Life of William, Earl of Shelburne/Volume 2/Chapter 11

by Edmond George Petty-Fitzmaurice

 

CHAPTER XI

 

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

 

1788-1793

 

The understanding which existed between Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Pitt was first disturbed by the conduct of the latter in regard to Indian affairs. Lord Lansdowne, for once in agreement with Lord Mansfield, considered Warren Hastings to have been the person least to blame for whatever was questionable in the recent transactions in that country, and regarded him as the victim of the political exigencies of one party, and of the cowardice of the other. "The Foxites and the Pittites," he said, "join in covering every villain, and prosecuting the only man of merit;"^[1] and he ordered a bust of Hastings, with an inscription commemorative of the ingratitude of his countrymen, to be set up in Lansdowne House.^[2] Another subject of difference soon arose. Lord Lansdowne greatly disapproved the course adopted at the time of the so-called Declaratory Act. In 1786, during the apprehension of a war with France, it had been resolved by Pitt to send out four regiments for the defence of India. When however the storm had blown over, the Company absolutely declined to pay the charge incurred. On reference to the East India Bill of 1785, it was found that a doubt existed as to the power of the Board of Control to compel payment, and a Bill was accordingly brought in to remove these doubts. Though purporting to be merely declaratory, the measure was most important, and the final subordination of the Company to the Crown may be dated from the time that it passed into law. "Control" now really came to mean "Government."

"It evidently appears," Lord Lansdowne wrote to Morellet, "that the territorial revenue has diverted the attention of everybody concerned about India from every consideration of commerce, and actually cost the commerce 500,000l., upon a balance during the last eight years, instead of the Company's gaining anything from it, as you will see by the paper which I enclose to you, upon the authenticity of which you may entirely rely. It also appears that the administration of the territorial revenues is likely to produce corruption in our home Government by the patronage which must attend upon it, as well as impede our foreign commerce by diverting the attention of our most capable people from an object of slow to one of immediate advantage, besides the probability of its drawing us into war both with the country and European powers, and at any rate warping and giving a wrong bias to all our negotiations. What however I have most pleasure to observe, after the above disagreeable reflections, is that our public is open to comprehend and adopt the most liberal ideas, with regard to our foreign dependencies as well as to commerce in general, if Government will but lead them. It is just the reverse of what it is with you. Our people give no equivocal proof of it by their conduct about the slave trade, when the majority of each town which profits by it are loud and enthusiastic for its abolition upon principles of morality, freedom, and commercial honour, and the manufacturers give away gratis the impressions of a pamphlet, of which I send you six."^[3]

Consistently with the above opinions Lord Lansdowne opposed the further step proposed to be taken in 1786 in the direction of Government interference in India, nor did the Bill pass the House of Lords without great difficulty. "Mr. Pitt," Dundas wrote to Cornwallis, "never had such a set made against him; it was thought necessary to call in the outposts, and the auxiliary troops were brought from Scotland. The question brought forth all the secret foes and lukewarm friends of Government. The Lord Marquis of Lansdowne rode one of the first horses."^[4] The Bill nevertheless passed into law, after exciting much bitterness and anger in both Houses.

If Indian affairs had begun, European policy on which Oswald had foretold that Pitt would wreck his vessel, completed the estrangement of Lord Lansdowne from Pitt. After the death of Frederick the Great a gradual change came over the diplomacy of the English Government. Ever since the peace, England had aimed at preserving friendly relations with France. The wish of the deceased monarch having been to keep things quiet during the remainder of his life, and the preponderating power of the House of Hapsburg having been the chief object of his fears, he also had been anxious to cultivate good relations with the House of Bourbon. He even showed little anxiety to interfere in the affairs of Holland, where the struggles between the party of the Prince of Orange and the democratic party supported by France, had led not only to the triumph of the latter, but also to gross personal insults being offered to his niece the Princess of Orange. On the accession in 1786 of Frederick William II., a complete change took place. A Prussian army was marched into Holland, and the Prince of Orange was reinstated in all his rights and powers. It had been expected that France would support the democratic party, but the courage of the French ministers failed them at the last moment, when England declared that she would not remain a passive spectator of events. The complete victory of the Prussian army led by the Duke of Brunswick, was followed by the treaties of Loo and Berlin between England, Holland, and Prussia, and from that date they entered upon a long course of gratuitous intervention in the disturbed affairs of the Continent.

War had again broken out in the East, where the Empress Catherine, assisted by Joseph II., was planning the dismemberment of Turkey. Russia declared war against that Power in 1786: Austria in 1788; while the King of Sweden, overestimating the resources of the Turks, declared war against Russia, and the Danes, at the instigation of Catherine, invaded Sweden. Mr. Elliot was at once instructed to present a remonstrance at Copenhagen, threatening Denmark with the resentment of the three Allies if it did not cease hostilities, and the Danes, knowing that the forces of Russia and Austria were more than fully employed on the side of Turkey, thought it expedient to yield. The diplomacy of the three Powers was next successful in detaching Austria from the Russian alliance by threats of hostilities in Germany, and of support to be given to the Anti-Imperialist party in the Low Countries. The Convention of Reichenbach, where Austria gave way, left Russia standing alone. A vigorous tone was at the same time taken up against Spain, whose vessels of war had interfered with an English settlement on Vancouver's Island, at a point called Nootka Sound, the property of which was claimed by both Powers.

By these acts of intervention a complete departure was effected from the pacific system which it had been the object of the peace of 1783 to inaugurate. "The King of Prussia died," said Lord Lansdowne, "and a total alteration of English politics ensued. From this era the pacific system was rejected; the ancient language was revived. France was again held out as our natural enemy; England was thought equal to dictate to the whole world. Our Ministers and messengers overspread all Europe. Every Court was to feel terror at the name of Britain; our resources were inexhaustible, and our power not to be resisted. Holland was obliged by force, not upon principle, to return to our alliance. France was dictated to; the Turks were excited to murder the Russians, while proclamations were issued at home for restraining vice and immorality; the Swedes were to complete the humiliation of this devoted Power; Denmark was ordered not to intermeddle; more employment was found for the Emperor in the Belgic provinces, in case the Turks had proved insufficient for the purpose; and all this was to be made to terminate in Nootka Sound!"^[5]

The only justification of this alteration of policy, lay in the alleged necessity of maintaining the integrity of the Turkish Empire, a political doctrine to which the younger Pitt, differing from his father, had devoted himself. "Your Lordship knows I am quite a Russ,"^[6] Chatham had written in 1773 to Shelburne, and the latter now assured the House of Lords that the deceased statesman had always contended against any connection with the Turks, declaring that such a connection would only lead the country into difficulties.^[7] Pitt, however, threw aside the tradition of the policy of Chatham, and on the 28th of March 1791 the King sent a message to Parliament, that, having failed in concert with his allies to effect a reconciliation between Russia and the Porte, he deemed it advisable to increase his naval forces. It was hoped that the sight of the English fleet in the Black Sea would have the same effect on Russia, as the mobilisation of the Prussian army had had on Austria at Reichenbach. War would now have begun had not the country been fortunately wiser than the Ministers. Both in and out of Parliament a storm of opposition arose. In the House of Commons the armament was denounced., by Fox in one of his most celebrated orations; in the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne vigorously attacked it.^[8] Pitt recognised the impossibility of continuing the struggle, and abandoned the projected armament. The blow to his prestige, however, was enormous. It was whispered that a change of ministry might take place, and that the King had been heard to say that his objections to Fox might not prove insuperable. Lord Carmarthen, now Duke of Leeds, resigned the Foreign Office, and Mr. Grenville, who had succeeded Lord Sydney in 1789 at the Home Office, became Foreign Minister with the title of Lord Grenville, Mr. Dundas becoming Home Secretary.

