THE FIRST COALITION.
The nine years between Pitt's accession to office and the outbreak of
the war with France were a period of advance in constitutional freedom
and financial prosperity. All progress in these directions was arrested
by the war. The security of England, a matter of higher importance than
these, was at stake. The war demanded all the energies of the nation.
Questions which would have divided the country or weakened the
government were shelved, for it was not a time to debate reforms when
the state itself was in peril. Pitt defeated efforts for parliamentary
reform and grew cold to the cause of the abolition of the slave trade.
But the war brought worse than an arrest of progress; it brought
repression of freedom and a tremendous load of debt. The French
propaganda roused general indignation and alarm. Towards the end of 1792
the ministers were convinced of the existence of a plot for effecting a
revolution by the aid of France. There was much to justify their alarm;
Ireland seemed ripe for revolt, political discontent was strong in
Scotland, and evidence, gained later, confirmed them in their belief
that sedition was reaching a dangerous height in England. They overrated
the existing danger, though if sedition had remained unchecked it might
soon have become dangerous; for France was attacking the state by secret
seduction as well as by open arms. Extraordinary precautions were taken
to meet a peril which was specially terrible because its extent was
unknown. Measures of repression were eagerly welcomed by parliament;
judges and magistrates exercised their powers with harshness, and juries
were often biassed by the feeling of the bench. The nation was alarmed,
and severity was popular.
[Sidenote: _PITT AS A WAR MINISTER._]
Pitt, who had guided England in peace, was to remain at the helm in
war. The conduct of the war is therefore closely connected with the
question whether, great as he was in peace, he was a great war
minister.[241] The British army, which in 1792 only numbered about
17,300 men and at the outbreak of the war was increased by 9,945, was so
small that it could only either act a secondary part in a continental
war, or engage in isolated expeditions to support insurrections in
France. During the first part of the war our successes on land were
trifling and our failures many. This was partly at least due to the
custom of regarding noble birth rather than military attainments as a
claim to command. Though Pitt, as we shall see, insisted on the recall
of the Duke of York, he did not break through this evil custom, and our
generals, though brave, were often incompetent. Pitt built great hopes
on the co-operation of the French royalists and many expeditions were
sent out to act with them. A belligerent power should place little
dependence on insurrectionary movements in an enemy's country; for
insurgents, however hostile they may be to their own government, will
seldom act cordially with a foreign invader; their forces are generally
unorganised, and they are apt to expect too much of their foreign ally.
It is good policy to encourage them by sending them supplies, for their
revolts embarrass their government and are useful as diversions in war.
But a belligerent should not squander on diversions strength which might
be employed in the main conflict. Pitt's expeditions of this kind were
costly failures; they inflicted no deadly wound and were expensive both
in men and money. On the other hand England was victorious by sea; the
naval force was raised to 45,000 men in February, 1793, was constantly
increased, and was commanded by admirals whose right to command was
based on their skill in seamanship and maritime warfare.
For the security of England and the peace of Europe France, it was held,
must be reduced to powerlessness. England's greatness at sea might
enable her to destroy the enemy's commerce, conquer her colonies, and
blockade her ports; the object of the war could be attained only by
victories on land. Politically the continental states were rotten; their
rulers were selfish despots, each bent on extending his dominions by
any means, however dishonest; for international morality had broken
down before the bait offered by the weakness of Poland. What barrier
could they oppose to the flood of French aggression, the outcome of the
enthusiasm of a great people? When France forced England into war she
provoked a more dangerous enemy--the will of a nation. Supported by the
national will, Pitt embarked on the task of combining the powers of
Europe against France, and as some were unwilling and some unable to
fight at their own expense, he paid them with English gold, and England
found money for them as well as for her own naval and military
operations. Pitt raised enormous loans. The funded debt, which in 1792
was, roughly, L238,000,000, rose during nine years of war to about
L574,000,000. He began to borrow at once; in 1793 he raised a loan of
L4,500,000, and in 1794 another of L11,000,000, besides imposing new
taxes amounting to L913,000.
He has been blamed for not raising more by taxation during the early
years of the war instead of burdening posterity so heavily. The
financial difficulties of France led him to believe that the war would
be short. "It will be a short war," he said, "and certainly ended in one
or two campaigns." "No, sir," replied the more prescient Burke, "it will
be a long war and a dangerous war; but it must be undertaken." In its
earliest years Pitt had good reason for avoiding high taxation. It began
in the midst of a financial crisis. The harvest of 1792 was seriously
defective, and there was much want. The rapid advance in agriculture,
commerce, and manufactures had led to the foundation of many country
banks, which eagerly pushed their own notes into circulation, and credit
was unduly strained. Currency became redundant, and a violent revulsion
began in November, 1792, when the number of bankruptcies in the month
amounted to 105, more than double the average number of the ten earlier
months of the year. The crisis became more acute in the spring of 1793,
and during the year there were 1,926 failures, of which twenty-six were
failures of country banks. In order to relieve the distress Pitt, in
April, obtained the assent of parliament for the issue of exchequer
bills to the extent of L5,000,000 to be applied in advances at fair
interest and on good security. Fox offered a factious opposition to this
measure, alleging that it conferred a dangerous power on the executive.
It was completely successful, and the panic was checked. As, then, Pitt
believed that the war would be short, and as it was not a time for
attempting to raise taxation to an amount sufficient to furnish the
supplies within the year, he was justified in having an early recourse
to loans.
In return for the L336,000,000 of debt created by Pitt in nine years,
the country only received about L223,000,000 in money; and he has been
accused of extravagance because he raised money mainly in 3 per cent.
stock instead of at a rate more nearly corresponding to its market
value. In 1793 every L100 borrowed created L138 stock, and when in 1797
the 3 per cents. fell to 47, the sacrifice was enormous. Pitt did
attempt to raise a loan at a higher rate in 1793, and found it
impossible; and it is at least doubtful whether he did not act more
prudently in borrowing in the 3 per cents. than at a high rate.[242] In
his budget speech of 1793 he announced that he would always maintain the
sinking fund. He kept his promise, and this expensive economy provided a
deduction of L42,500,000 from the L336,000,000 of debt. Financially, as
we have seen, this was a mistake; politically it was useful in
encouraging and comforting the country in a time of stress; for the
opposition was as fully persuaded as the ministry of the efficacy of the
fund. If, then, it be allowed that the war was just and necessary,
little fault should be found with the way in which money was provided
for it. That Pitt's subsidies were sometimes unwise may be conceded;
that his coalitions disappointed him is certain. He had to contend with
selfishness and deceit in the rulers of Europe, and laboured with
ability and courage to keep them steadfast to the common cause, again
and again taking up his task, undismayed by failures which are not to be
laid to his charge. While mistakes in the conduct of the war forbid us
to call him a great war minister in the narrow sense of the term, we
should scarcely refuse that praise in a wider, truer sense to a minister
so dauntless in adversity, so fertile in resource, so deservedly trusted
by the nation as "the pilot that weathered the storm".
