660 



BRITAIN. 



Britain. 



Execution 

 of Louis 

 XVI. 



France de- 

 clares war 

 against Bri- 

 tain. 

 1793. 



Speech of 

 Mr Pitt. 



hostility. The usurping government of France, it 

 was declared, had shewn their contempt of the rights 

 of neutral nations by their obnoxious decrees ; they 

 iiad in particular invaded the rights of our allies, the 

 Dutch, in their decree for opening the navigation of 

 the Scheldt. 



War seemed now inevitable, yet France still held 

 out the appearance of wishing for conciliation. M. 

 Chauvelin wavin'g the ceremony of his being recog- 

 Sized at our court, informed Lord Grenville, in the 

 name of the executive council of the French nation, 

 that France would not attack Holland while she pre- 

 served her neutrality ; and that the fraternizing decree 

 had no reference to England. 



With regard to the opening of the Scheldt, Chauve- 

 Kn argued, that his country having rescued Belgium 

 from the yoke of Austria, was bound to restore to 

 the Belgians all their rights, of which they had been 

 deprived. The navigation of the Scheldt was cer- 

 tainly one of these. How could the right respecting 

 the Scheldt be excepted ? particularly when it was of 

 importance only to those who were deprived of it. 

 The English government, after some discussion with 

 Chauvelin, notified, that their conditions of peace 

 were, that France should renounce her views of ag- 

 gression, relinquish her conquests, and confine her- 

 self to her own territory. France had already con- 

 quered the Netherlands, yet it seems to have been 

 expected, that she should quietly give them up. 



The fate of the unfortunate Louis XVI. which 

 had been for some time anticipated, occasioned the 

 immediate dismissal of the French resident from 

 London. It contributed, with the other horrible 

 transactions of France, to rouse sensations of pity 

 and indignation, which violently disposed the people 

 of England for war. 



Since the opening of the session in December 1792, 

 the question of peace or war had been the subject of 

 successive debates. On the 12th of February, a 

 message from his majesty announced, that France had 

 declared war against Great Britain and the Dutch. 

 Mr Pitt read this declaration of war, and endeavoured 

 to justify the British government from its individual 

 charge.-. " The king of England was accused of 

 having favoured the coalition. Mr Pitt solemnly de- 

 nied the charge. His majesty had recalled his am- 

 bassador from Paris after the 10th of August ; but 

 it was," said the minister, " because the government of 

 France was from that day a government of usurpa- 

 tion. Chauvelin's letters of credence had been re- 

 fused ; but not until the French had offered repeated 

 offences. We were taxed with framing the alien 

 bill ; it was a measure of self-defence against foreign 

 incendiaries. The French accused us of prohibiting 

 corn, arms, and ammunition, fvom being exported to 

 France; that too was a measure of self-defence against 

 the designs of France, avowedly shewn in her treat- 

 ment of Holland. We had prohibited the influx of 

 assignats ; in so doing we had only shielded our- 

 selves against a gigantic system of swindling. Lastly, 

 we were accused of having prepared .an armament to 

 disturb the French operations in Belgium. True," 

 said the minister, " we armed in our own defence when 

 France shewed contempt of our allies; but we sought 

 not to disturb their operations in Belgium, we meant 

 to protect Holland." -He concluded by moving for 

 an address to support his majesty in the war. 



Mr Fox opposed the address, because it pledged 



the house to an indefinite sanction of the past and fu- Britain 



ture conduct of ministers. He proposed as an amend- ' >/ 



ment to the address, that the house should promise to GEO ^ OEI 

 support the throne, in bringing France to such terms of 

 pacification, as should be consistent with the honour of 3 P ee <-h < 

 his majesty's crown, the interests of his people, and Mr Fol> 

 the security of our allies. The causes of war alleged 

 by France, he did not pretend to justify indiscrimi- 

 nately. It had been customary with France, even 

 under her ancient government, to crowd into a mani- 

 festo every complaint, solid or insignificant, which 

 could be mentioned as grounds of hostility : but the 

 dismission of Chauvelin, and our prohibiting the ex- 

 portation of corn to France, (in violation of the 

 treaty of 1786,) when a supply of grain was per- 

 mitted to other countries, did not warrant us to say, 

 that the war was pure aggression on the part of 

 France. Mr Fox severely censured the conduct of 

 ministers, in refusing to send an ambassador to France. 

 Had our conduct been more candid and conciliating, 

 the fate of Louis, as well as the war, might have been 

 averted. But the minister negotiated unofficially. 

 What benefit could arise from this strange distinction 

 between official and unofficial negotiation, Mr Fox 

 could not conceive ; but had we negotiated, (he would 

 ask,) with a real and conscientious wish for peace ? 

 No ; we remonstrated against accessions of territory, 

 and we complained of the violated rights of our ally, 

 but we proposed nothing that we could rationally 

 expect to be conceded as a satisfaction. We pointed 

 out nothing that could remove the alarm. We told 

 them to abandon their conquests to withdraw their 

 troops from the Netherlands. While they were 

 at war with the emperor, such a proposal was not an 

 offer of peace. It was an insult, and a pretext for 

 quarrel. The invasion of our ally, by the opening of 

 the navigation of the Scheldt, was set forth as the 

 grounds of war ; but was this exclusive navigation 

 really an object worthy of a war ? Did the state's 

 general think it such ? had they asked for our assis- 

 tance ? had they determined to assert their right to 

 the Scheldt by force of arms ? No, they had not ! 

 How then could we take the lead, in asserting a claim 

 in which we were not principals, and in which the 

 principals did not call for our interposition. As to 

 the satisfaction which we sought, viz. the restitution 

 of Belgium, it was evidently and wholly impossible 

 to be admitted. We made a pretence of the balance 

 of Europe to justify going to war, but had we not 

 seen France invaded, her frontier town taken, and her 

 capital threatened, without speaking of the balance of 

 Europe, or interfering to preserve it. Now, when 

 France had repelled invasion, we discovered that Eu- 

 rope was in danger. This was the language of men 

 devoted, not to the preservation of peace, but to the 

 coalition against France. 



Jn the mean time, the war was carried on, on the Campai 

 continent, by the allied powers formerly engaged, > a H 

 with, various success. The French, under Dumourier, 

 entered the Dutch territory on the 17th of February, 

 and Breda, the fort of Klundert, and Gertruydcn- 

 burgh, surrendered to their arms ; but at the city of 

 Williamstadt they first received a check. The Eng- 

 lish troops under the Uuke of York having debark- 

 ed in Holland, entered Williamstadt ; and this cir- 

 cumstance, with other concurring events, turned the 

 tide of fortune in favour of the allies. The successes 

 of the Imperial^commanders, CUirfait and Cobourg, 



