extended in
1791. Though they were still precluded from sitting in parliament and
holding public offices, a bill introduced by John Mitford, afterwards
Lord Redesdale, gave complete freedom of worship and education,
admission to the legal profession, and exemption from vexatious
liabilities to all catholics who took an oath of an unobjectionable
character. Pitt approved of the bill, and Fox supported it, though he
wished that it had gone further, and declared his dislike of all tests.
A bill placing Scottish catholics in virtually the same position as
their co-religionists in England was passed in 1793. The confiscation of
Church property in France strengthened the unwillingness of the commons
to weaken the position of the Church at home. A motion to relieve the
Scottish presbyterians from the obligation of the test act was lost by a
large majority, and a motion for the relief of unitarians, which must be
noticed later, also failed. Since 1789 Wilberforce had been working on a
committee for collecting evidence with respect to the slave trade. In
1791 he made a motion for its abolition which was supported both by Pitt
and Fox, but was defeated by 163 to 88. He repeated his motion in 1792.
The king had at first favoured the cause, but a shocking massacre of the
white population in the French portion of St. Domingo by the negroes,
who were excited by the preaching of the "rights of man," turned him
against it, and he thenceforward regarded abolition as jacobinical.
Thurlow, Hawkesbury, and Dundas were strongly opposed to it. Pitt could
not, therefore, make it a government measure without almost certainly
wrecking his administration. He supported the motion with a speech of
surpassing eloquence. Public opinion made a direct negative no longer
possible; but the West India merchants and planters and the shipping
interest were powerful, and the anti-abolitionists were strengthened by
the king's known dislike to the cause. The motion was met by arguments
for delay, and an amendment proposed by Dundas for gradual abolition was
carried. A resolution was finally adopted that the trade should cease in
1796. The lords postponed the question. Year after year Wilberforce,
supported by James Stephen, Zachary Macaulay, and others, carried on the
struggle for the abolition of the trade with noble persistency. The
victory was not attained until 1807.
Another measure on which Pitt and Fox were also in full accord was more
successful. Lord Mansfield's pronouncement in the action against Almon,
the bookseller, in 1770, which reserved the question of the criminality
of a libel for the decision of the court, was, it will be remembered,
widely condemned as an invasion of the rights of jurors. Of late years
these rights had successfully been maintained by the famous advocate
Erskine. When, for example, in 1789, in consequence of a motion by Fox,
a publisher, Stockdale, was prosecuted by the crown for a libel on the
promoters of the trial of Hastings, Erskine contended that the whole
pamphlet in question should be considered by the jury, and procured an
acquittal. Fox, who in his early days had jeered at the rights of
jurors, introduced a bill in 1791 declaring their right to give a
general verdict in a case of libel. His speech was one of his finest; he
was ably seconded by Erskine; Pitt gave him his aid, and the bill was
passed unanimously by the commons. Thurlow, who disliked the bill,
prevailed on the lords to postpone it until the next session. When it
was again sent up by the commons in 1792, he obtained a delay until the
judges should have been consulted. Their opinion, though hesitating, was
unfavourable to the bill. The aged Camden, however, spoke strongly in
its favour, and it was carried in spite of the chancellor's opposition.
This statute, of which Fox, Erskine, and Pitt share the credit, placed
the liberty of the press in the hands of jurors.
[Sidenote: _EUROPEAN POLITICS._]
From 1788 Pitt's foreign policy was directed towards the pacification of
Europe and the maintenance of the balance of power by means of the
triple alliance between Great Britain, Prussia, and Holland. Catherine
of Russia, who was bent on the overthrow of the Turkish empire, and on
strengthening her hold on Poland, pressed the Turks until they declared
war in 1787. The next year the emperor Joseph declared war against them.
Gustavus III. of Sweden allied himself with the Turks and invaded
Finland. His expedition failed, and Denmark, the ally of Russia, invaded
his kingdom. Sweden was in imminent danger; its overthrow would have
given Russia absolute sway in the Baltic; the commerce of England and
Holland would have been seriously affected, and the coast of Prussia
endangered. The allied powers interfered, and a threat that Prussia
would invade Holstein, and a British fleet sail for the Sound, compelled
Denmark to cease hostilities, and saved the independence of Sweden.
Catherine was deeply offended, and when the allies offered to mediate a
peace between her and the Turks, returned a decided refusal. She pressed
on the war with success, and the capture of Ochakov extended her
dominions to the Dniester.
The emperor's war was unsuccessful. He was in great difficulties; for
Hungary was restless and his Netherland provinces in revolt. The allies
might have mediated a peace between him and the Turks on the basis of
the _status quo_ before the war, had it not been for the desire of
Frederick William to use the difficulties of Austria for his own
advantage. He designed to compel Austria to a peace by which she should
restore Galicia to Poland, in order that in return Poland should cede to
him Dantzig and Thorn; and he would have compensated Austria by allowing
the emperor to conquer and retain Moldavia and Walachia. He hoped to
accomplish this through his alliance with England and Holland, and in
order further to weaken Austria proposed that the revolted Netherlands
should be united to Holland as one republic, urging that they might
otherwise fall into the hands of France. Pitt desired to arrange a peace
on the _status quo_ basis, and to extend the triple alliance by the
inclusion of other powers; and, highly as he valued the Prussian
alliance, he would not consent that, merely to aggrandise Prussia,
England should lend herself to a policy which would almost certainly
have led to a new war. Accordingly, the Duke of Leeds warned Frederick
William that his plans went beyond the treaty of alliance, which was
purely defensive. The death of the emperor Joseph, on February 20, 1790,
changed the situation, for his successor, Leopold II., was a practical
and wary statesman. Frederick William was bent on war against Russia
and Austria, his minister signed a treaty with the Turks, and he pressed
England to acknowledge the independence of the Austrian Netherlands. The
English government took a decided line, made him clearly understand that
in the event of a war he would be isolated, and proposed an immediate
armistice.