[Sidenote: _THE COALITION FORMED._]
In March the government hired troops from Hanover and Hesse Cassel; and
during the year, Holland being already an ally, made treaties hostile
to France with all the other Christian powers of Europe except Denmark,
Sweden, the Swiss, Tuscany Venice, and Genoa, which decided on
neutrality. The emperor and the Prussian king agreed to carry on the war
in concert with England. Catherine of Russia made a treaty of commerce,
and another promising co-operation against the commerce of France. Her
army was engaged in Poland, and she took no part in the war beyond
carrying out her engagement by means of her fleet. In May, the
convention declared war on Spain and the king entered into the
coalition. The King of Sardinia was already at war, and the British
government granted him a subsidy of L200,000 to enable him to keep up
his army, and agreed to send a fleet into the Mediterranean. A treaty
for concerted action in the Mediterranean was made with the king of the
Two Sicilies, and another treaty with Portugal, our ancient ally, which
became of importance after Spain deserted the coalition. The accession
of England to the enemies of France gave them a new weapon against her.
Great Britain and Russia agreed to prevent neutral ships from supplying
her with provisions, and, on June 8, British officers were ordered to
stop all ships so engaged and send them to England, where their cargoes
would be sold and their freights paid by the government.
The emperor did not relish the idea of a disinterested war; and
Grenville agreed that the allies should indemnify themselves, and should
make conquests on the Belgian frontier of France, which in Austrian
hands would form a strong barrier against her. This met the emperor's
views, for an enlargement of the Austrian Netherlands would forward his
plan of exchanging them for Bavaria. The proposed exchange, however, was
contrary to English policy, for it would have created a weak state on
the French frontier. As soon as war was declared, Dumouriez invaded
Holland, but was soon called back to Belgium, where the French were
losing ground. He was defeated at Neerwinden on March 18, and the French
withdrew from the Netherlands. They were unsuccessful on the Rhine, and
Mainz was threatened by the Prussians. Dissatisfied with the proceedings
of his government, Dumouriez intrigued with the enemy and finally fled
to the Austrian camp, but was unable to carry his army with him. On
April 8 a conference between representatives of the allies was held at
Antwerp. Lord Auckland, the British minister in Holland, appeared for
England, accompanied by the king's second son, the Duke of York, who was
to command the British and Hanoverian army. The allies agreed to make
conquests and keep them. Auckland declared that this was the policy of
his court. Austria was to gain places on the frontier which would shut
France out from the Netherlands, England would look to the conquest of
Dunkirk and the French colonies.[243]
On May 20 the British army with its Hanoverian and Hessian contingents
joined the Prince of Coburg, and took a distinguished part in driving
the French from their camp at Famars. The smart appearance of the
English troops was much admired, but their officers were careless. The
French army of the north was disorderly and discouraged. While the
regular troops generally behaved well, the volunteers, who had a
separate organisation and elected their own officers, were insubordinate
and lacking in soldierly qualities; the representatives of the people
who accompanied the army, though they did some good, meddled in military
matters; the generals were suspected, were constantly displaced, and
were fortunate if they escaped the scaffold; and the ministry of war was
utterly incompetent. The allies besieged Conde and Valenciennes; Conde
surrendered on July 13 and Valenciennes on the 28th, and the Austrians
took possession of both. Coburg's allies were anxious to secure
territory for themselves, and he had some difficulty in persuading them
to join him in an attack on the French at Caesar's camp, a strong
position covered by the Scheldt, the Sensee, and the Agache. The French
were driven out and fell back on Arras. France was in sore straits.
Mainz capitulated on July 23, and the army of the Moselle retreated
behind the Saar. On the Spanish frontier Roussillon was invaded. In the
Alps the republican army was driven back near Saorgio, and its best
troops were sent off to quell insurrection in the cities of the south;
for the country was torn by civil discord. The Girondins were overthrown
in June, and the party called the Mountain gained absolute power.
Bordeaux was a centre of resistance; Marseilles, Lyons, and Toulon were
in revolt, and were supported by the towns of the Jura and Provence. An
insurrection which began in the Vendean district of Anjou grew to a
formidable height. The army of La Vendee, of 40,000 men, defeated the
republican generals, captured Saumur, and threatened Nantes. Between
Basle and the sea the allies were 280,000 strong; an advance on Paris in
two directions, from the Belgian border by Soissons and from Mainz by
Reims, would almost certainly have ended the war. After the capture of
Caesar's camp the way to Paris lay open to Coburg; there was no French
force strong enough to arrest the march of the allies.[244]
[Sidenote: _DISCORDANT AIMS OF THE ALLIES._]
The coalition was paralysed by discord and by the insistence of its
members on the pursuit of different objects. The English ministers made
the security of the Netherlands as an Austrian province a prime
consideration, and to satisfy them the emperor promised to give up the
exchange of the Netherlands for Bavaria. He was to be indemnified by the
acquisition of Alsace and Lorraine, which were to be conquered by the
help of Prussia.[245] Frederick William, however, would not help to
conquer territory for Austria, nor assist in the dismemberment of
France, unless the emperor assented to the treaty for the partition of
Poland secretly arranged between him and Catherine of Russia, and signed
on January 23. Baron Thugut, the Austrian minister, who was violently
hostile toward Prussia, would not assent to a treaty which aggrandised
that power and did not give his master a share in the spoil. While,
then, France, distressed by invasion, revolt, and scarcity, seemed an
easy prey, Brunswick remained on the Rhine, and refused to co-operate
with Austria in Alsace, and Coburg was intent on gaining frontier towns.
The English government was anxious to secure its own share in the
conquests from France, and, on August 10, acting on instructions from
home, York went off with a force of 37,000 men, his own English and
German troops with 11,000 Austrians, to lay siege to Dunkirk. About the
same time Frederick William ordered 8,000 Prussian troops engaged in
Flanders to withdraw to Luxemburg, and Coburg invested Le Quesnoy.
On one side only was full advantage taken of the distress of France. In
consequence of the late disputes with Spain and Russia the British navy
was in an efficient state. Of 113 ships of the line nearly ninety were
in good condition. Howe commanded the channel fleet; he kept it at
Spithead, and it did nothing of importance during the year. The
Mediterranean fleet under Hood sailed in June and blockaded Toulon. The
insurrectionary movement at Marseilles was quelled by the convention,
and the royalists at Toulon were threatened by the jacobin forces.
