When the new session opened in December, Stanhope pursued CHAP. his efforts for peace in the House of Lords; but his speech VIII. on the Address was little calculated to serve the cause which he had at heart. He once more eulogised the British Constitution as excelling all others, ancient and modern, and rendering revolutions unnecessary. In early life, he added, he had pursued philosophical researches and been introduced to the most learned men on the Continent. Among others he had contracted an intimacy with M. Condorcet, whose reputation he wished to rescue from the aspersions thrown out against him. He then read a letter from the philosopher, declaring that it was the height of folly for the English to attempt to subvert their Constitution, which embodied the wisdom of the ages. As a citizen of the world and a friend to mankind, concluded the speaker, he expressed the most heartfelt satisfaction that the officious interference of the confederacy against the liberty of France had been frustrated. That monster, the Duke of Brunswick, merited the execrations of every man of feeling for publishing a manifesto of his intention to put half a million of his fellowcreatures to the sword. Had he realised this pious resolution, it would have exceeded the wanton ferocity of Nero and Caligula. The massacres in Paris were the result of this declaration. Stanhope was still on friendly terms with Grenville, through whom alone he could hope to influence the policy of the Cabinet. On December 18 he implored him to see one of the numerous Englishmen who had thrown in their lot with the Revolution and were employed on semi-official missions. 'My dear Lord,-A respectable person of my acquaintance (Mr. Stone) is lately come from France and has got a Decree of the National Convention and also questions from the Committee for the Colonies, which he has been requested to bring to this country, and he wishes to shew them to your Lordship. 'Believe me ever, my dear Lord, with great truth, 'Most sincerely yours, Grenville coldly replied the same day that until he knew of the subject of the papers in question he could not grant Mr. Stone an interview. On the next day, December 19, Stanhope wrote again in more urgent terms. 1 Parl. Hist., xxix. 1573-4. * Foreign Office, France, No. 40. This letter was discovered and copied for Miss Stanhope by Dr. Holland Rose. CHAP. 'My dear Lord,-I have written to Mr. Stone to send you VIII. a copy of the Decree of the National Convention, and also of the questions of the Committee for the Colonies. Mr. Stone is an Englishman well acquainted with the Ministers and leading men in France, and whom your Lordship will do well at least to see, as he can convince you of their friendly disposition towards this country. Good God! my dear Lord, you have no conception of the misfortunes you may bring upon England by going to war with France. For as to France, I believe all Europe cannot subdue them, whatever efforts may be made. It will only rouse them worse. 'Believe me ever, my dear Lord, 'STANHOPE.' This letter is endorsed in Grenville's hand 'To be circulated,' and must therefore have come before Pitt.1 During January a final attempt to prevent war was made by Maret, afterwards Duc de Bassano, one of Napoleon's most trusted and honourable servants. Arriving in London on January 3, he sought out the friends of France. 'Lord Stanhope was announced to Maret last night about half-past eight,' wrote Miles on February 4. I was in close conversation with him at the time, and, as he was on the eve of his departure, he made no difficulty in receiving his Lordship. I was much pressed to stay; but as it is my unalterable resolution, under present circumstances, to have no communication on public matters with any members of the Opposition nor even to be present at any such conversation, I withdrew at the same instant that Lord Stanhope entered the room.' 2 The mission was, however, too late, for Pitt refused to see the envoy. III The execution of Louis XVI was followed by the expulsion of the French ambassador. On February 1 Grenville opened a debate on the royal message for an increase of the forces in a speech warmly eulogising the late King, and expressing horror of the men and the principles which had brought him to his doom. 'We may see the same scenes here; we may see them crowned by the same terrible and atrocious act.' The British Government had manifested the most scrupulous neutrality through1 Stanhope, Life of Pitt, ii. 180-1. * Miles, Correspondence on the French Revolution, ii. 60; and Ernouf, Vie de Maret. out the Revolution; but it was impossible for such an attitude CHAP. to continue after the French intervention in Holland and the VIII. open manifestation of aggressive principles. The British ambassador had been recalled from Paris, and official communication with Chauvelin, the French Minister in London, had ceased. When Grenville sat down, Stanhope rose and delivered a speech of passionate conviction.1 It was, he declared, the most important occasion in his life. The approaching calamity of war, pregnant with ruin to England, had been caused by the Ministry, not by French aggression. England had neither been injured nor insulted. Even now war might by avoided if we would act with candour. He then read a letter from Condorcet, expressing the anxious desire of the French to maintain friendly relations with England. This friendship, he added, might have been maintained, had we not irritated a galled people, insulted their distress and provoked their pride. We had broken our neutrality, demanding that the French should quit Brabant but not that the Kings should desist from their attack. 'You will not make this a war of the people of Great Britain,' he cried. 