Frederick William at last yielded to the representations of England and
Holland. Through the mediation of the allies an armistice between
Austria and the Turks was arranged on the basis of the _status quo_ at a
congress at Reichenbach in July, 1790, and a formal peace was concluded
the next year at Sistova. The English government, anxious to prevent an
alliance between the revolted Netherlands and France, desired the
restoration of the Austrian power in the provinces, under conditions
which would shut out French influence by satisfying the people; and
accordingly the allies guaranteed the liberties of the provinces, and
they were regained by the emperor. The ministry agreed with Prussia that
support must be given to Sweden, which was exhausted by its war with
Russia; a subsidy was promised and a squadron lay in the Downs ready to
sail for the Baltic. As soon as Catherine heard of the issue of the
conference at Reichenbach, she made a peace with Gustavus without the
mediation of the allies, which was concluded at Werela in August. So
far, then, in spite of serious difficulties arising from the ambition of
the Prussian king, the triple alliance had enabled the government to
carry out its policy with success. Its formation secured the Dutch from
the ascendency of France; it strengthened the position of England in its
quarrel with Spain, saved the independence of Sweden, mediated peace on
the basis of the _status quo_ between Austria and the Porte, hindered
the spread of French influence in the Netherlands, and indirectly
restored peace in the Baltic.
[Sidenote: _THE RUSSIAN ARMAMENT._]
Pitt's policy, however, received one decided check. Catherine rejected
the proposal of England that she should make peace with the Turks on the
basis of the _status quo_ before the war, and declared that she would
keep Ochakov and the line of the Dniester. Pitt differed from the views
held by his father, the whigs generally, and the coalition, with
reference to Russia. They looked on Russia as the natural ally of
England, both for commercial reasons and as a counterpoise to the
Bourbon alliance, and Catherine owed much to England's good-will in her
war with the Turks in 1770 and during her conquest of Crimea in 1783.
Times had changed; and Pitt regarded with displeasure the establishment
of Russia on the Black Sea and the prospect of the conquest of
Constantinople, and held that the Turks were useful as a check on
Russian aggrandisement. The possession of Ochakov was believed to be of
the first importance in the struggle between the two powers. Frederick
William urged that Catherine should be forced to resign it. In 1790 Pitt
was opposing his wishes elsewhere; he was unwilling to alienate him
altogether, and agreed to put pressure on Russia. The Turks were
repeatedly defeated, and in December Suvorov (Suwarrow) took Ismail;
12,000 Russians and 28,000 Turks perishing in the storming and sack of
the city, which are described in Byron's splendid verse. In the
following March, in spite of some opposition, Pitt persuaded the cabinet
to agree to send a fleet to the Baltic, and a squadron to the Black Sea
to assist the Turks, while Frederick William invaded Livonia, and on the
27th an ultimatum was despatched to St. Petersburg.[229]
The next day a royal message to parliament announced the augmentation of
the navy. Pitt sought to obtain a pledge that parliament would support
the government in its proposed action. He met with strong opposition.
Fox and others in both houses maintained that our true policy was to be
on good terms with Russia, and that Russia had an undoubted right to
retain Ochakov. "The balance of Europe," it was urged, could not be
overset by its retention; it was a matter which did not concern England;
a war with Russia would be disastrous to English trade and manufactures;
if Russia became a power in the Mediterranean so much the better, as its
fleet would be a check on the fleets of France and Spain. Burke
vehemently protested against England embarking on an "anti-crusade" by
assisting "destructive savages," as he called the Turks, against a
Christian power. Four times, in one form or another, the question was
debated in the commons. The government majorities were large, though
less than normal. In the cabinet Grenville opposed the armament, and
Pitt found that the feeling of the country generally, and specially of
the city of London and the mercantile class, was strong on the same
side. He yielded on April 16; a messenger was sent in hot haste to St.
Petersburg to prevent the presentation of the ultimatum, and the
Prussian king was informed that the fleet would not sail to the Baltic.
Catherine was triumphant; she kept Ochakov and the line of the Dniester,
made terms with the Turks without the intervention of other powers on
August 11, 1791, and concluded a definite peace at Jassy in the
following January. Freed from her wars with Sweden and the Porte, and
from the danger of foreign intervention in both cases, she was again
able to pursue her designs on Poland. She complimented Fox on the part
he had played, and placed his bust in her palace between those of
Demosthenes and Cicero. Pitt, who had lately refused the king's offer of
the garter, sarcastically referred in parliament to the compliments his
opponent received from a foreign sovereign.