Important however as were the events that were passing in the East, their interest was soon entirely lost in the great changes that had begun in the West, especially in France. Lord Lansdowne's connection with the literary and philosophical classes in France had naturally led him to look with favour on the opening stages of the popular movement in that country. As he had already frequently declared, he did not believe in the old doctrine that England and France were natural enemies, but, on the contrary, considered that if free institutions existed in both and free trade united their material interests, a greater security would thereby be obtained for peace, progress, and reform than could be afforded by all the protective tariffs and continental alliances of the old system. During 1789 and 1790 he was kept carefully informed of everything that passed in Paris, not only by his old correspondent, Morellet, but by his eldest son Lord Wycombe,^[9] by Benjamin Vaughan, who made more than one journey at this period to the French capital, and by Dumont, who had gone thither to be by the side of his friend Mirabeau, and to assist him with his own invaluable political knowledge, during the crisis of French liberty.^[10] How much the latter valued his presence, may be seen by the following letter which he addressed to Lord Lansdowne, the day after the capture of the Bastille.

 

"My Lord,—Vous me rendrez bien la justice de croire que le respect et la haute considération que je professe pour vous, sont moins fondés sur les bontés dont vous m'avez comblé en Angleterre, et sur les marques honorables d'estime dont vous avez daigné me faire passer plus d'une fois le précieux témoignage, que sur les grandes vues d'homme d'état et de philanthropie expansive, dont votre vie d'homme public a offert un très-beau modèle. Eh bien! My Lord, c'est au nom de ces principes et de ces sentimens, et de ces conceptions élevées que je viens vous demander une grâce, un service, un bienfait, que je n'aurais nul droit d'attendre de vous, si ma position actuelle ne me mettait à même de joindre pour mon compte le denier de la veuve a votre belle offrande a l'humanité.

"Monsieur Dumont qui vous est attaché par les liens du plus tendre respect, bien plus encore que par ceux d'aucun pacte social, Monsieur Dumont, quelque attrayant que soit pour lui le spectacle de la plus grande des révolutions et l'espoir très-bien fondé d'y pouvoir concourir, Monsieur Dumont, pénétré de vos inquiétudes domestiques, avide de vous aider dans vos nobles et paternelles sollicitudes pour l'éducation de votre fils à laquelle vous avez le courage de présider seul à ce moment, Monsieur Dumont est décidé à partir pour l'Angleterre, si votre invitation et vos désirs personnels ne le retiennent point ici. Je vous déclare, My Lord, qu'il m'a été profondément utile, parce qu'à une grande connaissance des hommes et des Assemblées politiques, à une longue suite de méditations sur les moyens d'amener et d'affirmer la liberté politique et civile chez un peuple que les circonstances appellent à ce constituer, il joint de grands talens, un zèle très-fervent et une âme très-pure. Le hasard fait que malgré un ostracisme très-systématique et très-étayé de petites passions, j'ai quelque influence sur I'Assemblée Nationale. Vous m'appauvrissez beaucoup si vous m'ôtez, ou plutôt si vous ne me donnez pas pour quelque temps encore Monsieur Dumont. Prononcez, My Lord: mais pensez auparavant, que la Révolution était plus mûre que nous n'étions prêts à la Révolution; que nous avons besoin d'être éduqués, et qu'une fois formés, nous en formerons bien d'autres: ah! My Lord, que ne pouvez vous venir vous-même professer le grand art de mériter d'être libres, seul moyen sûr de l'être.

"Je n'entrerai dans aucuns détails sur notre position. Monsieur Dumont ne vous en laisse pas chômer, sans doute: je ne pousserai pas plus loin l'apologie de ma hardiesse; il me semble qu'elle ne peut pas à un certain point être indiscrète, puisqu'elle est fondée sur la conviction de vos vertus: je vous demande sans plus de formules de laisser mon conseiller privé achever mon éducation, et être mon auxiliaire dans le plus grand œuvre qui puisse être confié aux soins des mortels, et je vous prie d'agréer l'assurance sincère de mon respect, de ma reconnaissance et de mon dévouement.

"Le Comte de Mirabeau."

 

"This country," wrote Vaughan from Paris, "is in a fever, but not of disease; it is a fever of enthusiasm and feeling":^[11] and like most Englishmen of liberal views in the early stages of the Revolution, he was inclined to expect nothing but good from the new order of things. "If the people of different countries," Lord Lansdowne wrote to Bentham, then occupied on a work on Parliamentary tactics intended for the benefit of his friends in France, "could once understand each other, and be brought to adopt half a dozen general principles, their servants would not venture to play such tricks. I hope when you have given France a legislature, you will suffer nothing to interfere and prevent your pen from further enforcing these principles."^[12]

It is true that at the very outset of the Revolution, Burke had denounced it and everything appertaining to it with the utmost fury, thereby separating himself from his most intimate political friends; but his denunciations at first roused no echo even in the party over which he had so long exercised a commanding influence. There was no inclination to go to war with France for the sake of an idea; neither sympathy for extreme views, nor fear of them existed. All the circumstances which were soon to arm a desperate mob in France against the institutions of society, were wanting in England. In France the name of the abuses which required reform was legion; the country had long lost all habit of self-government; the King, owing to his weakness, was popular and unpopular by turns; with perhaps the exception of Mirabeau, there was not a single statesman capable of steering the vessel of the State between the Scylla of reaction and the Charybdis of anarchy; and a horrible material distress aggravated the difficulties of the situation. In England the King was popular, and a man of strong will; he had surrounded himself with the statesmen whom he had chosen in order to crush faction; an active and healthy love of improvement stirred the pulse of the national life; great reforms had been carried during the last five years, and the country was prosperous. There was no risk of a Terror, either Red or White. Pitt himself denied that any danger threatened England from the contagion of French principles. "Depend upon it," he said to Burke, "that we shall go on as we are till the day of judgment."^[13]

"The only rock," Lord Lansdowne wrote to Morellet, "on which the French commons can split is pretending to too much. If the liberty of the press is secured, no pretext left for Lettres de cachet, the Provincial Assemblies established, and some bounds put to the expenditure, everything else must follow. But I cannot help coinciding most entirely with those who were for the union of the Orders, in consequence of my own experience of this constitution. I look upon M. Montesquieu to be a second saviour of the world, but I have long since considered what he says of our constitution to be very visionary. I imagine it is the natural progress of things to pass from ignorance to pedantry, and from pedantry to simplicity and truth. I have been an observer and some little actor in our government now for 30 years, and I have never seen any good result from the three Orders with us, except the delay, which gives time for the public opinion to operate, and I am sure the nobility in France will have twice the influence by mixing with the commons, and will do themselves more credit; I mean such as mean the public. Those that have principles that they cannot justify and will not stand discussion, will certainly be able to do more by being shut up and by exercising their veto. I have just been reading M. Necker's memoir about the corn, and cannot express to you how much concern it gave me to see the old leaven in it. I thought he had dropped it. Excuse my petulance in saying so much about what does not concern me, and of which I cannot be a judge.

