Part 53

The weary war therefore continued, and before the year was over the position of affairs abroad had so changed that England was no longer able to maintain the haughty tone which had been adopted. War in the hands of Bonaparte was a very different thing from war in the hands of the Directory. In April the French were again across the Rhine, and the Austrians driven behind the Inn; while in Italy, though Genoa, the last town in the possession of the French, surrendered, its danger was turned to immediate advantage by Bonaparte. Under pretence of collecting an army for its relief, he massed his troops in the neighbourhood of Dijon, and while all eyes were directed towards the siege, he suddenly pushed across the Great St. Bernard and appeared at Ivrea on the rear of the besieging army. Melas, who commanded the Austrians, at length perceived his danger. He ordered Otto, his lieutenant, to raise the siege, with the intention of concentrating his troops; his orders were disregarded, and Genoa was taken, but the delay was fatal. It gave time for Bonaparte to re-establish the Cisalpine Republic, and, turning backwards, to place himself between Melas and Mantua, whither that general was now anxious to withdraw. A decisive battle was brought on before Alessandria, from which stronghold the Austrians advanced, on the 14th of June, against the French on the plains of Marengo. The Austrians, more numerous than the French, had apparently won the battle, and by three o'clock the whole French army had retreated. Melas withdrew to rest, leaving what he believed to be a pursuit in the hands of General Zach; but the French army, reinforced by the reserves, and headed by Desaix, made a great final effort. The Austrians, who had advanced too rashly in the eagerness of their pursuit, were unable to withstand his charge; they broke, and their victory was changed into a disastrous defeat. On the following day, with the victorious army in his front, and the liberated garrison of Genoa in his rear, the Austrian general, seeing no hope, entered into a convention, called the Convention of Alessandria, by which the greater part of North Italy was surrendered to the French.

[Sidenote: Battle of Hohenlinden. Dec. 2, 1800.]

[Sidenote: Treaty of Lunéville. Feb. 9, 1801.]

An attempt was made to change this Convention into a more general peace, and a Congress was held for this purpose at Lunéville, but the English Cabinet was much divided in its own views, the Austrian Government acted with extreme duplicity, and Napoleon demanded a separate treaty with the two belligerent powers, which Austria, knowing its weakness when separate from England, was afraid to grant. The Congress came to nothing, and in November the army under Moreau renewed the campaign. The Austrians were determined to hold the line of the Inn, but their troops, very badly commanded by Archduke John, were attacked in the forest of Hohenlinden, and sustained a crushing defeat. Their loss is put at 25,000 men and 100 guns. There could no longer be any question in the matter, and the Emperor had no choice, if he would save his capital, but to sue for a separate peace. By the Treaty of Lunéville (Feb. 9, 1801) the frontier of the Rhine was again ceded to France.

[Sidenote: Russia deserts the coalition.]

It needed but a breach with Russia to leave England singlehanded in opposition to France. The Emperor Paul, but little removed from madness, had seen with disgust the defeat of his troops in Switzerland, and believed that in the joint expedition to Holland his army had been wilfully sacrificed. He was also smitten with extreme admiration for the genius of Bonaparte, who took care to flatter this feeling and to intrigue against English influence. The old question of the right of search gave Paul a pretext to break with his allies. The doctrine of the English, accepted generally as the law of nations, was that a belligerent had the right of searching neutral ships for contraband of war or for property of the enemy. The Northern powers claimed that the neutral flag should cover the cargo, with the exception of contraband of war. This had been their view for many years, and, as has been mentioned, gave rise to the Armed Neutrality of 1780.[15] This view they had not been able to enforce, but it was quite an open question whether ships under convoy of a man-of-war could be searched. On this point the English and the Danes twice came into collision; but during the summer of 1800 an amicable arrangement had been arrived at. Paul however refused to let the matter drop; he took it up as an injury to the whole Northern powers, laid an embargo upon all English property in Russia, made prisoners 300 merchant seamen, and renewed the Armed Neutrality, which was joined willingly by Sweden, and under pressure by Denmark also. The English Government at once retaliated by an embargo on the property of the allied nations; and England was thus left completely singlehanded, for her allies in the south of Europe were much too weak to afford her any assistance, while her maritime superiority seemed seriously compromised by the action of the Baltic powers.

[Sidenote: Internal condition of England.]