Though the town was well supplied with provisions, the chiefs of the
royalist party persuaded the people that the only way to escape
starvation was to treat with the English. The inhabitants declared for
Louis XVII., the son of the late king, and the constitution of 1791, and
surrendered the town to Hood, together with the ships in the port,
thirty ships of the line, more than a third of the whole French line of
battle, and other smaller vessels. Hood received the forts and the ships
for King Louis and promised to restore them at the end of the war. He
invited the co-operation of the Spanish fleet under Langara and when it
appeared entered the harbour, on August 29. The news was received in
England with delight, and Grenville declared his belief that "the
business at Toulon" would probably be "decisive of the war". England
desired the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, and it was hoped
that the occupation of the place would strengthen the movement in that
direction in the south. The _emigre_ Count of Provence, the next younger
brother of Louis XVI., who had assumed the title of regent, desired the
government to allow him to enter the town. As the _emigres_ aimed at the
restoration of absolutism it would have been fatal to the hopes built on
the movement in the south in favour of a constitutional monarchy to have
granted his request, and it would have been unfair to the Toulonese who
stipulated for the acceptance of the constitution of 1791. Besides this,
the _emigres_ were strongly opposed to the policy of conquest adopted at
Antwerp; and, though Toulon was not to be taken from France, England
could not at that time encourage the count's pretensions. His presence
in the town would have been embarrassing to Hood, and he would certainly
have interfered with the defence. England did not acknowledge his claim
to the regency, and he was not admitted into Toulon.
While the allies were divided in purpose and action, the danger of
France and the violation of her territory roused the party in power to
energy in her defence. In August the second committee of public safety
decreed a _levee en masse_, and on the 23rd substituted for it a
universal conscription. Men were poured into the army, but they had to
be turned into soldiers; and efficient generals, and above all a
competent military administration, had to be provided. At this crisis
Carnot, who was to earn the title of "organiser of victories," took the
direction of the war. The new troops were at first worse than useless,
but after a while they were brought to order by being drafted into the
old battalions; the amalgamation of the volunteers with the regulars was
effected early in 1794, and the army of the revolution became a
well-ordered fighting machine. While the new levies of August, 1793,
were still undisciplined Carnot's genius began to raise the fortunes of
France.
[Sidenote: _HONDSCHOOTE._]
When York marched off to the siege of Dunkirk on August 10 he divided
his army into two corps, placing one, composed of 14,500 German and
Austrian troops, under Marshal Freytag, to act as an army of
observation, while he commanded the army of the siege in person. On his
march a detachment of his troops surprised and routed a French force at
Linselles while engaged in pillaging the place. He summoned Dunkirk on
the 23rd. The fleet, which was to have bombarded the town and brought a
siege-train, had not arrived. He was only able to invest the town on the
east, for the French laid the country between Bergues and Dunkirk under
water, and the causeway from Bergues was strongly defended. His army
occupied a wretched position, was in want of good water, and was cut off
from direct communication with Freytag, who was encamped in front of
Bergues.[246] On September 6-8 Freytag's army was attacked by a French
army under Houchard of nearly four times its strength. Walmoden, who
succeeded Freytag, might have avoided the battle of Hondschoote on the
8th; he fought in obedience to York's orders and was defeated with heavy
loss. York hastily retreated to Furnes. If Houchard had followed up his
success he might have crushed York's army. He turned aside to attack the
Dutch quartered on the Lys and routed them at Menin. Le Quesnoy
surrendered to the Austrians on the 11th, and Coburg invested Maubeuge.
Jourdan, the new commander of the army of the north, and Carnot, who
accompanied him, attacked and defeated the Austrian covering army at
Wattignies on October 16, and forced Coburg to raise the siege. This was
practically the end of the campaign, which closed far more favourably
for France than it had begun.
On the German frontier political disunion was fatal to the success of
the allies. Frederick William believed that the emperor's refusal to
accept the partition treaty encouraged the Poles to resist his demands.
He left the army of the Rhine, and went off to Posen to establish his
rule in his new dominions, ordering Brunswick not to engage in any
operations which might prevent him from sending him such troops as he
might call for. Wurmser, the Austrian commander, drove the French from
their lines at Weissenburg on October 13, but the limited co-operation
of the Prussian army was not enough to secure any material progress, and
finally, on December 26, Hoche inflicted a severe defeat on the
Austrians at the Geisberg. Wurmser retreated across the Rhine, and the
Prussians were forced to abandon the greater part of the Palatinate, and
withdrew to Mainz. No French territory on the north or east remained in
the hands of the allies except Conde, Valenciennes and Le Quesnoy, while
on the Italian frontier forward movements of the Piedmontese had ended
in failure and the King of Sardinia was reduced to a merely defensive
attitude.
The republican armies were not less successful against domestic foes
than against foreign invasion. The loss of Mainz in July set free a
large force which was used to lay waste La Vendee. The Vendeans applied
for help to the emigrant princes and to England. Pitt, though he would
not encourage the hopes of the princes, was willing to support a
movement which was weakening the enemy and might forward the
establishment of a constitutional monarchy. Stores were sent to
Noirmoutier for the insurgents and further help was promised. Some
80,000 Vendeans, of both sexes and all ages, crossed the Loire, marched
through Anjou, and made an attempt on Granville, in the hope of gaining
a port at which they might receive succour from England. An expedition
was prepared to help them, and a force of 12,000 men, emigres, British
troops, and others under the Earl of Moira, the Lord Rawdon of the
American war, arrived off the Norman coast on December 2. They made
signals but no answer was returned. The Vendeans had failed before
Granville and had retreated a few days before. As they were attempting
to return to their homes they were caught by a republican force; a large
number was massacred and the rest dispersed. The English expedition
returned without accomplishing anything.
[Sidenote: _EVACUATION OF TOULON._]
Toulon was threatened by the republicans both on the east and west,
while on the north Lyons was closely besieged. Hood despatched Nelson to
Naples for reinforcements which were sent by the king. Even with them
the garrison, made up of 2,000 British troops, Spaniards, Sardinians,
Neapolitans, and French royalists, many of them untrained, amounted to
only about 12,000 men fit for duty, a wholly insufficient number, for
the defences were widely extended. Hood sent off four of the French
ships, full of republican prisoners, who were allowed to return to their
homes because it was inconvenient to keep them. By the middle of
September the republicans were pressing the siege, and on October 1 the
garrison under Lord Mulgrave smartly drove them from a commanding
position which they had seized on Mont Faron. The fall of Lyons on the
9th set free a large force to act against the place, and the besieging
army under Dugommier finally numbered 37,000 men, with artillery
organised and directed by a young Corsican officer, Napoleon Bonaparte,
who since September 16 had taken an active part in the siege. General
O'Hara, then in command in the town, was wounded and taken prisoner
while leading a sortie, and on the night of December 16-17 the enemy
forced the line of defence and planted their batteries in commanding
positions. Neither the harbour nor the town was tenable any longer, and
orders were given for the embarkation of the troops. Of the twenty-seven
French ships of the line in the harbour, nine, together with smaller
vessels, were burnt by British seamen under Sir Sidney Smith, in spite
of a furious bombardment from the heights, and three accompanied the
retreat. The remaining fifteen were left to the enemy, and an attempt to
destroy the dockyard was only partially successful, for time was short
and the Spaniards, either through treachery or more probably through the
incompetence of their officers, failed to accomplish their share of the
work. The English and Spanish fleets sailed on the 19th, carrying off
some 6,000 refugees, and Hood's fleet anchored in Hyeres bay. The
remainder of the population was exposed to the cruel vengeance of the
jacobins.