"All that you say about our government in your letter is exact truth, to which may be added, that ours is like an old house in the country, perfectly habitable, with good apartments in good repair, though not so good as a new house; yet it would be madness in us to put ourselves to the inconvenience of pulling it down to build another, and therefore it cannot be expected that things can bear a constant comparison. As to your house I look upon it as nearly covered in. The Assembly and the public seem perfectly aware of the importance of keeping the great powers of government distinct, and if they should happen in any particular instance to confound the legislative with the executive, the public opinion will quickly set it to right. Men are deceived by forms, but I do not believe they are ever really governed by them, except in young and barbarous countries. France must shortly become so enlightened, that the public opinion must become in future equally capable and powerful. As to your two pamphlets about the Church funds, it strikes me, as it does everyone, that there is a great deal of reason and good sense in them, as well as in all the Abbé Siéyès says about them. I own I cannot comprehend the debates upon them. What is there so simple as to give a power to the proprietors to buy at a fixed price (suppose 25 or 30 years' purchase; ours would sell here in an instant at 40), whenever they can afford it. It would incite great economy among the proprietors, and effectually prevent all hardship. This appears to me so simple and so just, that I must deceive myself about it, else it could not fail to strike the wisdom of the Assembly. As to your own case and that of the titulaires I cannot persuade myself that the Assembly will not soften, and in the end do what becomes them. I have always observed that great assemblies, as well as the public at large, are violent at first, but always come round in the end to what is just, and I am confirmed in this opinion by what has passed about the nuns. It is a pity in the meantime that some of the ecclesiastical members should, as they seem to me to do, have recourse to tricks which would better become lawyers, than to bold and open arguments addressed to the justice, the dignity, and the good sense of the Assembly and of the public. But I beg pardon, as you must think me most ridiculous for presuming to criticise men and things especially at such a distance. I am captivated to the greatest degree, as you may easily imagine by the proceedings in regard to the East and West Indies. M. Barnave promises to be very eminent, if the ideas were suggested by him to the committee, or indeed if he composed the Resolutions, which are admirably expressed. As to myself I am arranging and adapting my habits of life, as well as I can to the circumstances in which I find myself. I am endeavouring to form a rational society at home, as I do not like to go in search of it, and whenever you choose to make a part of it you will do us all great pleasure. Your aristocrates feel a great deal, and are in consequence led to express themselves sometimes warmly. Mme. de Boufflers is in this case, but you know she was always more in your style, and Madame Helvetius in mine, to whom I beg you will say everything that is kind and respectful. I hope if she quits Paris she will not think of coming to any country but to this, and to no house in this in preference to mine.

"Your revolution is excessively hard upon individuals, but the effect it must have upon the whole world exceeds all power of imagination. We must contrive to meet once more before we die to talk over such great events, and their consequences. I am entirely taken up making love to my son, who as happens in all loves is more or less of a coquette, but all will do very well. The ladies desire to be particularly remembered to you. Miss Fox took all the pains possible with her brother's guardians to get them to buy your library for him. We all beg to be affectionately remembered to the Bishop of Chartres. Is he a Non-juror? If so I hope he will come and spend some time with us at Bowood."^[14]

The King's speech on the 31st of January 1792 spoke the language of confidence, and announced a reduction in the naval and military establishments. The cause of reform continued to advance; the law of libel with the unanimous consent of all parties in the State was altered in the manner for which Shelburne had vainly contended in 1772. It is curious that the proceedings, which were the immediate cause of this much needed alteration, originated with Mr. Fitzmaurice, Lord Lansdowne's brother, who had abandoned political life and was now living in Wales, where he commenced the memorable proceedings against the Dean of St. Asaph's, by preferring a bill of indictment against him for the publication of "the Dialogue between a Scholar and a Farmer," a pamphlet showing the defects which existed in the representation of the people in Parliament.^[15]

"From the wisdom and temper," Lord Lansdowne wrote a short time after the death of Mirabeau, "which has been shown by the Assembly in their late proceedings, it may be expected that they may still find means of uniting all parties. No concessions can be too great provided they do not affect the great landmarks of the Revolution.

"Nothing is to be apprehended from within, but what is in the power of the Representatives to prevent or overcome. In the English Revolution of 1688, a great majority of the people of Great Britain were attached to King James, and continued so for three reigns, those of William III., Anne, and George I. I have myself known old people who remember cannon being placed at Whitehall to awe the people, and prevent George the First from being insulted when he went to Parliament. The Restoration of Charles II. was easy, because the law remaining unaltered, of which the King was the life and soul, and he being absent and not replaced, all was confusion and anarchy. Nothing can be more impudently false than what Mr. Burke says of the Government of Oliver and Richard Cromwell, as is proved by Whitelocke's Memorials, the Parliamentary History, and Cromwell's Speeches to his different Parliaments and Assemblies where he states, I believe truly and sincerely, the difficulties of the times.^[16] But in France it is just the reverse of all this. The law has been changed in the first instance, and the proceedings rendered independent, and a great majority of the people are in favour of the Revolution.

"If danger is to be apprehended, it can only be from without. This is improbable, because, the body of aristocrats under the Princes can make no effort, however secretly assisted by any Power, which will not strengthen the Revolution; the reasons are too obvious to be worth detailing. No Power of any consequence will venture to interfere, without a general junction of the Continental Powers (for England will and must be out of the question), which is highly improbable. First, it is unprecedented. No such thing took place when Holland threw off the Spanish yoke, or in favour of Charles or James II., which two last instances called for it much more than that which now exists in France. The Emperor is a politic person, and under some concealment an ambitious prince. What inducement can he have to resign his alliance with France, by which the House of Austria always has and always must be gainers? What can justify him in risking his possession of the Low Countries, and the quiet of his dominions, particularly Hungary? The House of Austria have hitherto rejected all private understanding with Prussia. What reason is there to suppose that the present Emperor will on a sudden change the system and passions of his family? All that passed at Reichenbach and private anecdotes, so far as they are to be trusted, give reason to believe exactly the reverse. What can induce him to lay himself at the mercy of his mortal enemy, which he does the moment he interferes openly in France? The King of Prussia may change his mind, he may change his ministers, the temptation may be too great. What advantage can he possibly figure to himself to balance any, much more all these risks? It would be a refinement to suppose that he takes up the aristocrats as the weaker side with a view to weaken both, and get Alsace in the scramble, for he has still the King of Prussia at his back.