Nor was it only abroad that danger seemed impending. The condition of the country was rendered miserable both by heavy taxes and by the pressure of two years of scarcity. Corn had risen to the unprecedented price of 120 shillings the quarter, a price which could not possibly have been maintained under any reasonable system of political economy. But at this time it was held in the last degree dangerous to admit corn from abroad, partly because it was thought that a nation should trust to its own resources for the prime necessaries of life, partly because it was believed that a diminution of gold and silver, which must inevitably follow from large importations, was a disastrous thing for the nation. Nor was this all, the arrangements of the poor law were such that it became necessary to maintain high prices in the agricultural districts. The received opinion was that the increase of population, irrespective of the powers of employing it, was a distinct advantage. Premiums were given for early marriages, and assistance granted from the rates in proportion to the numbers in a family. The natural tendency was a fearful increase of population, depending for the most part on the rates, which were therefore inordinately high. It thus became possible for the farmers to pursue the plan they have always regarded as most conducive to their interests, and to drive down the wages to the lowest point; the people were reduced to a condition little above serfdom; and to enable the agricultural districts to support the pressure of the rates high prices had to be maintained. The condition of the country districts was thus kept tolerably even, and the burden of the high prices fell almost exclusively upon the industrious population of the towns. It was natural that a House of Commons returned chiefly by the landowners should favour protective duties, which thus rendered them at once absolute masters of their peasantry and threw the burden of their increased expenditure upon the towns. But such a state of things produced much suffering, and suffering produced riots, which the folly and ignorance of the judges increased. From the Lord Chief Justice downwards, they seemed to have combined to throw the blame upon the corn factors, whom they charged with the obsolete crimes of forestalling and engrossing. Punishment was indeed inflicted for the crime of buying corn and selling it at a higher price in the same market. The people naturally took their cue from these blind leaders, and corn riots were very prevalent. It is of course plain that whatever tends to the husbanding of resources and to the equalization of prices is really advantageous, and that the corn factors, in carrying out the law of supply and demand, were a most useful set of men.

[Sidenote: Autumn session. Oct. 1800.]

To meet these difficulties Pitt thought it expedient to have an autumn session. He was himself inclined to think that some extraordinary measures were desirable to alleviate the distress, and in the existing state of the law he was perhaps right. But Grenville, a more rigid follower of the principles of political economy, was much opposed to any tampering with the natural laws of supply and demand.[16] When Parliament met the action of the judges was gravely censured, and several remedial measures were introduced, such as bounties on importation of grain, and the prohibition of the use of corn in distilling and starch making, and (though this proved a useless and pernicious measure) of the use of any but brown bread. Large subscriptions were also made to alleviate the distress.

[Sidenote: Pitt proposes a Catholic Relief Bill. 1801.]

[Sidenote: Pitt resigns. Addington Prime Minister. 1801.]

The Parliament which assembled early the following year (1801) was the first united Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, and but a few days of its existence had elapsed before a great and most unexpected change took place in the position of affairs. There had long been a want of harmony among the members of the Cabinet with regard to the war; but there had now arisen an even more formidable question. The union had been effected by much bribery in money, titles, and places; these promises had all been fulfilled. But there was one section of the Irish whose opposition would have been fatal to the measure, but to which such promises could not be made. The tacit support, or at all events neutrality, of the Irish Roman Catholics had been secured by a vague but very well-understood promise that their claims should be considered under the new arrangement. It is certain that both Castlereagh and Cornwallis understood that this was so, and Pitt felt it an imperative duty to make an effort to fulfil this promise. The matter had been talked over in the Cabinet as early as the autumn of 1799, and was formally discussed in the presence of Lord Castlereagh at the end of September 1800. The Chancellor, Lord Loughborough, was at that time in attendance upon the King at Weymouth. He was a man of a base and time-serving nature. At this Cabinet he displayed his hostility to any measure for the relief of the Catholics, and used his opportunity to instill into the King's mind that to consent to any such measure would be a breach of his coronation oath. In this he was backed up by Lord Auckland, who had always been a friend of Pitt's, but who was inclined to underhand intrigue, and did not think it beneath him to prejudice the King's mind against Pitt's policy. Matters were brought to a crisis when, at a levée in the beginning of 1801, the King mentioned openly to Dundas that he was aware that such a measure was in contemplation, adding his usual formula, that he "should hold any one who supported it as his personal enemy." It became plain to Pitt that he could hesitate no longer, and although the King sent Addington the Speaker, a personal friend of Pitt's, to persuade him not to bring the matter forward, he sent a letter to George declaring his intention and his determination to resign if he was not allowed to fulfil his promises to the Irish. The King wrote back urging him to remain in office and to drop the measure, but Pitt was determined, and the King was forced to accept his resignation. In his place he desired Addington, a man of very second-rate ability, to form a ministry, a duty which, on the advice of Pitt, he accepted. The resignation of the great minister, as it was only personal, did not imply the resignation of the whole ministry, but all the great members of it, Grenville, Dundas, Windham, and Spencer, retired with him. It is pleasant to think that Lord Loughborough's duplicity received no reward, he was excluded from the new arrangements, Lord Eldon, at the King's own request, became Lord Chancellor, and Loughborough had to content himself with the earldom of Rosslyn.