Pitt's prestige was for a time seriously injured by this failure and
people talked of a possible change of government. Leeds considered that
as foreign secretary he was specially compromised, and resigned the
seals. As it was more difficult to find a foreign than a home secretary,
Pitt recommended that Grenville should be transferred to the foreign
department, that Cornwallis should take Grenville's place, and that,
until Cornwallis returned from India, Dundas should have the seals, and
further suggested that Lord Hawkesbury (Jenkinson), then president of
the board of trade, should be called to the cabinet. George agreed, but
as Cornwallis declined the offer Dundas remained home secretary. Pitt
learnt that Ochakov was not so important as he at first imagined; indeed
the possession of it by the Turks would not have rendered Constantinople
safe from attack nor protected Poland from further partition. His
failure, however, to carry out his scheme of coercing Russia was a
serious matter; it destroyed his hopes of an extension of the defensive
alliance, and the triple alliance itself, on which his foreign policy
had been built, virtually came to an end. Frederick William was deeply
annoyed and, in order to strengthen his position with regard to Russia,
made advances to Austria, which led to an alliance between the two
powers and to their joint invasion of France.
The opinion of the great majority of the nation with regard to the
revolution in France was decided by the publication of Burke's
_Reflections on the French Revolution_ in November, 1790. This famous
work was primarily intended to rebut the assertions of Price and others
that the revolution in France was a more perfect development of the
ideas of the English revolution of 1688, that Englishmen had a right to
choose their own governors, cashier them for misconduct, and frame a
government for themselves. It describes the constitution as an
inheritance to be handed down to posterity uninjured and, if needs be,
improved, and exhibits and condemns the measures of the French assembly
as precipitate, unjust, and doomed to failure. Splendid alike as a
literary achievement and as a store-house of political wisdom, it is
also remarkable as a proof of Burke's prescience, for though he wrote at
an early stage of the revolution, before those savage excesses which
have made it a by-word, he foretold its future course, not indeed
without errors, but with wonderful sagacity. Superbly national in
sentiment, the book met the propaganda of French ideas by appealing to
the pride with which Englishmen regarded their own institutions. Its
success was immense. Paine answered it in his _Rights of Man_,
expressing revolutionary ideas with a crude force which influenced
thousands too ignorant to detect its fallacies; and Mackintosh in his
_Vindiciae Gallicae_ expounded in polished sentences the position of the
whig sympathisers with the revolution. Neither undid the effect of
Burke's work. Of the well-to-do of all classes there was scarcely one
man in twenty who did not become an ardent anti-jacobin.
[Sidenote: _RUPTURE BETWEEN BURKE AND FOX._]
Stimulated by the success of the _Reflections_, Fox lost no opportunity
of declaring his admiration of the revolution in parliament, and his
followers irritated Burke by thwarting his attempts to reply. At last
the crisis came during a debate on a bill for the government of Canada.
After the settlement of the United Empire Loyalists in western Canada,
the demands of the British colonists for the repeal of the Quebec act of
1774 became urgent. Pitt recognised the value of the French population
as a conservative force, a check on revolt, and in order to do justice
to both peoples, introduced a bill dividing the dominion into two
provinces, Upper and Lower Canada, each with its own governor, elective
assembly, and legislative council. Burke supported this measure, which
was passed, and is known as the constitutional act of 1791. Fox objected
to the principle of the bill on the ground that the French and English
inhabitants should coalesce, and to two special provisions in it, one
that the sovereign might grant hereditary titles with a right to sit in
the council, the other reserving certain crown lands for the support of
the protestant clergy. He blamed the proposal to revive titles of honour
in Canada when they had been abolished in France, and jeered at Burke's
lament in the _Reflections_ on the extinction of the spirit of chivalry
among the French. A few days later, on May 6, Burke, after much baiting
by Fox's party, spoke strongly of the danger of French propagandism, and
declared that at the risk of the desertion of friends he would exclaim
with his latest breath, "Fly from the French constitution!" "There is no
loss of friends," Fox whispered. "Yes," he said, "there is a loss of
friends. I have done my duty at the price of my friend; our friendship
is at an end." When Fox rose to reply the tears trickled down his
cheeks. The rupture was permanent. Burke stood alone. His former friends
treated him as a renegade, and the whig newspapers showered abuse upon
him. His answer was a powerful vindication of the consistency of his
position in his _Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs_, which had a
decided effect on the opinions of many of Fox's party.
In June came the French king's flight to Varennes and his enforced
return to Paris. His queen Marie Antoinette appealed to her brother the
emperor for help. Leopold would do nothing save in concert with the
other great powers, and learnt that England would take no part in a
congress.[230] Pitt, always more interested in domestic reforms than in
foreign politics, had no intention of interfering in the internal
affairs of France. War would hinder the commercial progress of the
country; he wanted fifteen years of peace to secure the full benefits of
his economic reforms: his policy was one of strict neutrality. He shared
in the general belief, so soon proved to be mistaken, that the
revolution would prevent France from engaging in war and would ensure
years of peace to England; the funds were high and commerce was
flourishing. Leopold could only look to Prussia for co-operation. The
attitude of England decided that of Spain. Gustavus of Sweden was,
indeed, eager for a war of a crusading kind to re-establish the old
_regime_, but this idea was contrary to the policy of both Austria and
Prussia, and Gustavus allied himself with the French emigrant princes
who commanded an army at Coblentz; themselves selfish and intriguing,
their army undisciplined and ill-provided; Leopold rated them at their
proper value and was on his guard against them. Frederick William,
untrustworthy as he was, seems to have been sincerely anxious to help
the French king. Leopold hoped to avoid war; he distrusted Prussia, and
the designs of Catherine on Poland caused both sovereigns to hesitate.