"Supposing however a general league to be formed in opposition to all precedents, to the nature of things, and to all political calculation. What difficulties will they not have to encounter? An offensive war against twenty-five millions of people, a proud high spirited nation enthusiastic to a degree of desperation, insulted with the very idea of invasion, with greater means than all the rest of Europe can furnish, and England out of the scale. Recollect the resistance and success of America, the length of time and money which it took to reduce Corsica, the defeat of the Spaniards when they attempted to invade Algiers. Besides, the peoples of Europe may negotiate together as well as the sovereigns of Europe. The people of Flanders, Holland, Savoy, Hungary, Spain and even Portugal have all discovered more or less disposition to assert their original rights, besides Poland. There is reason to believe it might extend to Moscow.^[17] There is no instance in history of any great league of princes lasting long. It is to be presumed that the French representatives will not be idle, but endeavour to detach some of the parties. There is not a Northern Potentate, who could resist the offer of a West India Island or an East Indian factory, and there are many who think France would be stronger and England too, without any of either, if they could be sure of their not being monopolized.

"Supposing last of all the invasion successful—Is France to be kept like a conquered country, or is it to be awed as Holland now is, by England and Prussia with the aid of some German troops? The idea is too absurd.—But the aristocrats themselves do not wish the return of Despotism. In general they wish to stop at the English Constitution, which purified as it must be when newly instituted, is very different from the corrupted state of it after so many years' service.

"The Church lands which are sold can never be restored. Queen Mary of England who succeeded immediately after the Reformation, easily persuaded the aristocrats of those days to change back to popery, but she could prevail on no one to restore the abbey lands.

"The nonsense of feudality can never be revived. The people can never be taxed again without the consent of some representative body consisting of one or more Houses. The Bastille cannot be rebuilt. The administration of justice and feudality cannot again go together.

"These fundamental points I call the Revolution, and must insure the essence of freedom. The rest, supposing the worst to happen, may be very safely left to public opinion and to the light of the times. Public opinion once set free acts like the sea neverceasingly, controlling imperceptibly and irresistibly both laws and ministers of laws, reducing and advancing everything to its own level. After what has passed in France the most violent despotism cannot efface it."^[18]

Such was the state of feeling in England during the opening stages of the French Revolution. Gradually a change began. One of the first proofs of it was given in the Birmingham riots of July 1791.

In the great speech which Burke delivered against the French Revolution on the 2nd March, 1790, he had attacked his old enemies, the Nonconformist ministers, reading extracts from the writings of Price and Priestley, from which he argued that the Church Establishment was in more serious danger in England, than it had been a year or two before in France. The sermon from which he specially quoted was that which Price had delivered at the chapel in the Old Jewry on the anniversary of the English Revolution, in which he expatiated on the brilliant prospects now opened to the world with such irresistible eloquence, that his audience was hardly restrained by the sacredness of the place from bursting into open shouts of applause.^[19] Shortly after, on November 4th, 1789, Price moved and carried a congratulatory address to the National Assembly of France from the Society for commemorating the Revolution in Great Britain, which was transmitted by the chairman, Lord Stanhope, to the Duc de la Rochefoucauld, to be presented by him to the Assembly. The publication of the Reflections on the French Revolution was the answer of Burke. In it Price, Priestley, and their friends were held up to public odium as sophisters, economists, and calculators, who had destroyed the age of chivalry. Priestley at once retorted with a "Reply" to the "Reflections." A host of combatants soon joined the wordy fray, and although Burke denounced Price and Priestley as "political theologians," and reminded them "that no sound ought to be heard in the Church but the healing voice of Christian charity,"^[20] the pulpits of the Church of England resounded with language at which, according to Mackintosh, "Laud would have shuddered and Sacheverel would have blushed."^[21] The result of the language of these theological incendiaries was seen in the riots of the 14th July 1791, when Priestley's chapel and his private house were destroyed, his books and manuscripts burnt, and his philosophical instruments destroyed. Nor did the ruin end there; and for four days, neither the lives nor the property of any well-known Nonconformist in Birmingham or its immediate neighbourhood were safe from the outrages of the Church and King mob. Priestley himself escaped with difficulty, and was again attacked at Tewkesbury, where he only escaped by disguising himself in a wig and gown belonging to a friend who was visiting him.^[22] It is possible, however, that the Birmingham riots might have caused a liberal reaction, had not the political horizon in France meanwhile become darker and darker, while Burke in gloomier and gloomier accents announced the arrival of a universal cataclysm, in which law and order, property and religion, were alike to be swept away. The Whig party listened. Men began to talk of the necessity of a strong Government, and of a junction with Pitt. But Pitt at the moment was discredited by the failure of his Russian policy; the star of Fox might still be in the ascendant, and Fox cared nothing for the vaticinations of Burke. Thus it came to pass that the negotiations for a coalition, carried on by Lord Loughborough in the beginning of 1792, came to nothing. During their continuance, the King, weary apparently of the domination of Pitt, suddenly bethought himself of his old Minister, and sent to Lord Lansdowne, to obtain his views on the situation. This rapidly became known, and Gillray represented him driving to St. James's Palace, with the dove of peace flying before his carriage. He leans out of the carriage and shouts to the coachman, "Drive you dog, drive, now or never. Aha! the coast is clearing! Drive, drive, you dog." Fox, Sheridan, and their friends, hang on behind and call out, "Stop, stop, take us in, stop!" In the background Pitt and Dundas are seen leaving the palace.

To the overtures of the King, Lord Lansdowne replied as follows:—

"If the King wishes to change his Ministry, there are two means of doing it. In proportion as he adopts more or less of each he will do it with more or less reputation, effect, and safety.

Men or
Measures.

"First as to men. The most obvious and what has been the uniform practice since the accession of the Hanover family to his Majesty's accession, is to have recourse to the predominant parties at the moment, and for the King to give his confidence blindfold to the most numerous, or to such a combination as the different parties can form amongst themselves, subject to some few reserves. But, it is to be presumed, this of all others is the last means to which he would have recourse, as it has been the object of his reign to break up all party, if not to form one of his own, and he has repeatedly declared, that he would rather retire to Hanover, than submit to such humiliation. On the other hand it is much to be feared that the leading Members of the House of Commons, which is all that is wanting to set a new system forward, are so few in number, and so entangled, and so circumstanced, that they cannot be counted upon, without in the instance of Fox, taking in his party, or in the instance of Pitt, a degree of submission which is the very point in question.

"Everything else must be considered in the nature of experiment, and so far hazardous; for if the present attempt fails, no intrigue to secure an after game will do more than weaken a system, which will require every possible aid to support itself at setting out. If Sheridan could be gained (which is not certain), it could be considered in no other light; and as to taking up anybody else to lead the House of Commons, the subjects which offer are so very young and inexperienced, that public opinion stands a chance of being forfeited in the first instance, and the new system blown down, before there is time for other means to operate.

"It may be alleged that occasions never fail to create men, and that the experiment has been tried with success in the present reign in the instances of the late George Grenville, Lord North, and the present Pitt; when the King in each instance risked his Government in the face of men who possessed the confidence of the public in a high degree, and of the same party which exists at present, when they were more formidable in some respects than they are now, though not in others. But it must be considered, that they have above twenty years' experience and habit of the public, that they have been joined by all the King's sons, whose union and activity is well known, that America has been lost, the Court made captive in 1783, and felt to be fettered very unwillingly during the present Administration; while the pretensions of men have been excited to the most unreasonable pitch. There are still other circumstances, which might be stated to show that it is not a moment for trying any light experiment.