There is good reason to believe that the government did not intend to
violate the terms of the surrender by keeping Toulon as a British
possession. As an isolated station it could not have been defended and
supplied without an enormous strain on England's resources. Its value to
Great Britain was purely temporary; it was of incalculable importance to
the enemy, and it was expected to serve as a base for the movement in
the south against the jacobin government. The issue of the insurrection
was decided by the fall of Lyons. Hopes of a success to be gained
through French disaffection were as ill-founded as those based on
American loyalism. The ministers pursued a mistaken policy, and pursued
it weakly; for as they believed that the occupation of Toulon was of
first-rate importance, they should have concentrated their efforts upon
its defence instead of squandering their resources by trying to do two
things at once, to co-operate with the Vendeans and to defend Toulon,
while the war on the Flemish frontier was a constant drain on England's
small army. Grenville ascribed the disaster to the "common cause" to the
failure of the Austrian government to fulfil its promise of sending a
reinforcement of 5,000 men to the garrison.[247] The loss of the place
was a bitter disappointment; it was mortifying in itself, and it
declared the futility of the high hopes built on the insurrectionary
movement in the south. Reckoning it with Dunkirk and the Vendean
expedition, the government had to confess to three failures in the year.
Yet England had some grounds for satisfaction. Tobago and the fishery
islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon were taken without difficulty,
Pondicherry and the other French factories in India were surrendered,
several French ships of war were captured in single-ship and other small
combats, and a substantial advantage was gained by the destruction of
the ships at Toulon.
[Sidenote: _REPRESSION._]
The success of the allies in the spring of 1793 gave Fox an opportunity
for moving for the re-establishment of peace. If, he argued, the war was
undertaken to preserve Holland and check the aggrandisement of France,
that object was attained. France had been the aggressor; so much the
more reason was there to regard the war as purely defensive, and end it
when the aggression ended. Pitt said that he would no longer pledge
himself that England would not interfere in the internal affairs of
France. So long as the existing French government was in power, there
could be no security that the system of aggression and propagandism
would cease, or that treaties would be observed. Fox's motion was
defeated by 187 to 47. Earlier in the session the government brought in
a bill against traitorous correspondence, to prevent intercourse with
France, and specially such acts as the purchase of French stocks, which
tended to support the enemy. Some of its provisions were unusually
restrictive, and the penalty of treason was attached to the breach of
any of them. The bill was passed without material alteration. In spite
of the strong feeling against societies believed to advocate
revolutionary principles, Grey, in accordance with his notice of the
last session, moved that the petition of the Friends of the People for
parliamentary reform should be considered. His motion, which was
supported by Fox, was defeated by 282 to 41.
Violent efforts were made by the government to crush the effects of the
French propaganda, by prosecutions for uttering, printing, or publishing
sedition. The attack was indiscriminate; spies were employed, and idle
words of obscure persons were made grounds of indictment. Both in the
superior courts and at quarter sessions severe penalties were inflicted.
One Frost, a broken-down attorney, and a pestilent rascal enough, though
convicted merely of saying in a coffee-house that he was "for equality
and no king," was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, to stand in the
pillory, and be struck off the roll. A dissenting preacher, found guilty
of using seditious language in the pulpit, was sentenced to fines of
L200 and four years' imprisonment; and Ridgway, a bookseller in
Piccadilly, was awarded the same penalty for selling the _Rights of Man_
and two other pamphlets of a kindred tendency. In Scotland, where the
government business was managed by Dundas, the parliamentary
representation was extremely unsatisfactory; the reformers were violent,
and belonged to revolutionary societies. The sedition cases were mostly
heard before the lord-justice clerk Braxfield, who behaved with
scandalous harshness and severity. One Muir, who had been expelled from
the society of advocates, though no offence of any magnitude was proved
against him at his trial, was condemned to fourteen years'
transportation. Three others received like sentences, and a dissenting
preacher named Palmer was transported for five years. Adam, an eminent
Scottish lawyer, contended in parliament that the sentences on Muir and
Palmer were illegal. His opinion was traversed by Dundas and Pitt, and
his motion on their behalf was negatived by 171 to 32.
It must be remembered that the proceedings of the corresponding and
constitutional societies were such as no settled government could leave
unpunished. Some few arms and a mass of compromising documents were
seized in Edinburgh, and twelve of the leading members of these
societies were arrested in May, 1794. A secret committee of the commons
presented reports on seditious practices, which show that some persons
had conspired to raise an armed insurrection, and that a so-called
national convention at Edinburgh was concerned in treasonable
conspiracy. Later in the year one Watt was hanged for engaging in a wild
plot to seize Edinburgh castle and commit other acts of treason. On the
presentation of the first report of the committee the government brought
in a bill to suspend the _habeas corpus_ act. Pitt declared the matter
urgent, and the bill, which was introduced in the commons on Friday the
16th, was passed in a special sitting the next day, though not without a
struggle, Fox accusing the ministers of a design to terrorise the people
in order to shield themselves from the condemnation which they deserved
for wickedly involving the country in a disastrous war. The opposition
in the commons did not rise in any division above 39, and the lords
passed the bill by 92 to 7. The ordinary law had hitherto proved
sufficient for the occasion, and a review of the evidence before
parliament does not appear to show adequate cause for arming the
executive with an authority so dangerous to liberty. Parliament was
alarmed, and the government shared its alarm and yielded to its desires.
A revulsion of feeling ensued. When the prisoners arrested in May were
tried for treason, the evidence was found to be weak. The first, Hardy,
a shoemaker, was brilliantly defended by Erskine, and was acquitted.
Horne Tooke, the only one of the lot in a superior social position,
jeered at the court, and called Pitt, the Duke of Richmond, and other
great persons to give evidence as to their former connexion with
societies for parliamentary reform. He and Thelwall, a lecturer, were
acquitted, and the rest were set at liberty. The general alarm was
pacified, and people rejoiced that the high character of the English
courts of justice should have been vindicated.