In August, however, the diet demanded that Leopold should support
certain princes of the German empire against France. He held a
conference with Frederick William at Pilnitz, and on the 27th the two
monarchs signed a declaration that they would employ force on behalf of
the French king, provided that the powers to which they applied would
join them. Leopold knew that England would refuse, and the declaration
was nugatory. It enraged the French, and was used by the _emigres_ as
though it promised the fulfilment of their hopes for an invasion of
France by a foreign confederation. Calonne, who acted as their minister,
applied to Pitt for an assurance of neutrality and for a loan. Pitt
refused his requests and would not recognise him as having any formal
authority. On September 13 Louis was forced to accept the new French
constitution, and Leopold declared that his acceptance put an end to all
need for intervention.
[Sidenote: _REVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDA._]
The French were not content to leave other peoples alone. To the more
ardent revolutionists the revolution was not a mere political event in
the history of their country; it was a religion which it was the mission
of France to propagate. No part of France was to remain outside it; the
feudal rights of princes of the empire in Alsace and Lorraine were
abolished, and Avignon and the Venaissin were declared French territory.
No people wishing to share in its benefits was to be left unenlightened,
and French democrats were already intriguing with the factions in the
Netherlands which were opposed to the Austrian rule. In England the
propaganda had as yet made little way, though the democrats were noisy.
At Birmingham, where Priestley had his chapel, they arranged to hold a
dinner on July 14 to celebrate the fall of the Bastille, and a seditious
address was circulated. In the evening of that day a violent riot broke
out. The mob, with shouts of "Church and king," wrecked two dissenting
chapels and seven houses belonging to prominent democrats, one of them
Priestley's house, where they destroyed his library, philosophical
apparatus, and papers. The riot lasted for two days and was finally
quelled by dragoons. Three of the rioters were hanged, and over L26,000
was paid by the neighbouring hundreds as compensation to the sufferers.
Though both as a king and as a German prince George was indignant at the
proceedings of the French revolutionists, he fully acquiesced in Pitt's
determined neutrality. How little at the beginning of the session of
1792 Pitt expected to be driven from his position is shown by the line
which he adopted in parliament. The king's speech declared that the
state of Europe seemed to promise that the country would continue to
enjoy tranquillity. The naval force was reduced to 16,000 men, and the
proposed reductions in the two services amounted to L200,000. For the
last four years there had been an average yearly surplus of L400,000,
and Pitt proposed to add L200,000 a year to the sinking fund and to
remit taxes to the same amount. He also instituted an additional system
for the reduction of debt by providing that every new loan should carry
a sinking fund of its own. When this scheme was before the lords,
Thurlow poured ridicule upon it, and spoke of its author with contempt.
The king wrote to Pitt, hoping that his old friend would own himself in
the wrong, and that Pitt would overlook the offence. Pitt, who had borne
long enough with Thurlow's sullen temper and constant opposition, told
the king plainly that he must choose between him and the chancellor.
George did not hesitate, and Thurlow, much to his surprise, received an
order to give up the great seal. He retired at the end of the session,
on June 15, and the great seal was put in commission. Pitt's ascendency
in the cabinet was placed beyond dispute. The dismissal of Thurlow marks
a step in the progress of the development of the cabinet system. It was
no longer possible, as in the earlier years of the reign, for a minister
to remain in office, through the king's favour, against the will of the
prime minister. When a prime minister is dissatisfied with one of his
colleagues he can insist on his resignation, for if he requests his
dismissal, his request cannot be rejected unless the sovereign is
prepared to take new advisers.
[Sidenote: _A WHIG SCHEME OF COALITION._]
The loss of the chancellor was erroneously believed to have weakened
the government. Some of the whig party, of which the Duke of Portland
was the recognised head, busied themselves in devising a coalition
government. Apart from the sweets of office, the condition of their
party rendered the idea specially attractive to them. Burke's appeal to
the whigs to maintain their old principles, which he urged in person at
a meeting of the heads of the party on June 9, 1792, convinced them that
unless Fox moderated "his tone and temper," it might become impossible
for them to continue to work with him. A junction with the government
might save them from disruption. It was proposed that Pitt should resign
the treasury, that he and Fox should be joint secretaries of state and
that the treasury should be held by the Duke of Leeds, as a neutral, who
would be little more than a figure-head. This precious scheme, chiefly,
at least, set on foot by Loughborough in the hope of gaining the
chancellorship, was debated among them for weeks. Loughborough, who was
not a man to be trusted, led them to believe that some of Pitt's
confidential friends were in favour of it, and had assured him that Pitt
would readily agree to it. Fox approved of the idea of coalition if he
was to have an equal share with Pitt of power and patronage. Leeds
mentioned the idea of a coalition to the king, who received it coldly,
for George hated Fox; he did not intend to alter his government to suit
the whig leaders, and he knew that they were mistaken as regards Pitt's
attitude. At last Leeds spoke of the scheme to Pitt who drily told him
that circumstances did not call for any alteration in the government and
that no new arrangement had ever been in contemplation.[231] If the
Portland whigs were to separate themselves from Fox and his friends and
were to support the government, they would have to support the
government of Pitt, and that after a while, as we shall see, they
resolved to do.