"On the other hand it may be asserted with truth, that the public opinion goes more in favour of the King than of any party whatever, that the present Opposition are collectively and individually odious, that there are many revolting circumstances about the highest personages who avow their support of Opposition, that the popularity of the present Ministers is of a flimsy texture, founded upon no real services, and may be easily cut up, and that the new principles as well as the letter of the Constitution go to keep the Executive independent of the Legislative, much more of any cabal or party, which can be formed in either or both Houses of Parliament, and that there is no risk in appealing to the people against any such, was sufficiently evinced in 1784. All this is true, and may be acted upon in time; but at setting out it requires to resist the cry of the moment the most unequivocal proofs of the laws being incorrect, and the fullest and most unreserved power to gain over as many individuals and knots of men as possible, in order to be secure at least as to numbers in the House of Commons, till the public can be got to hear without prejudice who may be intended. This leads to the consideration of measures, which should be resolved upon as early as possible as the only means of gaining the confidence of the public, by teaching them as well what they are as what they are not to exact, and by this means preventing disappointment or surprise, or anything being left to the old Opposition or to the ministers who go out, to take credit for, which should never be allowed."^[23]

Such was the reply of Lord Lansdowne; but nothing more was heard from the King, and the negotiation came to an abrupt termination.

Pitt however was not blind to the signs of the times and in the indignation caused by the events in France, he saw his own opportunity as well as the chance of saving Europe. In proportion as power began to pass from the reforming to the purely revolutionary party, the dread of French principles became more and more pronounced in England, and the Russian miscarriage became entirely a thing of the past. In the course of 1792 war had been begun by Austria and Prussia against France; the demand began to make itself heard that England should join the allies in their new crusade, and Russia soon came to be regarded as a desirable ally. It was believed that England was swarming with foreign emissaries intent on the destruction of all the most cherished institutions of the country. When Chauvelin, accompanied by Talleyrand, arrived as French Ambassador, he was received by very few members of the best society in London, except Lord Lansdowne.^[24] Generally the two French Envoys were regarded with curiosity, but it was the curiosity of aversion.

For some time yet however Pitt hesitated what foreign policy to pursue. His mind was more rapidly made up on home affairs. On the 21st May 1792 the first signs of the change, which had come over the spirit of the dream of the Prime Minister appeared. A Proclamation was issued against the publication and dispersion of seditious writings. It was generally understood to be aimed at the Declaration of "The Friends of the People associated for the purpose of obtaining a Parliamentary reform," agreed to by them on the 26th April, when it had also been resolved to ask Mr. Grey to bring forward the subject in Parliament. On Mr. Grey giving notice of his intention to do so, Pitt at once took the opportunity of declaring how much his opinions were altered, since the time when his name was associated with the question. He called Reform under the circumstances a hazardous experiment, and pointed to France as a warning. Even the Duke of Richmond, once the champion of universal suffrage, appeared as a convert to his views, and thereby drew on himself the taunts of Lord Lansdowne in the debate in the House of Lords on the Proclamation.^[25] "He was astonished," Lord Lansdowne said, "at the constructive danger, on which they were called upon to approve of the Proclamation; much more at finding it supposed to glance at an association lately instituted for the purpose of reform. The principles of that association had been supported by members of the present Cabinet. One of the most distinguished members of the Cabinet had called upon him to run the risk of sacrificing the Administration of which he had the honour to make a part, to the support of those very principles of reform.^[26] To those principles he verily believed that Administration had fallen a sacrifice; and he had too high an opinion of the person to whom he alluded, to believe that he could approve of any measure that tended to throw discredit on principles which he himself had once professed. To impute improper motives to those who had now embarked in the same cause was ungenerous and uncandid. He had little knowledge of any of them but Mr. Grey, the son of an old and much respected friend; and him he knew to have an hereditary claim to honour and integrity, and to every virtue that entitled a man to solicit the confidence of his fellow-citizens. It was cruel to those who had themselves supported the very same principles, to class such men with those who wished to overturn the Constitution. It was said that there was no knowing where the reformers would stop, that if they obtained a moderate reform, they would contend for an indefinite reform, inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution. Was this a decent mode of arguing? If he was indebted to a man the sum of 100l., would it be proper to say when asked for it, 'I will not pay you this 100l., because if I do you will ask me for another; and there is no knowing where your demands will end!' Surely the proper way would be to pay first what was due, and resist with firmness the demand of what was not. … He trusted he should never see anarchy, or anything like anarchy, introduced into this country; as little did he wish to see it engaged in seconding the combination of kings against subjects, the power of arms against the progress of reason. On this subject he had never been without his apprehensions since our interference in the affairs of Holland. It was wise and meritorious to prevent that country from becoming the dependant of France; but when he looked at the sort of interference employed for that purpose, his mind recoiled from the view; while he approved of the end, he could not but condemn the means. In such an interference in the internal affairs of any country, he hoped this nation would never more be concerned. Let us be content with the prosperity which was pouring fast in upon us, from the distresses and confusion of other countries; let us not seek to augment it by indirect means. If seditious writings were disseminating among the people, in God's name let them be prosecuted. Of the Proclamation he disapproved entirely. It was not calculated to intimidate, but to provoke; not to quiet but to alarm; to irritate if there was a viper in the country; if a toad, to call it forth."^[27]

Notwithstanding these and similar declarations, on almost every occasion when Lord Lansdowne rose to speak during the troublous years which followed, he was met with open accusations or covert insinuations, that because he refused to abandon his desire for Parliamentary Reform, because he believed that the ordinary law of the land was sufficient to keep down whatever excesses the advocates of extreme opinions might be disposed to commit, he and his friends were therefore Jacobins in disguise, and the friends of sedition and anarchy. It was idle to protest. Had not the Convention, it was asked, voted the tide of French citizens to his friends, Joseph Priestley and Jeremy Bentham. The terrible events in France, the massacres of the loth of August and the 2nd of September 1792, had unnerved the minds of men. A panic arose, and the friends of order called on their representatives to pass laws recalling the memory of the days of the Stuarts. Priestley left England in despair to go to America; whence he kept up a correspondence with Lord Lansdowne.^[28] Benjamin Vaughan shortly after followed his example;^[29] Price fortunately for himself had died in the previous year; Bentham in vain addressed an eloquent plea to the Convention in favour of justice and mercy. The storm none the less continued to rage against them with undiminished vigour.

On the 21st December 1792, Lord Lansdowne moved a resolution in favour of sending a Minister to France, in order to represent the feelings of the English Government for the unhappy situation of "Louis XVI.," and to use his best endeavours in exhorting the Convention, not to suffer any danger to arise to his person.^[30] Lord Grenville in reply said that he never in his life heard words that conveyed so much horror to his mind as those which Lord Lansdowne had adopted. The manner in which the unfortunate monarch in question was described, was precisely that which was used by those who were heaping upon that amiable prince every species of indignity. The only appellation they gave him was that of "Louis XVI.," an appellation purposely meant to point out the man as distinct from the kingly office and dignity, which they themselves had sworn to maintain to him and his posterity. This was not the way in which England was accustomed to treat the Sovereigns of Europe; and he trusted the House of Lords would have too much regard for their own honour and for that of their country, to adopt the language of men whose actions were calculated to inspire horror and detestation.

