THE PRUSSIAN WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WAR. 
2 7 
satisfied the English envoy at their first interview,* * * § but the terms 
of a subsidy treaty were not easily agreed upon, and it was not until 
Haugwitz and Malmesbury had repaired to The Hague that a conven¬ 
tion was signed on April 19, 1794, between England, Prussia, and 
Holland.f Malmesbury, who was enthusiastic in the pursuit of his 
object, had ventured to exceed the exact letter of his instructions, J 
resting rather upon his knowledge of Pitt’s general purposes than 
upon the instructions received from Grenville. Pitt was wholly 
pleased with the result, § but Grenville was still distrustful of Prussia, 
though publicly expressing his satisfaction, || and his suspicions were 
speedily confirmed by the actual progress of events. Prussia refused 
to move her troops until the first subsidies were paid, and England 
was slow in making the payments. Frederick William II was in fact 
again yielding to the influence of that party in Berlin which saw 
Prussia’s real interests in the exploitation of Poland, and by June, 
1794, even Malmesbury had reached the conclusion that effective Prus¬ 
sian aid was not to be expected.il Nevertheless both he and Pitt clung 
to the remote hope of honesty in the Prussian government and success¬ 
fully opposed Grenville’s proposition of an immediate withdrawal of 
subsidies if the Prussian troops did not at once begin their march to 
the Rhine.** Grenville yielded with good grace, for the time had now 
come, as he hoped, for the realization of his own essential line of policy. 
While, therefore, Malmesbury was hurrying from post to post in the 
vain effort to infuse some energy into the Prussian camps, and while 
Mollendorf was secretly opening those negotiations with the French 
that were to lead to Prussia’s complete withdrawal from the war, Gren¬ 
ville had brought Pitt and the English Cabinet to accept a project for 
an Austrian alliance that should go far in compensating for the treachery 
of Prussia.ff The plan as originally outlined did not necessarily mean 
* Diary, Dec. 26, 1793. Malmesbury, III, 28. 
f For analysis, see Koch, IV, 269-271. For text, see Pari. Hist., XXXI, 433. 
X Malmesbury to Grenville, March 13, 1794. Malmesbury, III, 77. 
§ Pitt to Grenville, April 24, 1794. Dropmore, II, 552. 
|| In the Parliamentary debate on the treaty on April 30, 1794, there is nothing to 
indicate Grenville’s opposition to the project. Indeed, he seems unnecessarily 
explicit in stating his personal approval, as if denying a rumor that he was opposed 
to it. “ He was free to say that he never had had two opinions on the question, 
whether he should confine the aid to the stipulated succour of the former treaty, or 
extend it to that which was now secured.” Pari. Hist., XXXI, 453. 
If Malmesbury to Grenville, June 21, 1794. Dropmore, II, 577. 
** Pitt to Grenville, June 29, 1794. Ibid., 592. Portland to Malmesbury, July 23, 
1794. Malmesbury, III, 124. 
tt Auckland wrote to Henry Spencer on September 18, 1794 : “ The moment for 
Lord Grenville making his proposed great arrangement is at hand, for the mes¬ 
senger went last Saturday with the final instructions to Lord Spencer and Mr. 
Grenville * * * Auckland, III, 241. The terms used here and elsewhere 
on diplomatic projects indicate Auckland to mean that the Austrian project was 
due wholly to Grenville. 