Early in 1792 war between France and Austria and Prussia seemed at hand.
The French ministers hoped to obtain an alliance with England, or at the
least an assurance of neutrality in case of an invasion of the
Netherlands, and to arrange a loan. They were prepared to offer Tobago
and even Mauritius to boot. Talleyrand, the ex-Bishop of Autun, came
over in an unofficial capacity to see how matters stood and to intrigue
with the opposition. At court the king treated him coldly and the queen
turned her back on him. He had interviews with Pitt and Grenville, and
got nothing out of them; he received much attention from the opposition
and returned to France in March. Meanwhile, on February 7, Leopold,
unable to disregard the call of the diet and uneasy about the
Netherlands, agreed with Frederick William to restore order in France,
both allies intending to be indemnified. Yet war did not come at once,
and on March 1 Leopold died. His son and successor, Francis II., was
less distrustful of Prussia, and was eager for war. Under the influence
of a party, somewhat later known as the Girondists, the French assembly
was brought to desire war with Austria. On the accession of this party
to power Dumouriez became minister of foreign affairs. He designed to
detach Prussia from the Austrian alliance, isolate Austria, invade the
Austrian Netherlands, where the people seemed ready for revolt, and
establish them as an independent republic, and prosecute further plans
for the extension of France to its "natural barriers". Gustavus was
assassinated, and Sweden adopted a neutral policy; Russia, though
violently hostile, was engaged in Poland, England decided the policy of
Spain and would be followed by Holland. Would England oppose an invasion
of the Netherlands on the understanding that France would not conquer
them for herself; could the government be persuaded to an alliance by
offers of Tobago, a mutual guarantee of possessions, and a treaty of
commerce; and could a loan be arranged? Negotiation on these points was
entrusted to Talleyrand who was to accompany Chauvelin, the accredited
ambassador, to England.[232] On April 20 France declared war on the
"King of Hungary and Bohemia," as Francis was entitled before his
election.
[Sidenote: _SEDITIOUS PUBLICATIONS._]
While England's official relations with France remained friendly,
dislike of the revolution was growing stronger, and the more moderate
whigs were changing their opinions with regard to it. This change was
largely due to the active propagation of revolutionary ideas among the
lower classes, which was carried on by various societies. The Friends of
the People, a respectable association of the more extreme whigs,
excluding Fox, who would not join it, was formed in the spring of 1792
to promote parliamentary reform; some of its proceedings were
discreditable, but it kept clear of connexion with the French
revolutionists. Not so the Revolution Society, the Society for
Constitutional Information, and the London Correspondence Society, which
were in correspondence with the jacobins of Paris. The last, the most
formidable of them, was directed by a secret council, and had branches
in various large towns, the Sheffield branch alone numbering 2,400
members. Meetings were held in which the most violent revolutionary
sentiments were loudly applauded, and seditious handbills and pamphlets,
chief among them the second part of Paine's _Rights of Man_, were
distributed by tens of thousands. Though the number of persons who
adopted revolutionary ideas was as yet comparatively small, the
propaganda was carried on noisily, and was certainly gaining ground. The
government saw that it was time to interfere, and, on May 21, issued a
royal proclamation against seditious writings. The address to the crown
in answer to the proclamation was opposed in the commons by Grey. Fox
supported him, and declared that the proclamation was merely a move
taken by the government to divide the "whig interest," which, he said,
nothing could divide. Nevertheless Windham and others of Fox's party
supported the government, and the address was carried without a
division. Proceedings were taken against Paine by the attorney-general;
he fled to France and became a member of the convention. For a time the
propaganda was checked.
The feeling which it excited strengthened the government. Acting in
connexion with the Society of the Friends of the People, Grey gave
notice of a motion for a reform of parliament. Pitt said that it was
"not a time to make hazardous experiments"; and though Fox, Erskine, and
Sheridan spoke on the other side, he was supported by the larger number
of the party. Pitt was delighted at this split, and hoped to obtain a
pledge of co-operation against the propaganda from "the most respectable
members of opposition".[233] Matters were not ripe for this. An attempt
of Fox to procure the relief of the unitarians from penal laws was
defeated by a large majority, owing to the active part which they were
taking in spreading principles subversive, so Pitt said, "of every
established religion and every established government". Chauvelin and
Talleyrand found themselves avoided by society generally. They held
constant communication with Fox, Sheridan, Lord Lansdowne, and other
enemies of the government; and Chauvelin had the impertinence to send a
remonstrance to Grenville against the proclamation of May 21, for which
he was duly rebuked. All that they could obtain from Grenville was an
assurance that England desired to remain at peace with France, and hoped
that France would respect the rights of the king and his allies; if, in
other words, the French wished England to remain neutral, they must keep
their hands off Holland. No better success attended the effort to detach
Prussia from the Austrian alliance, and the Prussian king declared
himself at war with France.