And yet no body of men were more thoroughly aware than Lord Lansdowne and his friends of the injury being done by the Jacobins to the cause of the Revolution itself. Lord Holland wrote from Berlin of the 2nd of September: "It was a melancholy day—a day which no man really attached to the cause of liberty can think of without regret, and which gives a handle to every prejudiced or interested Royalist throughout Europe to inveigh against the principles of the French Revolution. I am sure," he went on, "you must agree with me in lamenting that so glorious a cause as the enfranchisement of such a country as France is supported by people and individuals, whose conduct upon several occasions not only does not claim respect but excites both horror and contempt. However notwithstanding all this, the defeat or failure of the combined armies must give a good Englishman, that is a selfish one, great pleasure.^[31] We have more to fear from the encroachments of the King and Administration than from that of the people, and who can say, had France been conquered, whether our turn would not have come soon. The same benevolent reasons which induced the kings to make war against France, might have also inclined them when flushed with success to quiet that troublesome House of Commons and silence the impudent pamphleteers of London."^[32]

Of a similar character were the thoughts of Dumont, who as he believed at the time, had watched over the cradle of French liberty, but now saw Saturn devouring his children; and of John Adams, who knew the difference between liberty and anarchy. "I walk about half the day," the former wrote to Romilly from Bowood, "in a state of the greatest agitation, from the impossibility of remaining still, with my thoughts fixed upon all the sad events which are flowing from a source whence we had flattered ourselves human happiness was to arise."^[33] "I think," wrote Adams to Priestley, who forwarded the letter to Lord Lansdowne, "that all the ages and nations of the world never furnished so strong an argument against a pure republic as the French have done. I speak without reserve, in unqualified language, because I am sure, as I am of the future existence of the world, that a very few years will force France into a mixed republic, or into the gulf of destruction."^[34]

English reformers were now between two fires. "I need not tell you," Lord Lansdowne wrote to Morellet in reply to the suggestions of a common friend that he should personally intercede with the National Assembly on behalf of some of the condemned, "that we should both of us be just dragged through the kennel and afterwards roasted to powder; or if in their mercy I should have any remains left, they would only serve to be hashed up here in as many ways as your cooks dress eggs."^[35]

But even apart from political considerations, there was enough in the events of 1792 and 1793 in France to sadden the mind of the society which gathered at Bowood. How many of the brilliant group which in former days Lord Shelburne had seen gathered in the salons of Mme. Geoffrin and Mme. Helvetius were now perishing by an untimely end; how many more, like Morellet, were beggared, or like Vergennes driven into exile,^[36] or only awaiting the moment when they were to follow their friends and their relatives to the scaffold. "Melancholy news! my dear Lord," wrote Bentham on the 10th of September 1792. "By and by there will not be a single honest man left in that accursed country. Liancourt was to have dined here; instead of him comes a note that Rochefoucauld is murdered. It is enough, I doubt not, to spoil your dinner, as it has mine."^[37] "Hélas," wrote Morellet, "j'ai été trop près pour mon malheur de ce terrible spectacle d'une révolution. J'ai vu tomber autour de moi une foule de gens intéressans pour ceux-là même qui ne les connaissaient pas, et un grand nombre de personnes avec lesquelles j'avals passé ma vie et je comptais la finir. Toute la famille Brienne; la famille Malesherbes; les deux Trudaines; M. et Mad. de Boisgeslins, Made. de Grammont, Made. de Biron, M. de Thiars, M. de St. Priest, M. de la Borde; plusieurs fermiers généraux avec lesquels j'étais lié, etc.; et j'ai été témoin de ces assassinats forcé soit par les lois tyranniques, soit par l'impossibilité de trouver à vivre ailleurs ou d'y vivre avec quelque sûreté, forcé, dis-je, d'habiter la ville de sang où ce spectacle se renouvelait tous les jours tout près de mon habitation, n'ayant plus d'autre sentiment que l'indignation et l'horreur, honteux d'être homme et d'appartenir à un peuple non-seulement assez lâche pour souffrir tant d'atrocités, mais assez féroce ou assez stupide pour en repaître les yeux tous les jours. … Tantôt l'indignation même m'a poussé à conserver le souvenir des horreurs dont j'étais le témoin, et tantôt le spectacle des grands mouvemens politiques m'a conduit à en rechercher et en étudier les causes, et à analyser de nouveau toutes les questions de philosophie politique qu'ont fait élever les agitations de notre gouvernement, et l'activité continuelle d'une législation inquiète et mobile qui a touché, changé et altéré toutes les relations sociales."^[38]

Amongst others who thought it advisable to be absent from France till the tyranny was overpast, was Talleyrand. Escaping from Paris after the 10th of August by the help of a passport obtained from Danton, he arrived in England, and is described by Lord Holland as a constant visitor at the little lodgings in Half-Moon Street, where Mme. de Flahault, who by the assistance of Lord Wycombe and "Bobus" Smith had escaped through the populace with the MS. of her novel Adèle de Senanges and her infant son in her arms, entertained nearly the same society she had formerly received in her house in Paris. M. de Flahault had been captured at Arras and guillotined.^[39] From England, Talleyrand went to America, the bearer of the following letter to Washington from Lord Lansdowne:—

 

Letter from the Marquis of Lansdowne to President Washington.

"London, March 2nd, 1794.

"Sir,—M. Talleyrand-Périgord, late Bishop of Autun in France, does me a great deal of honour in supposing that a letter from me may be of use to him with you. I am too much flattered by the supposition to decline taking that liberty; but I have a more powerful motive, which is, to do justice to a most respectable individual, suffering under a great deal of combined persecution. M. Talleyrand is the eldest of one of the first families of France. He was bred to the Church on account of an accidental lameness at his birth, and must have succeeded to the highest honours and emoluments if he had not sacrificed his ambition to public principle, in which however he preserves so much moderation as never to pass the line of a constitutionalist, which exposes him to the hatred of the violent party now predominating.

"He has resided in England near three years, during which time he has conducted himself, to my intimate knowledge, with the strictest public and private propriety, so as to give not the least cause of jealousy; but is now exiled from hence in consequence of the earnest and repeated desire of courts, who, being under the influence of the French ecclesiastics, can never pardon in a bishop a desire to promote the general freedom of public worship which M. Talleyrand has uniformly professed. In the present situation of Europe, he has nowhere to look for an asylum, except to that country, which is happy enough to preserve its peace and its happiness under your auspices, to which we may be all of us in our turn obliged to look up, if some bounds are not speedily put to the opposite storms of anarchy and despotism, which threaten Europe with desolation.^[40] M. Talleyrand is accompanied with another constitutionalist, M. Beaumet, a person of distinguished probity, courage and love of instruction. I have the honour to be, with the highest respect and veneration, Sir, &c.

"Lansdowne."

