William Pitt and the Great War by John Holland Rose (book club reads txt) 📕

by the base conduct of the Government. In vain

did Ministers seek to overawe the timid and mislead the credulous: for

Knowledge and Reason were making great strides in England, so that

Britons now looked on Frenchmen only as "citizens of the world, children

of the common Father," not as enemies to be assassinated "at the command

of weak or ambitious Kings, or of corrupt Ministers." Their real enemies

were the destructive aristocracy, "the bane of all the countries of the

earth. You have acted wisely in banishing it from France." They (the

signatories) could not take up arms to help France, because the

Government had pledged the national faith that it would remain neutral.

The Elector of Hanover had joined his troops to those of traitors and

robbers; "but the King of England will do well to remember that England

is not Hanover; should he forget this, we will not forget it.... We

ardently wish a Triple Alliance, not of crowned heads, but of the people

of America, France, and Great Britain will give liberty to Europe and

peace to the world." The address was signed by Margarot and Hardy. It

and other addresses were reported verbatim by our _chargé d'affaires_,

Munro, to the Foreign Office.[103]

 

The democratic ferment in England speedily aroused a decided opposition.

Macaulay probably does not much exaggerate when he says that out of

twenty well-to-do persons nineteen were ardently loyal and firmly

anti-Jacobin. The month of November saw the formation of an "Ante

[_sic_]-Levelling Society, for supporting the Civil Power in suppressing

Tumults and maintaining the constitutional Government of this Country in

King, Lords, and Commons." Its programme leaves much to be desired in

the matter of style, but nothing in respect to loyalty.[104] The club

was founded by Reeves and others. Hardy notes in his memoirs that it

soon began to do much harm to the Corresponding Society.

 

Far aloof from this turmoil stands the solitary and inscrutable figure

of Pitt. At this time he was leading, almost with ostentation, the life

of a country gentleman, dividing his time between Holwood and Walmer

Castle. Very few of his letters of this period survive. Writing from

Walmer on 16th October to Grenville, he makes merely a verbal alteration

in an important despatch on which the latter consulted him. Indeed he

left the conduct of foreign affairs to Grenville far more fully than he

had done to the Duke of Leeds. I have found no draft of a despatch

written wholly by Pitt at the time, or indeed at the crisis that

followed. There is, however, a significant phrase in his letter to

Grenville, that, if the French retained Savoy, this would bring about a

new order of things.[105] For the most part Pitt at this time gave

himself up to rest and recreation at Walmer Castle. The charm of the sea

and of the Downs seems to have laid hold on him; for General Smith,

writing to Lord Auckland from Walmer, says that Pitt is soon in love

with the King's present and gladly spends there all the time he can

spare. Lord and Lady Chatham were with him and encouraged his passion

for that retired spot. A little later he had a flying visit from one who

was to become a devoted friend, the brilliant and versatile Earl of

Mornington. Coming over from Ramsgate and lunching at Walmer, he found

that Pitt had so far taken up with country sports as to follow the

hounds in chase of "a basketted hare."

 

Apart from the bad harvest and the spectre of want which crept over the

country, Pitt found little to alarm him at this time. In preparation for

the opening of Parliament, he distributed to each of his friends six

printed copies of his speech on the abatement of the Spanish armament

taxes, for the purpose of circulation in the country.[106] Clearly he

thought that the proposed economies in the public services would salve

the prevailing discontent. At the close of October the French agent,

Noël, reported to Lebrun that Pitt was not arming, and was still

inclined to hold aloof from French affairs.[107] In fact, so late as 6th

November, Grenville wrote to Auckland that on all grounds

non-intervention in continental affairs is the best policy for Great

Britain.[108]

 

                  *       *       *       *       *

 

But now a time drew near when anger was to expel calculation; when the

impulses of the populace flung aside the counsels of statesmen, and the

friends of universal peace helped to loose the dogs of war. This new

phase in the life of Europe opened up when the dense columns of

Dumouriez drove the thin lines of Austria from a strong position at

Jemappes (6th November). Mons opened its gates on the following day; and

the other towns of Belgium speedily followed suit, the French receiving

a hearty welcome everywhere. The conquest of the Belgic Provinces puffed

up the French with boundless pride mingled with contempt for the old

Governments; and these feelings awakened a formidable response in these

islands. The news of the conquest of the Pays Bas by the _sansculottes_,

received with bewilderment and disgust in Piccadilly, aroused wild hopes

among the weavers of Spitalfields. "The activity and insolence of the

French emissaries and their allies in this country have certainly

increased much with Dumouriez's success," so wrote Grenville to Auckland

on 26th November.

 

In these days we smile at the notion of foreign agents influencing

public opinion; but it seems certain that Chauvelin and his staff made

persistent efforts to fan the embers of discontent into a flame.[109]

Lord Sheffield declared that even the neighbourhood of Sheffield Park,

near Lewes, was thoroughly worked by French emissaries; but it is not

unlikely that landlord nervousness transfigured some wretched refugees,

on their way from the coast, into Jacobinical envoys. Certainly the town

which gave him his title was in a dangerous state. An officer stationed

there describes the joy of the men of Sheffield in celebrating

Dumouriez' victory. They roasted an ox whole, devoured it, and then

formed a procession, 10,000 strong, behind the French tricolour and a

picture which represented Dundas stabbing Liberty and Burke treading

down "the swinish multitude." He states that they were enrolled in

Corresponding Societies, had bought firearms, and were seeking to

corrupt the soldiery.[110]

 

Derby seems to have been equally fervid, if we may judge by the address

which on 20th November went from its branch of the Society for

Constitutional Information to the French National Convention, couched in

these terms. "It was reserved for the Gallic Republic to break the

accursed knot which has leagued Kings for ages past against the rest of

the world. Reason and Philosophy are making great strides; and precedent

and hereditary notions go fast to decline. By teaching mankind that they

are all equal in rights, you have dedicated a glorious edifice to

Liberty, which must hereafter prove the dungeon of tyrants and the

asylum of the oppressed."[111]

 

Still more seditious was the action of the London Corresponding Society.