[Sidenote: _ACTIVITY OF THE OPPOSITION._]
When parliament met on January 21, 1794, the opposition was able to
taunt the government with the feebleness and failure of the military
operations of the past year. An amendment to the address recommending
proposals of peace was moved in both houses. In the lords it was
supported only by 12 against 97 votes, the Duke of Bedford and Lords
Lansdowne, Stanhope, and Lauderdale as usual being conspicuous in
opposition to the ministry. In the commons, Fox urged that the cruel
acts of the jacobin government should not prevent England from
negotiating with it, to which Pitt replied that no dependence could be
placed on the existing French government, and that "any alternative was
preferable to making peace with France upon the system of its present
rulers". The address was carried by 277 to 59. Votes were passed for
60,000 regular troops and a naval force of 85,000 men. Weak as the
opposition was, it lost no opportunity. Some Hessian troops sent to join
a British force arrived off the Isle of Wight before the expedition was
ready, and were landed for a short time to prevent them from suffering
from sickness. The opposition maintained that this was a violation of
the bill of rights and the act of settlement. It was easily shown that
the law had not been violated and that the course pursued was not
irregular, and both lords and commons declined to allow that the matter
called for an act of indemnity. Compared with the trifling nature of the
occurrence, the fuss made over it by the opposition can only be
explained by a desire to impede the government in the performance of its
duty at a time of national danger. An invasion was threatened. The
defence of England, Grenville said, would best be secured by her
"water-guard". It was further provided for by raising volunteers. Dundas
wrote to the lord-lieutenants of counties, recommending subscriptions
towards the expenses of the movement. Fox and Sheridan declared that
this recommendation was illegal. Their contention that it was a demand
for "benevolences" was absurd. Yet a request by the government for
money, not addressed to the house of commons, seems contrary to the
spirit of the constitution. Nor did the safety of the state, which would
outweigh all such considerations, require the step. But the matter was
of no practical importance and the action of the government was approved
by parliament.
As Frederick William was evidently withdrawing from the war, Malmesbury
was sent to Berlin, late in 1793, to persuade him to continue it. He
would not do so at his own expense, and it was proposed that the allies
should pay him to keep 100,000 men in the field. Thugut objected;
Austria could not pay her share and it would be better for Europe and
for Austria that the king should stay in Prussia than lead so large an
army to the Rhine.[248] This upset the arrangement. England wanted a
strong force on the frontier of the Austrian Netherlands, and at last,
on April 19, a treaty was signed by which Frederick William agreed to
furnish 62,400 men to act with the armies of Great Britain and Holland
"wherever it shall be judged most suitable to the interests of the two
maritime powers," all conquests being at their disposal, on
consideration of L50,000 a month, and L300,000 at the beginning, and
L100,000 at the end of the campaign, with bread and forage money. Of
these sums L400,000 was to be paid by Holland and the rest by England.
Mack, the Austrian quartermaster-general, came to London and laid a plan
of campaign before the ministers. It was decided that the Austrian and
British armies should widen the breach made in the line of French
fortresses, should march on Cambrai and then perhaps on Paris, supported
by an advance of the Prussians from the Moselle, under Mollendorf, who
had succeeded Brunswick in command. Prompted by Mack, who was then
generally believed to be a strategist of supreme skill, the ministers
expressed dissatisfaction with Coburg, and as difficulties arose with
respect to the command,[249] the emperor took the ostensible command
himself and came to Brussels on April 2.
[Sidenote: _ENGLAND'S ALLIES._]
The campaign opened well. The allies invested Landrecies, and an attempt
to turn the British position at Cateau was repulsed by a brilliant
charge of the 15th light dragoons; a more serious effort to raise the
siege failed, and Landrecies capitulated on the 30th. The Austrians
under Clairfait, however, were defeated at Mouscron. York marched to
Tournai and the allies attempted by a series of combined movements to
cut off the French in West Flanders from their communications with
Lille. Their plan was wrecked by their utter defeat at Tourcoing on May
16, where the British suffered heavily. The French attacked the camp
near Tournai on the 23rd with the object of forcing the line of the
Scheldt, but were foiled, and the British infantry highly distinguished
themselves by their gallant recapture of the post at Pont-a-chin.
Prussian help was urgently needed for the protection of the Netherlands,
and, though paid for by English gold, was not forthcoming. A formidable
insurrection broke out in Poland, and Frederick William marched to quell
it, ordering Mollendorf to confine himself to the defence of the empire.
Malmesbury and Cornwallis went to Mainz and urged Mollendorf to proceed
to Flanders; nothing would move him. The emperor was more anxious about
his interests in Poland than the defence of the Netherlands, and
returned to Vienna. On June 26, Coburg was defeated by Jourdan at
Fleurus and rapidly retired on Waterloo. On July 11, the French entered
Brussels. The Austrians retreated to the Meuse, and York's corps to
Malines where it was joined by 7,000 men under Lord Moira, who had
landed at Ostend on June 26. Disgusted at the supineness of the
Austrians, who were leaving the British and Dutch to their fate, the
English government insisted that Coburg should be superseded.[250] They
urged the emperor to make an effort to reconquer the Netherlands. Thugut
replied that Austria had no money, that the Netherlands were more
important to England and Holland than to the emperor, who did not get
L200 a year from them, and that the Prussian subsidy ought to be
transferred to Austria, or a large loan guaranteed.[251] Austria was set
on her interests in Poland, and it is scarcely too much to say that she
virtually betrayed the common cause.
These negotiations were brought to an end by the success of the French
arms in Germany. The Austrians retreated across the Rhine in October,
and England was not going to pay for the defence of the empire. The
useless subsidy to Prussia was stopped on the 17th, and Mollendorf
withdrew his army across the Rhine. Meanwhile York's army had fallen
back on the line of Dutch fortresses; it was driven across the Meuse,
was forced to retreat from Nimeguen, and encamped behind the Waal.
Dissatisfied with his generalship, Pitt, as early as October 11,
represented to the king that the division of command between him and the
Prince of Orange was mischievous, and suggested that some experienced
general should be sent out. George, who was deeply attached to his son,
seems to have put the suggestion aside, for on November 23, Pitt wrote
again insisting on the duke's recall. The king, though "very much hurt"
was forced to yield and the command-in-chief devolved on General
Walmoden.[252] York had shown himself a gallant soldier and had already
proved his capacity as a military administrator, but he was not equal to
the command of an army in the field.
The first attempt of the French on the line of the Waal was smartly
repulsed by Sir David Dundas on January 4, 1795, but they crossed in
large force a week later, and the British fell back. The line of the Lek
was abandoned and the province of Utrecht evacuated. As the French
advanced, their party among the Dutch gathered strength; the stadholder
fled to England, the Dutch troops separated from the British, Amsterdam
received the invaders, and on the 30th the Dutch fleet, which lay frozen
up in the Texel, was captured by French cavalry. Meanwhile the British
suffered terribly from the severe cold; and their sick and wounded were
often exposed to ill-treatment by the people. The government decided to
withdraw the army and bring it back by Bremen. It retreated across the
Yssel and by the end of February evacuated the United Provinces and
entered Westphalia by way of Enschede. Westphalia was held by
Mollendorf's army, and the British troops, worn out by sickness and
privations, were embarked at Bremen on April 12.