'It is a war of the Government against her best and dearest interests. Its real motive is that you dislike the principles of the French Revolution. If those principles are good, your war will not extinguish them.' He concluded by moving an amendment praying the King to exert every means to avert the calamities of war. When the amendment was negatived without a division, Lansdowne, Lauderdale, and Derby recorded a Protest in the journals, declaring that they knew of no danger to Great Britain rendering war necessary. Their phraseology was too restrained to suit the taste of Stanhope, who drew up a protest reflecting his burning emotions.2 War, he declared, is so unnatural, so barbarous, so calamitous, so immoral when unnecessary and so atrocious when unjust, that every friend of humanity should endeavour to avoid it. Peace is always for the interest of the common people in all countries. It is a well-known fact that the people in France, in general, are extremely desirous to maintain and strengthen the bonds of friendship with Great Britain. Peace would be the constant object of their Government, if not first provoked by our ministers by such acts as refusing to acknowledge their new government and sending away the French ambassador. The old despotic and detestable government in France, from its secrecy, perfidy and restless ambition, has been CHAP. the fatal cause of many wars in Europe for centuries. Therefore VIII. any assistance to restore that tyrannical form of government is injurious to the true interests of this country. The people of France, moreover, have as much right to enjoy civil liberty as ourselves. On the same day France declared war against Great Britain, and on February 12 a full-dress debate took place in both Houses In the Commons, Pitt, Dundas, and Burke supported the war which Fox and Sheridan attacked. In the Lords the Government was supported by Portland, and condemned by Lauderdale and Lansdowne. Stanhope pronounced the conflict to have been begun by the British Cabinet, when they dismissed Chauvelin.1 He was aware that he should be unpopular during the present frenzy; but he could not agree to sanction a struggle where we were the sole aggressors. Moreover, the resources of France were enormous. They had rightly declared the Crown lands and the Church lands the property of the nation, and confiscated the estates of the émigrés. He did not again challenge the majority till June, when he attacked Auckland's memorial to the States-General. The document presented by the British Minister at the Hague, inviting the Dutch Government to put to death the regicides who had fallen into their power owing to the treachery of Dumouriez, had been hotly condemned by Sheridan in the Commons; but his motion, for which he and Grey were the Tellers, only secured 36 votes.2 Stanhope had waited till Auckland could be present, and he now denounced the 'most ferocious' manifesto to his face. However they might differ about the objects of the war, he declared, they would all agree that it should not be carried on with savage barbarity. Such horrible menaces were as impolitic as they were wicked, as the experience of Burgoyne and Brunswick had shown. He concluded by moving that the King should be asked publicly to disavow the memorial. Grenville approved the declaration as in accordance with the spirit of his instructions, and after Auckland had defended himself, the motion was negatived without a division. The diplomat remained wholly impenitent. When I contemplate the fate of Marat, Brissot, Vergniaud and above fourscore others of the regicides,' he wrote to Grenville, 'I continue, in spite of Lord Stanhope, to see traces of the Divine vengeance.' '5 On January 23, 1794, a year after the outbreak of war, 3 Ibid., 1035-43. 1 Parl. Hist., xxx. 414-17. 2 Ibid., 702-25. 4 Cp. Auckland's Correspondence, iii. 74-6. Stanhope moved to acknowledge the French Republic. In CHAP. scathing terms he accused Ministers of misleading opinion in VIII. regard to the strength and resources of the French armies, and their lack of ammunition and food, clothing and money. England had been led to believe that the French were a disordered rabble; but the Republic had already proved itself equal in discipline and superior in bravery to its enemies. Enthusiasm made them bear the evils of war not merely without a murmur, but in many cases with enthusiasm. Such were the men whom mercenary troops were attempting to conquer. The French were indeed invincible. Was there any of this zeal in the mass of our people? As far as he could judge, there was no desire to prolong the war, which was being waged to impose a certain form of government on an independent State. 'I am ready to be hanged or guillotined for the cause of liberty,' cried the speaker; it is not what I wish or call for, but I hope if it became necessary I should not shrink from it.' He made no attempt to defend what he described as the provisional government of France. The constitution, on the other hand, was fixed and definite, and was based on the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which was so excellent that he defied all the philosophers on earth to improve it. After reading it to the House he declared that its basis was liberty, of which equality was part. Equality meant not that all should be equal in property, which was impossible, but that all should have an equal right to gain and keep their property, to equal laws and impartial justice. What security, he might be asked, could we have for a faithful observance of a treaty? He answered, the French constitution, which was better security than any other power in Europe could give, since it was the act of almost the whole people. The provisional government was erected for the purpose of repelling the invaders, and the sanguinary decrees of the Convention might be repealed at a breath. Turning to the common charge of atheism, he declared that the religion of other countries was no concern of ours. Moreover, there were plenty of aristocratic atheists before the Revolution, and he recalled an occasion in a Parisian drawing-room when he had been present at a debate on the existence of God. In France as elsewhere there was more religion among the lower and middle classes. If it had been often treated with levity, this was mainly due to the clergy who made a trade of it and performed barefaced tricks to delude the populace. The speech was eloquent and sincere; but its weakness lay 1 Parl. Hist., xxx. 1287-97. |