An attempt of the French to snatch the Austrian Netherlands ended
miserably; their soldiers fled before the emperor's army of occupation
on April 29, mutinied, and murdered one of their generals. The allied
armies under the Duke of Brunswick were gathering, and Paris was in a
ferment. Neither of the two national assemblies, not the first, called
the constituent, nor its successor, the legislative assembly, could
govern. The Paris mob, bestial and sanguinary, was supreme, and was
moved from time to time to violent action by individuals or groups which
played upon and pandered to its passions. On June 20 a carefully
engineered insurrection exposed the king and queen to cruel insults and
imminent danger. The long agony of the monarchy was drawing to a close.
After protracted delays the allies began to move, and, on July 25,
Brunswick published an ill-judged manifesto which excited the French to
fury. The British ambassador, Lord Gower, wrote that the lives of the
king and queen were threatened, and asked if he might represent the
sentiments of his court. Determined not to give any cause of offence,
the government refused to allow him to speak officially. On August 10
another prearranged insurrection was raised in Paris; the king and queen
sought refuge with the assembly, and the king's Swiss guards and
officers were massacred. He and the queen were imprisoned, and royalty
was "suspended". Gower was at once recalled. This was not a hostile act;
the king to whom he was accredited no longer reigned, and to have
accredited him to the provisional government, which had deposed the
king, would have been indecent and a just cause of offence to the allied
powers. Before leaving he was instructed to express his master's
determination to remain neutral, and his earnest hope that the king and
queen would be safe from any violence, "which could not fail to produce
one universal sentiment of indignation throughout every country of
Europe". Talleyrand left England; Chauvelin remained, though the king's
deposition deprived him of his character as ambassador.
[Sidenote: _FRENCH CONQUESTS._]
The allied armies entered France; Longwy surrendered on the 26th and
Verdun on the 31st. A few days later England was horrified by the news
of the massacres of September; the indignation was general, and Fox
spoke of the massacres with genuine disgust. The success of the allies
was short-lived; Dumouriez defeated the Prussians at Valmy on September
20, and before the end of October the invaders were forced to evacuate
France. A French army seized Savoy and Nice, which were annexed to
France, and another overran the principalities on the left bank of the
Rhine, receiving the surrenders of Speyer, Worms, and Mainz, crossed the
river and took Frankfort. Meanwhile Dumouriez entered the Austrian
Netherlands; he defeated the Austrians at Jemappes, and the Netherlands
were lost to the emperor. Everywhere the French posed as liberators and
set up republican institutions. While France was allured by the
Girondist idea of universal emancipation, it carried on the traditions
of the old monarchy in its aggressions; it was so in the Rhineland and
the Netherlands, and it was so with regard to the Dutch republic. French
republicanism was industriously propagated in the provinces, and the
"patriot" party, which was defeated in 1787, was again encouraged to
revolt. Determined not to be drawn into war, the British government, in
July, warned the states-general not to be persuaded to join the allies,
and the Dutch remained neutral. In November, a victorious French army
was on their border, and a strong party among them was ready to
co-operate with it by overthrowing the stadholder as soon as it entered
their territory. England was bound alike by honour and her own interest
to defend the stadholder, and the French knew that, if they desired that
England should remain neutral, they must not molest Holland. On the
13th the states-general applied to England for an assurance of help if
need arose. It was, Pitt felt, "absolutely impossible to hesitate," and
Grenville assured the states-general that England would faithfully
fulfil the stipulations of the treaty of 1788.
[Sidenote: _FRENCH PROVOCATIONS._]
Holland was in imminent danger, and in the hope that some combined
action might lead to a general pacification, the English government
sought to open confidential communications with Austria and Prussia. The
replies of the two powers were delayed; they were arranging for their
respective indemnifications; for their plans were upset by the failure
of their invasion of France. Catherine had invaded Poland in the spring,
and Frederick William, who had more than once guaranteed the integrity
of the kingdom, betrayed the Poles, and agreed with the empress to make
a second partition of Poland between themselves. That was to be his
indemnity; the emperor was to be gratified by being allowed to exchange
the Netherlands for Bavaria. Great Britain protested, but in vain. The
second partition of Poland was carried out in 1793. Scarcely had
Grenville assured the Dutch that England would stand by them, when, on
the 16th, the French executive declared the Scheldt open, and soon
afterwards sent ships of war by it to Antwerp. This decree violated the
rights of the Dutch, which had been confirmed by the treaty of
Fontainebleau in 1785, and which England was bound to defend by the
treaty of 1788. It showed that France assumed the right of subverting
the political system of Europe by setting treaties at nought, and it was
a direct defiance of England.
Nor was this the only provocation which England received. The downfall
of the French monarchy excited the revolutionary societies to fresh
activity, and the propaganda was carried on with amazing insolence.
Deputations from these societies appeared before the national convention
with congratulatory addresses and were received with effusion. The
constitutional society, for example, hoped that Frenchmen would soon
have to congratulate an English national convention, and the president
in reply expressed his belief that France would soon hail England as a
sister-republic. Emissaries from the French ministry promoted sedition
both in England and in Ireland, and their reports led their employers to
believe that England, Scotland, and Ireland were ripe for revolt.[234]
It was an absurd mistake. Yet though the number of revolutionists was
still comparatively small, the propaganda caused much uneasiness.
Thousands of French refugees were landing in England, mostly priests and
members of the aristocracy, many of them completely destitute.