[Sidenote: _DEFECTIONS FROM THE COALITION._]
By the end of 1794 the French were everywhere victorious on land. They
were masters of the Netherlands and were over-running Holland; they held
all the country to the left of the Rhine except Mainz and Luxemburg; a
victorious French army wintered in Catalonia; the passes of the maritime
Alps were opened, and the Piedmontese were driven back from Mont Cenis
and the Little St. Bernard. The states-general proclaimed the
establishment of the Batavian republic, and a treaty with France signed
on May 16 placed the Dutch in a position of virtual dependence.
Frederick William, anxious to forward his interests in Poland, had
abandoned the war, and was turning towards peace with France. The
spoliation of Poland, which exercised so deadly an effect on the
fortunes of the coalition, was completed in January, 1795, when Russia
divided the remainder of the country between herself, Austria, and
Prussia by an arrangement confirmed by treaties later in the year. The
coalition suffered from further defections. The Grand-duke of Tuscany,
who was compelled by Hood's fleet to break off intercourse with the
republic in the summer of 1793, was restored to his former state of
neutrality by a treaty with France. Spain also was deserting the
coalition. Godoy, the lover of the queen of Charles IV., who controlled
the policy of the court, opened negotiations with France before the end
of 1794. Among the questions which retarded their progress was the fate
of the Spanish king's young kinsman, the dauphin, or Louis XVII. Death
released the poor boy from his misery in June. The French entered
Vittoria and were preparing for the siege of Pampeluna. Their successes
hastened matters; the treaty with France was concluded on July 22, 1795,
and the minion Godoy was saluted as "Prince of the Peace". Pitt's
coalition was well-nigh ruined.
While the year 1794 saw the hopes of England frustrated on the
continent, she was victorious at sea. Acting on overtures from Paoli,
Hood attacked the French in Corsica, and sent Nelson to blockade Bastia,
which was surrendered on May 22. Calvi was besieged by a military force
under General Stuart and by Nelson, who lost his right eye there. Its
capitulation, on August 10, completed the conquest of the island. In the
West Indies a squadron under Sir John Jervis and troops commanded by Sir
Charles, afterwards the first Earl Grey, compelled the surrender of
Martinique, St. Lucia, and Guadaloupe with Mariegalante. Port-au-Prince
and harbours important to the Jamaica trade were also taken in the
French part of San Domingo. But the British force was insufficient for
all that it had to do in the West Indies. French troops landed in
Guadaloupe during the absence of Jervis and Grey, were welcomed by a
large part of the creole population, and after a long struggle forced
the British to evacuate the island.
[Sidenote: _THE GLORIOUS FIRST OF JUNE._]
England's maritime strength, combined with a bad harvest, war, and
insurrection, caused a scarcity of food in France which threatened to
amount to a famine. A fleet of merchant ships laden with provisions was
anxiously expected from America, and a convoying squadron was sent to
bring it over. The channel fleet, thirty-four ships of the line and
fifteen frigates, under Howe, sailed on May 2 with 148 merchantmen bound
for different parts. Howe despatched the merchantmen and their convoys
under Admiral Montagu, with orders that after Montagu had convoyed the
merchantmen a certain distance, he was to cruise about with six ships of
the line and look out for the provision ships. Their safe arrival was
vital to France, and Rear-admiral Villaret-Joyeuse sailed with the Brest
fleet to bring them in. As soon as Howe found that the French fleet had
sailed, he determined to strike at the main force of the enemy. He
sighted the French to windward on the 28th, about 400 miles west of
Ushant. Their fleet consisted of twenty-six ships of the line, the same
number as his own. He at once sent four of his fastest ships to get to
windward of them, and attack their rear. A partial action took place in
which the _Revolutionnaire_ (110) was utterly disabled, and her last
assailant, the _Audacious_ (74), was so crippled that she went home. On
the 29th Howe planned to obtain the weather-gage and to deliver a
concentrated attack on the rear of the enemy. He took his flagship, the
_Queen Charlotte_ (100), through the French line, and was followed by
two others. Villaret manoeuvred skilfully, but three of his ships were
badly damaged. The result of Howe's admirable tactics during these two
days was that four French ships were forced to leave the fleet, and
another had to be towed by a consort, and that he won the windward
position and so was enabled to force an action. On the 30th there was a
thick fog, and during the day the French received a reinforcement of
four ships, giving them the advantage of one over the British. The fog
cleared at noon on the 31st; the British fleet came up with the enemy,
then to leeward, and "near sunset" formed the line of battle.
On Sunday morning, June 1, a fresh breeze blowing south by west, the two
fleets lay in parallel lines, the leading British ship being opposite to
the seventh of the French fleet. The British having formed on the
larboard line of bearing, Howe brought them down slantwise on the enemy,
apparently intending that each ship should pass across the stern of her
opponent, rake her, and engage to leeward. Unlike Rodney in the battle
of the Saints, he deliberately adopted the manoeuvre of breaking the
line, and planned that his ships should fight to leeward instead of to
windward, and so bar the crippled ships of the enemy from getting away.
As the _Queen Charlotte_ bore down, he bade the master, Bowen, lay her
as close as he could to Villaret's flagship, the _Montagne_ (120). Bowen
brought her so close round the Frenchman's stern that the tricolour
ensign flapped against her shrouds, and as she passed she raked her
gigantic enemy from stern to stem with her larboard broadside to such
effect that the _Montagne_ lost 300 killed and wounded before she could
make reply. Six British ships broke through the line and engaged to
leeward; the others remained to windward, the captains perhaps not fully
understanding Howe's plan.
As the _Brunswick_ (74) tried to force her way through the French line,
her anchors caught in the rigging of the _Vengeur du Peuple_ (74), and
the two ships drifted side by side in deadly embrace for three hours.
When at last they parted the _Brunswick_ had received much damage and
lost 158 men, including her captain, who was mortally wounded. The
_Vengeur_ was a wreck. A broadside from the _Ramillies_ (74) finished
her. She "hauled her colours down and displayed a Union Jack over her
quarter, and hailed for quarter having struck, her masts going soon
after, and a-sinking".[253] The _Alfred_ (74) sent an officer aboard
her, and the boats of three English ships saved about 333 of her crew.
The "rest went down with her". The flatulent account of her end, given
by Barrere in the convention, is largely imaginary. The crew of the
_Vengeur_ did not choose death rather than the surrender of their ship.
Some of those whom the efforts of the British seamen failed to save,
went down with a cry of _Vive la republique_! They had surrendered after
a hard-fought fight, and they died as gallant seamen die. The battle of
"the glorious first of June" ended in the complete victory of the
British fleet. Six French ships were taken besides the _Vengeur_; five
dismasted and several crippled ships were brought away by Villaret. Howe
might easily have secured more prizes, but he was an old man, and was
completely worn out by the fatigue and anxiety of the last five days.
