FRENCH BREACH OF TREATY

and on common sense; their robberies, tortures, and indiscriminate massacres, ending with the cruel murder of their too patient and inoffensive sovereign; — all these enormities had excited throughout the British Empire feelings of grief, rage, and alarm, which no Government could have restrained within the bounds of moderation. The immediate cause of war was, however, complete in itself; and must have led to a rupture, had it been the act of Louis the Sixteenth and a regular Government. England was bound by a treaty with Holland so recent as the year 1788, to which both France and England were parties, to guarantee to Holland the exclusive navigation of the Scheldt and the Meuse. The French Government, in open violation of public law, which respects the property of neutral states, and of the express compact by which they were not less bound than the Government of Great Britain, decreed that the exclusive occupation of navigable rivers was contrary to the rights of man, and instructed their

of Maret, received that person at a private interview; and then distinctly informed him, that, in the event of an invasion of Holland by a French army, England would support her ally; and farther, that, in the absence of explanation, the decree of the 19th of November would be considered an act of hostility. Maret promised that satisfactory assurances on both these points should be furnished by Le Brun, the French Minister.-Sir J. B. Burgess to Mr. Locker, and Memorandum of Interview with Maret, in Pitt's handwriting.--Locker MSS. This memorandum does not differ in substance from the account given by M. Maret, and published by the French Government.

WITH HOLLAND.

Ch. 33.

general in Flanders to employ the means at his disposal for the opening of the Dutch waters. This measure was, therefore, as much an act of hostility towards England as towards Holland. It could bear no other construction, and it had no other intention. It had, indeed, already become manifest that the time had arrived when England, unless prepared to submit to the last indignity, must accept the quarrel which the rulers of France were determined to fasten on her. The outrageous decree of the 19th of November, which was all but avowedly directed against this country; the act of the 15th of December, annexing the Austrian Netherlands to France, a measure which, however, justifiable by the laws of war, was most dangerous to the peace and safety of these islands; and lastly the open breach of treaty to which the honor of England was pledged, formed a combination of insults which no independent nation could endure. There was, indeed, no substantial difference of opinion on the subject among Englishmen who did not hate the institutions under which they lived, or were not desirous that their country should become a province of France. Public spirit overcame party considerations; and many persons, of various ranks and conditions who had hitherto been hostile to the administration, thought the main object to be regarded was the support of the King's Government. The Duke of Portland, who, since the death of Lord Rockingham, had been considered the head of the whig party, seconded

1793

5

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

Lord Grenville in moving an address to the Crown on the message announcing war with France. The Earls Spencer and Fitzwilliam, with many other peers, followed their chief. In the Commons, the accessions to the ranks of the Government were also numerous and distinguished. Fox himself admitted that the decree of November, the opening of the Scheldt, and the annexation of Brabant, were just grounds of complaint. In the debate of the first of February, he said: "The plain state of the matter was, that we were bound to save Holland from war, or by war, if called upon; but to force the Dutch into a war at so much peril to them which they saw and dreaded, was not to fulfil, but to abuse the treaty.' This was no doubt a correct statement of the obligation which the treaty imposed; but on the very day these words were uttered, France declared war against England and Holland; in such an event, it was absurd to contend that England was bound to wait for a formal requisition before she interposed for the defence of her ally. Yet when the King's message came down announcing war, Fox moved an amendment to the address, purporting that defensive war only should only be undertaken, and that negotiations should be renewed to obtain redress for the wrongs of which Great Britain had reason to complain.

This amendment, though moderate, received so little encouragement, that the proposer suffered it to be negatived without a division. A few days after

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

tions.

1793

7

wards, Fox moved a series of resolutions, declaring that war was not justified by the internal affairs of France, nor by the expression of opinions nor principles however pernicious; that ministers had Fox's resolunot exhausted the resources of negotiation with respect to those differences which afforded this country just grounds of complaint; that they had not distinctly stated to the French Government the terms on which they would observe neutrality in the war which then existed; that they had neglected to interfere when the rights of Poland had been invaded; and, finally, that the British Government should enter into no engagements with foreign powers which should preclude them from making a separate peace, nor take any part in attempting to impose upon the French people a form of Government which they did not desire. His speech consisted chiefly of an invective against the German powers for their rash invasion of France, and their violence towards Poland; neither of which acts were the ministry concerned to defend; and, accordingly, no member of the Government took part in the debate. It might have been replied, that negotiation, both regular and irregular, had been pushed to its utmost limits; and that any attempt to go farther in that direction would only expose the Government to insult from people who hated England, as the only power which could chastise their insolence and arrest their career. Burke reminded his former colleague that he had stood by without interfering

8

Ch. 33.

1793

to Fox.

DEBATES ON THE

when Poland was invaded; when her constitution was abolished, her King dethroned, and her territory divided. The state of Europe was at that time Burke's reply such that England might have interfered to prevent this outrage, if she had deemed it her province to interfere. But such an idea never appears to have entered the head of the Minister, or of the leader of Opposition, or of any person engaged in public affairs. It certainly was not to the credit of England, that these successive acts of rapine should have been perpetrated, without one word of protest or remonstrance on her part; but if she failed to interpose in the first instance, her good offices on behalf of Poland could have been employed with little effect, when circumstances compelled her to draw towards an alliance with the offending Powers against the common enemy of every established Government. Upon the first of Mr. Fox's resolutions, which was substantially in accordance with the opinion of Pitt, the previous question was moved, and the House decided, by a a great majority, that the question should not be put. And even of the decreasing minority, which

d In a Letter to the Marquis of Stafford, 13th November, 1792, quoted by EARL STANHOPE, in his Life of Pitt, v. 2, p. 173, and in the Correspondence of Sir GEORGE ROSE, the following passage occurs: Perhaps some opening may arise which may enable us to contribute to the termination of the war between the different powers in Europe, leaving France (which I believe is the best way) to arrange its own internal affairs as it can.'