 

When the feelings of men who like Dumont and Bentham wished well to the Revolution, were such as have been described, it is not to be wondered that the passions of those, who from the beginning had hated it, were raised to the most extraordinary pitch of excitement, ferocity, and triumph. In the country the Government carried all before it. In Parliament opposition became fruitless. By the end of 1794, a junction of parties had taken place, which made Pitt absolute master of the situation in both Houses. The ancient party of Newcastle and Rockingham, of Burke and Portland, after many hesitations threw in their lot with Pitt, under the auspices of Lord Loughborough, who on the retirement of Thurlow owing to incompatibility of temper in June 1792, had accepted the Great Seal. Portland became Home Secretary in the place of Dundas appointed Colonial Secretary; Lord Fitzwilliam became President ot the Council, Lord Camden retiring; and Lord Spencer became Privy Seal in the place of Lord Gower. Later in the year Lord Spencer exchanged his office with Lord Chatham, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, and Lord Fitzwilliam went to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant, and was succeeded in the Presidency of the Council by Lord Mansfield. These changes were made with the full approval of the Whig party in both Houses. The alternative in their opinion was a party formed by Lord Lansdowne, Fox, and Grey, under the auspices of Chauvelin, and to this party they refused to belong. "I will not serve under Captain Sheridan, or Colonel Price, nor yet Generalissimo Lansdowne," said Sir Gilbert Elliot, "nor could I be reconciled to any corps emanating from them, even by seeing Fox at the head of it."^[41]

The same circumstances which led to a final estrangement between Lord Lansdowne and Pitt not unnaturally led to a reconciliation with Fox, who had now finally emancipated himself from the intellectual thraldom in which Burke had so long held him.

In 1792 at the opening of the autumn session, Lord Wycombe, who had entered public life with injunctions from his father "to take a manly part in politics, be it Aristocrat or Democrat, or else a respectable quiet part,"^[42] opened the opposition in Parliament, deprecating the alarm expressed at speculative opinions, and censuring the injustice of the violent policy advocated by Burke. Although his speech was generally considered to have been very able, "Mr. Pitt," says Lord Holland, "treated him with much insolence and scorn; and that circumstance, and the approach of war, confirmed Lord Lansdowne in opposition. I cannot decide," he continues, "whether Mr. Fox's warm approbation of Lord Wycombe's sensible speech, and his defence of him when attacked by Mr. Pitt with a fury little creditable to his head or his heart, had the effect of inclining Lord Lansdowne to a union with Mr. Fox, or of estranging his suspicious temper more from such a measure. He had many conversations with Mr. Grey, with whose father he was much connected, and with me, then a boy of nineteen, on the subject.^[43]

"What passed with Grey I know not. I told him that their common disapprobation of the war, and of the system, both domestic and foreign, adopted by Ministers, would insensibly draw them more cordially together than any understanding or treaty at so early a period. I added that Mr. Fox had been so long politically connected, and was so personally attached to many of those leading men with whom he now differed, that public duty, appearance to the world, and, above all, his own affectionate feelings, would indispose him to seek any new connections, or to break through his old engagements, till those with whom he had formed them acknowledged that it was impracticable to preserve them with mutual honour. But as the objects of Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Fox were peace and reform to a greater or less extent, I thought that in the pursuit of those objects they must ultimately meet and assist each other.

"I perceived there was not much reliance on either side on the other's professions or intentions, and I let both see that I thought so. I was diverted at observing that Lord Lansdowne throughout attributed the backwardness of the Whigs to Mr. Fox's jealousy of him, whereas Mr. Fox was, of the whole party (with the exception of Mr. Grey), the least disinclined to him, and the others had not only a distrust, but an unwarrantable hatred, of his very name."^[44] Early in 1794 it was intimated to Lord Lansdowne that a more definite explanation was wished for by Fox.

"Is the explanation proposed," he replied to Lady Ossory, who with his sister-in-law Lady Holland and his niece Miss Fox, who was also Lord Lansdowne's niece, had for some time past been trying to effect a reconciliation between the two statesmen, "to be limited to that object, or is it to be extended to an union avowed, or otherwise?

"The advantages resulting from an union I need not mention, they are better understood than I am capable to explain.

"Some disadvantages will arise, the most important are:

"To abandon the present distinct, detached, and if I may be allowed the expression, independent situation, which may produce an effect on the minds of the public or in the closet.

"With regard to the public, I should rather think such an abandonment would be an advantage; they do not understand refinement, however correct and distinct; nor can they relish any political system unless it is en gros et en corps.

"With regard to the closet, which is the most important, it is far beyond my depth to form an opinion, although I could offer arguments on both sides, and perhaps all these arguments without the least foundation."^[45]

The chief obstacle to any reconciliation was Richard Fitzpatrick, who continued to regard his brother-in-law with the most bitter aversion; ultimately however his objections also were overruled, chiefly as it would appear from the determination of Lord Holland, Mr. Grey, and other of the younger members of the Whig party not to allow the old animosities of their seniors, to stand in the way of what they themselves recognised to be a necessary step. So Fitzpatrick gave way with a growl. "Since the tergiversations of all parties of politicians," he wrote to Lady Ossory, " all objections to individuals must cease. When there is a disposition to reconciliation with Lord Lansdowne, a backwardness to join in it on my part would merely be improper, and at least there are advantages of a private kind, such as meeting Miss Vernon and Miss Fox there, which may compensate."^[46]

The events of the French Revolution had caused the friendship of Fox and Burke to be severed, and it was a complete divergence of opinion on these events which at this period also led to an estrangement between Barré and Lord Lansdowne. The blow to the latter was heavy, for it was the termination of a friendship which had lasted without interruption for more than thirty years. "I take it for granted," Lord Lansdowne wrote to Bentham, "you do not mean to give up Bowood for the summer. We reserve till then telling you all we think about the Colonel; but there must be nothing of old kindnesses in little or in great character. Though I do not pretend to rival Mr. Pitt, I am enough of a negotiator to know the danger of suffering principles to be lodged."^[47] Barré vacated his seat in Parliament, and was succeeded in the representation of Calne by Benjamin Vaughan;^[48] to the great disappointment of Bentham, who was under the impression that he was going to be returned. He expressed his disappointment in a letter of sixty-one pages, accusing his patron of the breach of an engagement, commenting also with great bitterness on the absurd condition of the present rump of the ci-devant Shelburne party and on the character of his friends, and urging him once more to try to assume a leading place in Parliament. "The curious thing," he said, "is that there is nothing I could say to you of their insignificance in which you have not gone before me." To this strange effusion Lord Lansdowne replied in a letter which the Editor of Bentham's works allows does the writer great credit. After explaining that no offer such as Bentham imagined, had ever been made, he went on to say: "Now that I know your wishes, I assure you that it will give me great pleasure if I can contribute to the completion of them; and that I will spare no pains for the purpose, so far as consists with the engagements I have, express or implied, which have taken place when I was totally ignorant of your inclinations, and which I do not think requisite to state, feeling the discussion of them unbecoming towards myself and others, from the same motives of delicacy which would influence me in your case, mutatis mutandis. But I must annex two conditions—one, that it must not be considered as the consequence of any past engagement, which I am now disclaiming; another, that it shall not be understood to be with any political view, for you quite mistake my plans. I wish well to what I call the new principles, and will promote them so far as a free declaration of my own sentiments in public or private will go; but politics have given long since too much way to philosophy, for me to give myself further trouble about them. I would as soon take England upon my back, as take the trouble of fighting up a second time the game to which you allude. If I plant any more, I have long determined that it shall be like the birds: the trees must depend on the nature of the soil. I will bestow no pains on fencing, much less manuring and dunging them.