On 28th November Joel Barlow and John Frost, deputed by that body,

presented an address to the French Convention, congratulating it on the

triumphs of liberty, and assured Frenchmen that innumerable societies

and clubs were springing up in England. "After the example given by

France," they said, "Revolutions will become easy. Reason is about to

make rapid progress; and it would not be extraordinary if in a much less

space of time than can be imagined, the French should send addresses of

congratulation to a National Convention of England." They then informed

the French deputies that 1,000 pairs of shoes had come from the Society

as a gift to the soldiers of liberty, and the gift would be repeated

weekly for the next six weeks. They also presented an address which

ended thus: "Other nations will soon follow your steps in this career of

improvement, and, rising from their lethargy, will arm themselves for

the purpose of claiming the Rights of Man with that all-powerful voice

which man cannot resist." Next came a deputation from the English and

Irish residents in Paris, which assured the French deputies that a

majority of the British people desired to copy their example, and that

the old Governments would soon survive merely as a memory. The three

addresses aroused immense enthusiasm, and a decree was passed for their

printing and circulation.[112]

 

These ecstatic praises of the Convention sounded oddly, as that body had

just been discussing a petition from several Parisians who had lately

been imprisoned without knowing why or by whom. And the Belfast address

of congratulation on the progress of religious liberty was followed by

the complaints of two members of the Convention that they had been half

drowned at Chartres for a profession of atheism.[113] But undoubtedly

these addresses by British Radicals caused exultation on both sides of

the Channel. Frenchmen believed that our people were about to overthrow

the Cabinet;[114] while the visitors returned home to trumpet forth the

triumphs of Reason and the doom of Tyranny.

 

Certainly the action of the French Convention seemed to assume the

speedy advent of a Jacobinical millennium. To the eye of faith the

headlong flight of the Austrians from Belgium opened up boundless vistas

of conquest, or rather, of fraternization with liberated serfs.

Consequently the month from 16th November to 15th December witnessed the

issue of four defiantly propagandist decrees. That of 16th November

enjoined on French generals the pursuit of the Austrians on to any

territory where they might find refuge--obviously a threat to the German

and Dutch States near at hand. On the same day the French deputies

decreed freedom of navigation on the estuary of the River Scheldt within

the Dutch territory, which that people had strictly controlled since the

Treaty of Münster (1648). In this connection it is well to remember that

the right of the Dutch to exclude foreigners from that estuary had been

recognized by France in five treaties signed with Great Britain since

the Peace of Utrecht. Further, by the Anglo-Dutch alliance of the year

1788, we had covenanted to uphold the rights of the Dutch in this and

other respects. Thus, the French Republic was taking upon itself to

rescind a well-established right of the Dutch Republic.

 

There is, however, another side to this question. The law of Nature, as

distinct from the law of nations, forbade the barring of a navigable

river to the commerce of aliens; and in this particular case the

exclusive privileges retained by the Dutch had almost strangled the

trade of Antwerp. Visitors describe the desolate aspect of the quays and

streets in a city which was clearly designed to be one of the great

marts of the world. Of this gospel of Nature, as set forth by Rousseau,

the French were the interpreters; but they would have done well to

appeal to Holland and Great Britain to abrogate this odious privilege,

adding also the assurance, formerly given by Dumouriez, that Belgium

would never become French.

 

Unfortunately the disinterested character of the crusade for liberty was

now belied by two additional decrees which created the worst possible

impression. On 19th November the French Convention declared its resolve

to "grant fraternity and assistance to all people who wish to recover

their liberty," and further ordered its generals to give effect to this

decree. Eight days later it rescinded the former resolution, that France

would make no conquests, by ordering the incorporation of Savoy in the

French Republic. The priest Grégoire was equal to the task of proving

that this involved no contradiction of the former principle, because the

Savoyards wished to join France and Nature herself had proclaimed the

desirability of union. By the same patriotic logic France could

rightfully absorb all parts of the Continent where Jacobins abounded and

natural frontiers were lacking.

 

These decrees brought about an entirely new situation. The annexation of

Savoy furnished a practical commentary on the airy proposals announced

on 16th and 19th November; but these alone were sufficient to cause Pitt

and Grenville the deepest concern. On the 27th the latter wrote to

Auckland at The Hague in terms which show his conviction that France

meant to revolutionize the Dutch Republic, and also, if possible, Great

Britain. Respecting the decrees of the 16th and 19th he wrote: "The

whole is a concerted plan to drive us to extremities, with a view of

producing an impression in the interior of the country."[115] That is,

he believed the Convention to be set on forcing England either to

declare war, or to give way disgracefully; and in either case the result

would be an increase of seditious feeling in these islands. This

continued to be his view. For on 4th December, after reading the

seditious addresses of the English societies to the Convention, he wrote

again to Auckland that the French evidently relied on the malcontents

both in England and Holland to paralyse the Governments; and, he added,

"This is above all others a reason for firmness in the present moment,

and for resisting, while the power of resistance is yet in our hands.

For the