[Sidenote: Illness of the King.]

[Sidenote: Character of the Addington ministry.]

The shock of parting with a minister he had so long trusted brought on a renewal of the King's insanity, and measures were taken for a regency under the same restrictions that Pitt had before insisted upon. George was at this time so popular that even the Opposition treated him in his illness with every consideration. His popularity, the natural consequence of his well-ordered domestic life, had been considerably increased by an attempt in the preceding year on his life. When entering Drury Lane Theatre a man had risen in the pit and discharged a pistol at him, two bullets passing a very little above his head. The miscreant who made the attempt was a lunatic of the name of Hadfield. The King, always remarkable for his personal courage, had displayed great calmness under the circumstances, and the loyalty of the nation had been much excited. Fortunately, under Dr. Willis's treatment, his illness was speedily mastered, and in the beginning of March he was declared convalescent. But his illness, which he himself traced to Pitt's conduct, had such an effect upon that statesman, that he wrote promising never to reintroduce the Catholic question. His friends did not see why, under these circumstances, he should not remain in office, but Addington naturally objected to giving up the place he had just gained, and the Government continued in his hands, supported by a Cabinet of complete mediocrity, upheld for the present by Pitt's influence. It was indeed just such a minister and Cabinet as suited the King's well-known views--safe, conservative, submissive, and without commanding ability. Nor did the great country party object to a change which freed them from the imperious domination of one so vastly their superior as Pitt, and placed over them a man whose talents were not superior to their own, and whom they might hope to guide rather than follow. Though Pitt acted honestly in the first instance, it is only too probable that he regarded Addington as a temporary substitute for himself, and designed to return to power after the present difficulty was over, and when he had made a public demonstration for the purpose of saving his honour. However this may be, his somewhat lukewarm support was before long changed into open enmity. At first, however, he spoke with even exaggerated admiration of the new Cabinet, which in the House was completely successful, while great successes both by sea and land somewhat relieved the nation from its embarrassing position.

[Sidenote: The French army in Egypt.]

[Sidenote: Battle of Alexandria. March 21, 1801.]

The French army, deserted by their great commander, was left shut up in Egypt under the command of Kleber, a man of organizing genius, who bid fair to establish the French influence in that country. He was, however, assassinated by a fanatical Mussulman (June 1800), and the command fell into the hands of Menou, a general of but second-rate capacity. Before this change of command, a treaty, known as the Treaty of El Arish, had been completed (Jan. 24), by which the French army was to be allowed a safe return to France. This convention was concluded on board the flagship, and with the full approval of Sir Sidney Smith; but, meanwhile, intercepted despatches had made known to the Cabinet the almost hopeless condition of the French army, and orders were sent to the Mediterranean that no treaties should be sanctioned by the admiral which did not insist on the surrender of the French. The Treaty of El Arish had been concluded without this knowledge and before these orders had reached Sir Sidney Smith. Moreover, affairs in Egypt had much changed, for Kleber, indignantly rejecting all idea of surrender, had at once proceeded to attack the Turks, had won over them a great victory at Heliopolis (March 20, 1800) and reoccupied Cairo. It became necessary therefore to renew the war, and Sir Ralph Abercromby, who, with Pulteney, had been employed in fruitless expeditions against Ferrol and Cadiz, collecting the troops employed in both expeditions, in number about 20,000, proceeded to Egypt. Troops also under Sir David Baird were ordered to attack the country from India. A landing was forced at Aboukir Bay, under the immediate command of General afterwards Sir John Moore, and on the 21st of March a battle in the neighbourhood of Alexandria was fought, where the French were thoroughly defeated. The English had to deplore the loss of Sir Ralph Abercromby, but General Hutchinson, who succeeded him, continued to act with vigour. The Grand Vizier, with a large but disorderly Turkish army, attacked Cairo, while the English kept Menou besieged in Alexandria. In June Cairo fell, and General Baird having arrived from India, the combined English army compelled Menou to capitulate in Alexandria on the 27th of August. The terms of surrender were honourable. The French army was allowed to return to France, but all ships, together with all the objects of art which the French had collected, became the property of the conquerors. This success, which showed the unbroken vigour of England, tended to accelerate the peace which was gradually becoming necessary for all parties, and for which negotiations were already set on foot in London with the full approbation of Pitt.