His tactics were splendid, though the detaching of part of his fleet
under Montagu was a strategic mistake. The provision ships got safely
into Brest, but the French purchased their food at the cost of their
fleet.
In July the whigs who supported Pitt coalesced with the government. A
third secretaryship of state was again instituted. Grenville remained
foreign secretary; the Duke of Portland, the nominal head of the
seceding whigs, took the home department, with the colonies, and Dundas
retained the conduct of the war as secretary of state for war. Earl
Fitzwilliam became president of the council, and was promised the
vice-royalty of Ireland as soon as a suitable place was found for the
present lord lieutenant, the Earl of Westmorland. The Marquis of
Stafford resigned the privy seal, which was given to Earl Spencer, and
Windham entered the cabinet as secretary-at-war, though his office was
not then considered as one of cabinet rank. Burke retired from
parliament at the close of the trial of Hastings, and, as he was in
straitened circumstances, accepted two pensions of L1,200 and L2,500.
The death of his only son clouded the last years of his noble life. Two
later changes in office were salutary. Pitt had the unpleasant duty of
urging the king to remove his brother Chatham from the admiralty;[254]
he resigned on December 20, was succeeded as first lord by Earl Spencer,
an excellent appointment, and succeeded Spencer as privy seal, an office
more suited to his temperament and talents. The Duke of Richmond was
held to be inefficient as master of the ordnance; the new ministers
insisted on his removal, and he was succeeded on February 13, 1795, by
Cornwallis. At the same time the king appointed his son York
field-marshal on the staff; he became commander-in-chief in 1798, but at
no time had a seat in the cabinet.
[Sidenote: _THE IRISH CATHOLIC QUESTION._]
These accessions and changes strengthened the ministry. For a time,
however, the new ministers recruited from the whigs were inclined to act
as a party on questions concerning office. This caused some trouble in
the cabinet, specially in connexion with Ireland. Although the trade of
Ireland was increased by the removal of restrictions, its agriculture
stimulated by bounties on exported corn, and its manufactures and other
resources enlarged by parliamentary grants and wise legislation, its
political condition was unsatisfactory. It needed a reform of
parliament, the admission of catholics to political power, the overthrow
of the system by which the castle secured power by the distribution of
pensions and offices, and a change in the tithe law. The Earl of
Westmorland had succeeded Buckingham as lord-lieutenant in 1790. Round
him stood a group of ministers, bishops, and great lords opposed to any
changes. Revolutionary principles gained ground among the people. The
society of United Irishmen, founded by Wolfe Tone, a lawyer, in 1791,
aimed at uniting protestants and catholics for the purpose of
overthrowing the English ascendency and effecting a reform of parliament
of a democratic kind. While religious animosity was dying out among the
upper classes, it was rife among the peasantry, and catholic "defenders"
and protestant "peep of day boys" were at constant war. The catholics
still suffered from many disabilities. Their hopes of relief were
encouraged by the English relief act of 1791, and by the advocacy of
Burke, who in his _Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe_ (1792), argued
against the monopoly of power by the protestants, and allowed his son to
act as the professional adviser of the catholic committee. The English
ministers favoured the catholics, and dreaded an alliance between them
and the democratic party among the protestants, which would bring them
over to join in the demand for parliamentary reform.
Dundas urged the Irish government to assent to the enfranchisement of
the catholics on grounds both of justice and expediency. Westmorland and
his advisers objected. Pitt recommended them to give way, and wrote that
in any case they must not deprive the catholics of hope. In a letter to
Westmorland he pointed out that no danger could possibly arise from
enfranchisement if Ireland were united to England, a plan which, he
said, had long been in his mind.[255] The Irish government yielded, and
a bill granting the catholics the suffrage and other relief became law
in April, 1793. They were still shut out from parliament and from high
offices of state. The measure was ill-conceived, for while it conferred
political power upon the poor and ignorant catholics, it left the
catholic gentry, a loyal and conservative body, debarred from exercising
the influence to which their position entitled them. On the outbreak of
the war Grattan supported the government; and parliament voted liberal
supplies for the army and navy, and passed a bill establishing an Irish
militia of the same kind as that of England. The country was disturbed
by troubles over the compulsory enlistment for the militia and by the
lawlessness of the defenders. A period of comparative quiet, however,
followed the relief act, and the rejection of a moderate reform bill in
1794 created no disturbance. Nevertheless secret disloyalty increased,
and Tone and some of his allies held seditious correspondence with
France.[256] The United Irishmen grew in numbers, for while the leaders,
Tone, Emmet, and Rowan were protestants, they were joined by many
catholics. On the other hand, Grattan and his party, supported by most
of the protestant and many of the catholic gentry, though anxious for
reforms and specially for the complete repeal of the catholic
disabilities, were strongly opposed to the democratic movement and were
loyal to the constitution of 1782.
[Sidenote: _FITZWILLIAM AS VICEROY._]
Their hopes were raised by the prospect of the speedy appointment of
Fitzwilliam as lord-lieutenant, which seemed to promise a change of
system favourable to the hopes of the Irish whigs. On taking office as
president of the council in July, Fitzwilliam, in common with Portland,
to whose department Ireland belonged, thought that he was to succeed
Westmorland without delay; he appointed his chief secretary and openly
entered into communications with Grattan and Ponsonby which implied
extensive changes both of men and measures.[257] The Irish were
delighted. Pitt, however, did not mean to give Ireland over to Portland
and Fitzwilliam. Unfortunately he let matters slide; though he did not
recall Westmorland, he abstained from checking Fitzwilliam's somewhat
premature proceedings. In October, Portland pressed for Fitzwilliam's
immediate appointment. Pitt then said that he would not consent to a
change of system, and specially not to the dismissal of the chancellor,
Fitzgibbon, and would not recall Westmorland until he had a suitable
place to offer him. A serious quarrel ensued between him and the new
ministers of Portland's party. At last a compromise was effected. A
court office was found for Westmorland. Fitzwilliam in an interview with
Pitt and other ministers disavowed all idea of a general change of
system, agreed to some arrangements with regard to appointments, and was
instructed to prevent, if possible, the agitation of the catholic
question during the coming session, though if he could not evade it he
was to be at liberty to give the measure his full support.[258] Pitt was
favourable to catholic emancipation, but wished to have no changes
during the war. Fitzwilliam received his appointment and was succeeded
as president of the council by the Earl of Mansfield.
[Sidenote: _FITZWILLIAM RECALLED._]
He landed in Ireland on January 4, 1795. His appointment had inspired
the catholic committee with fresh vigour, and he found that the
catholics were united on the question of a complete removal of
disabilities and that the mass of the protestant gentry favoured their
demand. Defenderism was active and the country was in a disturbed state.