"I am now only afraid that you will be angry that your sixty-one pages have not on the one hand had the effect of subduing or terrifying me; or on the other, made me angry; and that you apprehend them to be thrown away. They have not occasioned to me one moment's irritation; but they are not thrown away. I select, with satisfaction, the seeds of esteem and regard which I perceive interspersed. It is no small pleasure to me to reflect that, open and unguarded as I am well known to be, in such intimate habits as I have indulged with you, I have exposed myself so little. I see the merit of the advice which is mixed, which, if I was as perseveringly ambitious as you suppose, is as good as any Lord Bacon could have given to the Duke of Buckingham; and though the rest is at the expense of myself and of friends whom I highly respect and esteem, concerning whom you appear to have fallen into strange mistakes, I cannot help admiring the ingenuity with which you attach expressions to meanings, and meanings to expressions, to advance your argument; besides a great deal more I could say, if I was not afraid of your suspecting what I might say in the best faith, to partake of any sort of persiflage."

This letter had the desired effect of calming Bentham. "Since you will be neither subdued nor terrified," he replied, "will you be embraced? Those same seeds you were speaking of have taken such root, that the ground is overrun with them; and there would be no getting them out, were a man to tug and tug his heart out. So Parliament may go to the Devil."^[49]

 

1. Lord Lansdowne to Bentham, January 20th, 1789.
2. The bust is now on the staircase at Lansdowne House.
3. Lord Lansdowne to Morellet, April 7th, 1788.
4. Cornwallis Correspondence, ii. 367, 374.
5. Parliamentary History, xxviii. 941, 942.
6. Chatham Correspondence, iv. 298.
7. Parliamentary History, xxix. 52.
8. Ibid. xxix. 46.
9. By his first marriage with Lady Sophia Carteret. He succeeded his father in 1805, and in the same year married Mary, the widow of Sir Duke Gifford of Castle Jordan, Ireland. He died in 1809.
10. A letter from Vaughan describing the Fête de la Fédération will be found in the Appendix II. B.
11. Vaughan to Lord Lansdowne, 1790.
12. Lord Lansdowne to Bentham, March 29th, 1789.
13. Life of Lord Sidmouth, i. 72.
14. Lord Lansdowne to Morellet, July 10th, November 13th, 17895 March 26th, 1790; February 13th, 1791. On the 2nd November 1789, the National Assembly passed an Act declaring the property of the Church to belong to the State. On the 17th of March 1790, it ordered the sale of national property up to a value of 400,000,000 francs.
15. See supra, p. 309.
16. "On the policy of the allies," Burke, Collected Works, iv. 467; "Letter to a member of the National Assembly," ib. iv. 37, where Burke overestimates the degree of consent which the Government of Cromwell received from the majority of the people.
17. Compare "Lord Lansdowne to Bentham." Works, x. 198.
18. Lansdowne House MSS.
19. Memoir of Price, by Morgann, 154.
20. Parliamentary History, March 2nd, 1790.
21. Mackintosh, Works, iii. 165.
22. The following letter appeared in the Westminster Gazette of December 30th, 1911: "Sir, Referring to your Note on Dr. Priestley in to-day's Westminster, my great-great-grandfather, the Reverend Elisha Smith, Baptist minister of Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, was an intimate friend of Dr. Priestley, and while visiting him at Tewkesbury during the riots there probably saved his life. The house in which they were staying was surrounded by a dangerous, howling mob, and Priestley only escaped with his life by disguising himself in my ancestor's wig and gown.

    "I remember many years ago talking with an old Cotswold labourer, who remembered Elisha Smith well, and described him as a 'valiant man in his profession.' Though unknown to history, Elisha Smith was no ordinary man, and would have counted it a small thing to have given his life for his friend. From Elisha Smith are descended the late Dean Payne Smith, of Canterbury, who was educated at Chipping Campden Grammar School, and also Elisha Smith Robinson, who made a large fortune, and became M.P. for Bristol, and also Mayor of that city. Both these men started life comparatively poor.—Yours faithfully, A. G. R. December 28."

23. Lansdowne House MSS.
24. Talleyrand to Lord Lansdowne, 1792. Souvenirs sur Mirabeau, 358. Talleyrand, Memoirs, ii. 226.
25. May 31st, 1792.
26. The Duke of Richmond.
27. Parliamentary History, May 31st, 1792.
28. The idea of going to America had been entertained by Priestley as far back as 1772. See supra, Vol. I. p. 434.
29. Vaughan got involved in the charges made against William Stone and John Hurford Stone of treasonable conspiracy, and took refuge in France to escape arrest and probable prosecution in 1794. In France he was arrested during the Reign of Terror; and was denounced by Billaud-Varennes as "an agent of Pitt."
30. Lord Acton (Lectures on the French Revolution, 253) states that at this time Lord Lansdowne, with Fox and Sheridan, supported a proposal which had originated with the Spanish Government, to offer a large bribe to Danton, who was said to be ready to accept it, in order to save Louis XVI.; but he does not state his authority. (See on this subject the observations of Mr. J. Holland Rose, Pitt and the Great War, 94 note.)
31. The battle of Vaimy was fought on September 20th, 1792.
32. Lord Holland to Lord Lansdowne, November 6th, 1792.
33. Dumont to Romilly, 1793.
34. Adams to Priestley, February 27th, 1793.
35. Lord Lansdowne to Morellet, 1792.
36. The younger Vergennes, who in 1782 came to England with Rayneval.
37. Bentham to Lord Lansdowne, September 10th, 1792. The Duc de la Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, so frequently mentioned by Arthur Young in his Travels in France, took refuge in England after the 10th of August. The Comte de la Rochefoucauld was murdered at Giron on September 14th, 1792.
38. Morellet to Lord Lansdowne, 13 fevrier 1796. Lettres de Morellet, lxvii. 310.
39. Souvenirs sur Mirabeau, 363. Lord Holland's Memoirs, i. 19. Life and Letters of Sir Gilbert Elliot, ii. 91, 125, 140. Maricourt, Madame de Souca et Sa Famille, ch. viii.
40. The letters which Talleyrand wrote to Lord Lansdowne from America in 1795 are printed in M. G. Pallain's work: La Mission de Talleyrand, 421-455. Two of these are given in the Appendix II. C.
41. Malmesbury Correspondence, ii. 457. Life and Letters of Sir Gilbert Elliot, i. 371.
42. Lord Lansdowne to Lord Wycombe, September 16th, 1790. The Lord Wycombe mentioned here is the Lord Fitzmaurice of previous chapters.
43. "Mr. Grey," says Elizabeth, Lady Holland, "began his political career under the auspices of Lord Lansdowne; the beauty and attraction of the Duchess of Devonshire drew him to the party of which she was a most active partizan."—Journal, i. 171.
44. Memoirs of the Whig Party, by Lord Holland, i. 44, 45.
45. Lord Lansdowne to Lady Ossory, 1794.
46. Fitzpatrick to Lady Ossory, 1792.
47. Bentham, x. 258. June 20th, 1791.
48. For a few months the seat was held by Mr. Morris, K.C. of Box, in the county of Wilts, probably during the absence of Vaughan in France. As to Vaughan and his visit to France in 1794, see the article in the Dictionary of National Biography, by the present author, lviii. 158-159.
49. The correspondence on this subject including Bentham's letter of sixty-one pages is given in his Works, x. 229-245.