Subscriptions were raised for their relief, and Burke and others exerted
themselves nobly in their behalf. This large immigration made it easy
for French spies and revolutionary agents to carry on their work
undetected. Its progress was helped forward by discontent among the
lower class. The harvest was bad and the price of wheat rose, trade was
depressed, and there was much distress, specially in the manufacturing
districts. Riots broke out at Carlisle, Leeds, Yarmouth, Shields, Leith,
Perth, and Dundee, and in some cases were connected with revolutionary
sentiments. At Dundee cries were raised of "No excise, no king," and a
tree of liberty was planted. On November 19 the convention openly
asserted its right to overthrow the government of other countries by
decreeing that France would help, and would instruct her generals to
help, all peoples that desired freedom; and an order was given that
translations of this decree should be distributed in all countries. The
decree was an invitation to the subjects of every state in Europe to
revolt, and the propaganda which it authorised was a gross insult to the
British government and nation.
The danger of Holland and the activity of revolutionists at home
convinced the ministry that it was time to take measures of defence. On
December 1 a part of the militia was embodied, and parliament was
summoned for the 13th; the Tower was fortified, naval preparations were
set on foot, a squadron was ordered to the mouth of the Scheldt, and an
order of council prohibited the exportation of grain to France.
Grenville informed the Dutch that England was arming, and called on them
to arm also. Pitt still hoped for peace, and suggested to a French envoy
that his government should give him assurances through an authorised
agent with respect to the safety of Holland and the decree of November
19. The executive council would only treat through Chauvelin, who was
offensive.[235] On the 27th he demanded whether England was to be
reckoned neutral or an enemy of France; he protested that the decree did
not apply to England, and that no attack would be made on Holland, but
said that France would not give way as to the Scheldt, and threatened
that if the ministers decided on war, they would find the nation against
them. Already a decree of the convention passed on the 15th had ordained
that all states occupied by French armies should virtually be subject to
France, and should contribute to the support of the French troops. The
war of "liberation" had become a war of conquest.[236] Grenville replied
to Chauvelin on the 31st to the effect that the protestations of the
executive council were belied by its conduct, that England could not
consent that France should annul treaties at her pleasure, or be
indifferent to her assumption of sovereignty over the Netherlands, and
that if she desired England's friendship, she should abandon her views
of aggression and cease to insult or disturb other governments.[237]
[Sidenote: _DISRUPTION OF THE WHIG PARTY._]
During the first days of the session Pitt was absent; he had at the
king's earnest wish accepted the valuable sinecure office of warden of
the Cinque Ports, and was not yet re-elected. In moving an amendment to
the address on the 14th Fox made a violent attack on the government. At
that critical time when England's welfare demanded that party enmities
should yield before the importance of union against sedition at home and
aggression abroad, he did not scruple to declare that the government had
wilfully exaggerated domestic disturbances, in order to establish a
system of oppression more intolerable than "the horrors of the
inquisition of Spain," and implied that the ministers were hostile to
France merely because France was, as he jeeringly said, "an unanointed
republic". Windham and other whigs voted against him, and his amendment
was rejected by 290 to 50. He returned to the charge, but spoke more
moderately, on the next day and again on the next, with a motion for
sending an ambassador to Paris, which was negatived without a division.
The disruption of the whig party was obvious; Portland, Fitzwilliam,
Spencer, Carlisle, and Loughborough in the lords, and in the commons
Windham, Elliot, and many more voted with the government, and Burke took
his seat on the treasury bench. Loughborough received the great seal on
January 28, 1793, but the rest as yet gave the ministers independent
support. An addition of 9,000 men to the naval force and increased army
estimates were voted unanimously, Fox declaring his approval on the
ground that the position of foreign affairs demanded them. An alien bill
was also carried, subjecting foreign immigrants to police regulations
and empowering the secretary of state to expel them. This bill was
opposed in the lords by Lansdowne, and in the commons by Fox and Grey.
In the course of an almost frenzied speech in support of it, Burke threw
a dagger on the floor of the house, a specimen, he said, of three
thousand which, he was informed on excellent authority, had been ordered
in Birmingham by an English revolutionist.
Chauvelin, whose credentials as "minister plenipotentiary of the French
republic" were not accepted by the English court protested against the
alien bill and the prohibition of the export of grain, and declared that
France considered the treaty of commerce of 1786 broken and annulled.
The two measures excited the indignation of the convention; the speedy
downfall of England was triumphantly predicted; 3,000,000 Irishmen were
ready to revolt, and India would shake off the British rule as soon as
the French appeared in Asia. The executive council was pressed to demand
the repeal of both measures, and a satisfactory explanation of the
English military preparations, and orders were given for the immediate
armament of a fleet. While the French ministers were already preparing
for a descent on England,[238] and France was reducing the Austrian
Netherlands to a merely municipal status, the contemplated invasion of
Holland was delayed by the condition of the French army; and
negotiations with England were carried on. Believing that if the English
people were assured with respect to the Netherlands and the intention of
France not to interfere in their domestic concerns, they would declare
against the government in case of a war, the French foreign minister
protested that the occupation of the Netherlands was merely temporary,
that France looked forward to Belgian independence, and that the decree
of November 19 only applied to a case where the general will of the
people was expressed. The opening of the Scheldt was defended as
authorised by the law of nature. This paper, which was a kind of
ultimatum, did not withdraw the claim to propagate republicanism in
other states or to annul the treaty rights of England's allies, and put
no definite limit to the occupation of the Austrian Netherlands.