He informed the cabinet that the catholic question was urgent.
Parliament met and in a loyal humour voted large supplies for the war.
Grattan undertook the catholic business, and Fitzwilliam promised his
support, and pressed for the approval of the cabinet on the ground that
a complete repeal of all disqualifying laws was necessary in order to
secure the pacification and loyalty of the country. No answer was sent
to his appeals. Meanwhile Fitzwilliam dismissed some administrative
officers and among them Beresford, a powerful member of the party which
had so long been preponderant at the castle. Beresford carried his
complaint to London, and Pitt remonstrated with Fitzwilliam on his
dismissal. Portland, too, at last wrote, warning him not to commit
himself on the catholic question. It was too late. Portland wrote again
and declared himself hostile to emancipation. Fitzwilliam expostulated
in vain, and finally, on February 23, the cabinet agreed to recall him.
He left Ireland on March 25. It was a day of general gloom; the Dublin
tradesmen put up their shutters, no business was transacted, and many
persons wore mourning. The hopes of Ireland were bitterly disappointed
and the door seemed shut against reforms by constitutional means. Lord
Camden was appointed lord-lieutenant, the catholic bill was rejected,
Fitzgibbon was made Earl of Clare, and the party in favour of the
protestant ascendency was re-established in power. Whether the presence
of catholics in the parliament would have led to such a thorough removal
of the causes of Irish discontent as would have pacified the country and
saved it from the rebellion of 1798 seems extremely doubtful, but it is
certain that the recall of Fitzwilliam was fatal to any chance of so
happy a settlement.
Although he acted hastily and unadvisedly as regards the dismissals, he
was right in saying that it was impossible for him to stave off the
catholic claims, and that no measures would secure the loyalty of the
catholics or the peace of Ireland unless they were satisfied. As Pitt
desired to defer emancipation to an uncertain date, the end of the war,
he should not have excited the expectation of the Irish by an
appointment which they naturally interpreted as a sign of immediate
acquiescence. Fitzwilliam, before his actual appointment, was allowed to
commit himself to a line of conduct to which Pitt afterwards objected;
his instructions were somewhat vague, and he did not receive timely
notice that the cabinet would not assent to the policy he was
adopting.[259] Deeply immersed in the conduct of the war, Pitt seems to
have neglected the affairs of Ireland at this time, and to have failed
to appreciate the gravity of the crisis. Fitzwilliam's recall was due
partly to Pitt's unwillingness to offend Beresford's powerful friends in
both countries and the whole party which had given him valuable
support,[260] partly to his determination to avoid any change of system
during the war, and partly to the dislike of some other members of the
cabinet, plainly expressed by Portland, to the proposed overthrow of the
protestant ascendency. Yet another influence was brought to bear on the
decision of the cabinet. On February 6 the king sent Pitt a statement of
his strong objection to emancipation, both as a matter of policy and on
religious grounds, ending with the remark that it would be better to
change the new Irish administration than to submit to it.[261] His
feelings were strengthened by hearing, perhaps from Westmorland, that
Fitzgibbon was of opinion that he could not give the royal assent to
catholic emancipation without a breach of his coronation oath and of the
act of succession,[262] a mistaken idea which ruled his later conduct
with lamentable results. He consulted some great lawyers on the point;
Lord Kenyon and Scott, the attorney-general, assured him that he could
assent to a change in the test act without breach of his oath, but the
chancellor, Loughborough, gave him an undecided answer which tended to
strengthen his opinion. His feelings on the question doubtless confirmed
the ministers in their decision, but must not be supposed to have
dictated it.[263]
FOOTNOTES:
[241] This question is admirably dealt with by Lord Rosebery in his
_Pitt_, pp. 148-60.
[242] Newmarch, _On the Loans Raised by Mr. Pitt_, pp. 25-27; W. E.
Gladstone to H. Gladstone, March 10, 1876, in Morley's _Life of
Gladstone_, ii., 637-38.
[243] Sorel, _u.s._, iii., 366-68; Sybel, _u.s._, ii., 239-41; Auckland
to Grenville, Ap. 8 and 9, 1793, MS. Holland, R.O.
[244] Chuquet, _Les Guerres de la Revolution_, xi., 115.
[245] Auckland to Grenville, April 26 and May 14, 1793, MS. Holland,
R.O.; Eden to Grenville, April 15 and May 13, MS. Austria, R.O.
[246] Chuquet, _Les Guerres de la Revolution_, xi., 149, 151-52, 251.
[247] Grenville to Eden, Jan. 3, 1791, MS., Austria, R.O.
[248] Eden to Grenville, Jan. 29 and Feb. 15, 1794, MS. Austria, R.O.
[249] Grenville to Eden, Feb. 18, and Eden to Grenville, March 11, 1794,
MS. Austria, R.O.; Grenville to King, Feb. 16, _Dropmore Papers_, ii.,
505.
[250] Grenville to Spencer, July 19, 1794, MS. Austria, R.O.
[251] Spencer and J. Grenville to Grenville, Aug. 12 and Oct. 1, 1794,
MS. Austria, R.O.
[252] Pitt to George III., Oct. 11 and Nov. 23, 1794 (rough drafts),
MSS. Pitt Papers, 101; George III. to Pitt, Nov. 19, in Stanhope's _Life
of Pitt_, ii., App. xxi. The drafts of Pitt's letters escaped Lord
Stanhope's notice.
[253] "Log of the _Brunswick_," _Great Sea Fights_, i., 102, ed. Admiral
T. S. Jackson.
[254] Pitt to George III., Dec. 8, 1794. MS. Pitt Papers, 101.
[255] Lecky, _History_, vi., 513.
[256] W. W. Tone, _Life of T. W. Tone_, i., 111-18.
[257] Grenville to T. Grenville, Sept. 15 and Oct. 15, 1794, _Court and
Cabinets_, ii., 301,312.
[258] Add. MS., 33,118, ff. 268-78 (Pelham Papers), dated March, 1795,
and _First Letter of Fitzwilliam to Earl of Carlisle_, p. 19, Dublin,
1795.
[259] _Second Letter of Fitzwilliam to Carlisle_, pp. 12, 13, 2nd ed.,
1795.
[260] That it was largely a question of "men" with Pitt was held by
Pelham, the chief secretary, 1795-97 (Pelham to Portland, March 22,
1795, Add. MS., 33, 113), as well as by Fitzwilliam (_Second Letter to
Carlisle_, pp. 4, 24) and Burke (_Life of Grattan_, iv., 202).
[261] Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, ii., App. xiii.-xiv.
[262] _Auckland Corr._, iii., 303-5; Add. MS., 33,118, f. 283.
[263] For full treatment of this crisis see Lecky, _Hist._, vii., 1-98.