[Sidenote: Battle of Copenhagen. April 2.]

[Sidenote: Peace between England and Russia.]

Meanwhile, but a few days after the victory of Alexandria, the cloud which had risen in the Baltic was also dispersed. The renewal of the Armed Neutrality, and the general conduct of Russia, made it evident that that country was engaged in the French interests. A fleet under Sir Hyde Parker, with Nelson as second in command, was despatched to the Baltic. Negotiation was tried with the Danes, but wholly unsuccessfully, and Parker, a dilatory commander, was induced by Nelson's energy to consent to an attack upon Copenhagen. The passage of the Sound was forced without loss, but an examination of the enemy's position showed that they had used the delay which had been given them to great advantage. Shore batteries had been erected and put into fighting trim; floating batteries established, and the harbour covered with a line of vessels of all sorts four miles in length. Within this lay the Danish fleet. Nelson offered to attack with ten sail of the line; he was allowed twelve. The attack was made from the south, Sir Hyde Parker on the outside threatening the batteries and the vessels at the mouth of the harbour. At ten o'clock on the 2nd of April, Nelson began his attack. Several vessels grounded and were rendered useless, and so hot was the engagement that Sir Hyde Parker thought it better to hoist the signal for discontinuing action. Nelson declined to obey it, and the other captains took their orders from him. Many of the Danish ships had struck, but being constantly reinforced from the shore, continued the fight, it is said, even after they had surrendered. This was probably an accident; but Nelson took advantage of it to write a friendly letter to the Crown Prince. "The Vice-Admiral Lord Nelson," he said, "has been commanded to spare Denmark when she no longer resists. The line of defence which covered her shores has struck to the British flag; but if the firing is continued on the part of Denmark, he must set on fire all the prizes he has taken without having the power of saving the men who have so nobly defended them. The brave Danes are the brothers, and should never be the enemies, of the English." He then agreed to a truce while the wounded were moved from the prizes. Having taken advantage of the lull to withdraw his fleet from the difficult channel in which they were entangled, he went on shore to negotiate a treaty. To enable him to attack the Russians, he insisted on a long armistice, which a threat of immediate bombardment induced the Danes to grant. The English fleet then sailed against the Swedes, who withdrew, and were left unmolested, while the fleet proceeded against the Russians. On his way, however, Nelson received the news that the capricious despotism of Paul had excited his courtiers to a conspiracy, which, though apparently aimed only at the deposition of the Emperor, had in fact ended in his assassination. The accession of the young Emperor Alexander I. completely changed the policy of Russia. The embargo was removed from the British shipping and the merchant seamen liberated. As the Armed Neutrality still existed, Nelson would have proceeded to strong measures; but Sir Hyde Parker was satisfied, and though he was recalled, the complete change in Russian policy rendered further action unnecessary. In June a treaty of peace was signed in St. Petersburg, by which the Armed Neutrality, with its claims, was given up, but the right of search accurately defined. It was also agreed that blockades must henceforward be really efficient in order to be valid. Blockades by proclamation were thus abolished, and could be only sustained when the blockading force was sufficient to enforce them.

[Sidenote: Preliminaries of peace. Oct. 1, 1801.]

Bonaparte was still threatening an invasion of England, and gunboats and rafts had been collected at Boulogne. These the Government ordered Nelson to attack, but the attempt was on the whole unsuccessful. However, the supremacy of England on the sea was so great that there could not be much fear of the landing of a foreign army, and the French, defeated in Egypt and thwarted in their Northern policy, were ready to come to terms. In October the preliminaries of a treaty were signed. By this England gave up all its conquests except Trinidad and Ceylon. "The Cape of Good Hope was to be restored to the Batavian Republic, and to be used as a free port. Malta was to be restored to the Knights of St. John,[17] under the guarantee of one of the great powers; Porto Ferrajo was to be evacuated. On the other side, the Republic of the Ionian Islands was to be acknowledged, and the French were to withdraw from Naples and the Roman States; the integrity of Portugal was to be secured; Egypt was to be restored to the Porte, and the Newfoundland fisheries to be placed on the same footing as before the war."[18]

[Sidenote: Opinions in England concerning the peace.]