Grenville returned a haughty answer. War was almost certain. The
execution of the French king on the 21st hastened the end. The tidings
were received in London with universal grief and indignation; the
theatres were closed, and not the court alone, but all who could afford
it, wore mourning. As the king drove through the streets, cries were
raised of "War with France!" Chauvelin was ordered to quit the kingdom
in eight days, and left at once. On February 1 France declared war on
England and Holland. In common with the nation at large, George welcomed
the declaration of war; the "insolence" of France irritated him, and the
execution of the French king was an insult and a menace to every crowned
head in Europe; yet the order of the king in council for Chauvelin's
departure was of course given on the advice of the ministers.[239]
[Sidenote: _WAR WITH FRANCE._]
Pitt had striven long and earnestly to avoid war. It was finally forced
upon him. Grossly as the government was provoked by French attempts to
spread republicanism in the king's dominions, that alone would not have
forced him into war; the great mass of the English people was thoroughly
loyal, and the resources of government were sufficient to deal with
sedition. But England was bound in honour to defend the rights of the
Dutch, and her own security demanded that she should withstand the
French designs of aggrandisement. Burke would have had war declared on
France as an enemy of God and mankind, because she trampled on
institutions which he regarded as sacred in themselves and essential to
the well-being of society. The feelings of the nation were excited by
the excesses of the revolution, until the crowning act of the king's
execution called forth a demand for war; and as the war went on hatred
of French principles made Englishmen willing to bear the heavy burdens
it entailed. But in the great decision Pitt was unmoved by sentiments
such as these. Unlike the rulers of Austria and Prussia, the government
was not embarking on a war either of principles or ambition, not on a
crusade against republicanism nor, in its inception, a struggle for
extended dominions; its object was to maintain the honour and the
security of England. The opening of the Scheldt by France was a far more
serious matter for England than if Leopold II. had succeeded in his
attempt to carry out the same measure; for France was a great maritime
power and entertained schemes of boundless ambition. That she
contemplated the annexation of the Austrian Netherlands and the conquest
of Holland was certain, and if she became mistress of the Netherlands
and Holland, and had Antwerp as a station for her fleet, the security of
England would be at an end.
Security could only be attained either by war or by an alliance with the
republic, which would have been repugnant to the nation, would have made
England partner in unjustifiable aggressions, and would have betrayed
the interests of Europe to France. While it may be urged that the
haughty tone adopted by Grenville during the last few weeks of peace
irritated France, and that the dismissal of Chauvelin put an end to
further attempts at reconciliation, it will scarcely be denied that the
government was justified in refusing to prolong useless communications,
and that it acted wisely in taking a decided step when the country was
thoroughly prepared to support its decision. Having to choose between
war and all that an alliance with France would have entailed, England
chose war, and took her stand in the breach which France made in the
political system, true to herself and finally the saviour of Europe.
The violent opposition of Fox seems to have proceeded from mixed causes.
That he sincerely loved liberty must be allowed, but he was less
attracted by the constitutional liberty of Burke's devotion, which like
some stately building grows towards completeness as each successive
generation enters into and carries on the labours of its predecessors,
than by the cause of liberty, whether truly or falsely so called, in
revolt. Unbridled in his own life, he loved resistance to authority. And
he was one of those, in England unfortunately there are always such, who
rate the cause they love above their country's cause. It was so with
him during the American war. When he would describe how much an event
pleased him he wrote, "no public event, not excepting Saratoga and
Yorktown, ever gave me so much delight". It was so during the war with
France. His opposition, however, also proceeded from hatred to the
government.[240] Abhorred by the king and rejected by the country, he
resented his exclusion from office by opposing the government at a time
when Englishmen should have sunk all party differences in the face of
their country's peril. He ascribed the measures taken to repress
sedition and defeat the French propaganda as attempts at tyranny. While
he acknowledged that the opening of the Scheldt was a _casus belli_, he
spoke of it as a matter which England could well afford to overlook, and
he represented the action of the government as unfair to France and as
the result of monarchical prejudice. As the war went on his unpatriotic
feelings were constantly displayed in a most offensive manner. His
conduct broke up the whig party. England was entering on a period of
fearful conflict; happy at least in that the confidence of the nation
was given to a statesman whose one absorbing care was for the welfare of
his country.
FOOTNOTES:
[229] _Political Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds_, pp. 150-52; Lecky,
_Hist._, v., 222-99.
[230] Sorel, _L'Europe et la Revolution Francaise_, ii., 236.
[231] _Political Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds_, p. 194.
[232] Sorel, _u.s._, ii., 417-23.
[233] _Auckland Corr._, ii., 401-3.
[234] Sorel, _u.s._, iii., 214-15.
[235] _Ibid._, 221-22, 225, 229.
[236] Sorel, _u.s._, iii., 235-37, 259; Sybel, _Geschichte der
Revolutionzeit_, French trans. _Histoire de l'Europe pendant la
Revolution Francaise_, ii., 58-60.
[237] Correspondence between M. Chauvelin and Lord Grenville, _Parl.
Hist._, xxx., 250-56.
[238] Sorel, _u.s._, iii., 243.
[239] Pitt to Grenville, Jan. 23, 1793, and following letters, _Dropmore
Papers_, ii. 371-72, 378.
[240] _Memorials of C. J. Fox_, iii., 349.