of an army of invasion, promulgated his celebrated proclamation. It was therein declared that the French national guards, if they should fight against the allied troops and were taken with arms in their hands, should be punished with death as rebels-that the members of municipalities should be responsible on pain of losing their heads, for all crimes which they should not in a public manner have attempted to prevent that the inhabitants of towns and villages, who should dare to defend themselves against the allied forces, should be punished with all the rigours of war, and that their houses should be demolished: that their Imperial and Royal Majesties made personally responsible for all events, on pain of losing their heads pursuant to the sentences of court martial, without hope of pardon, "all the members of the National Assembly, of the departments, of the districts, of the municipalities, the national guards of Paris, justices of the peace, and others whom it may concern:' further that if any the least outrage were done to the royal family, if they were not immediately placed in safety and set at liberty, their Imperial and Royal Majesties will inflict on those who shall have deserved it, "the most exemplary and ever memorable vengeance and punishment, by giving up the city of Paris to military execution and exposing it to total destruction, and the rebels who shall be guilty of illegal resistance shall suffer the punishments which they shall have deserved."*

The atrocious spirit of this proclamation, while it
Adolphus, Hist. of George III.

roused the French nation to resistance, does not appear to have excited any other feeling in the English Ministry, than a gentle and benevolent wish that the Duke of Brunswick might be successful, and that England might be able to say, she did not do it. The first witness whom I shall quote to this purpose, is Lord Grenville, the ablest and one of the most upright of Mr. Pitt's colleagues. The following extracts are taken from his letters to his brother, the Marquis of Buckingham.

"Jan. 6th, 1792.

"The solution of the French enigma which you state, is that it is a war of bullying on both sides, the two parties being equally afraid of each other. In the meantime there certainly are some in France who wish the war, but very many more who fear it, and the ruin of their finances is approaching with very rapid strides indeed."

"The Duke of Brunswick's progress does not keep pace with the impatience of our wishes, but I doubt whether it was reasonable to expect more."

"Oct. 11th, 1792.

"We are all much disappointed with the result of the great expectations that had been formed from the Duke of Brunswick's campaign. According to the best accounts I can get, of a business involved in almost inextricable mystery, the flux which had got into his camp was the true cause of his retreat.

Whatever be the cause, the effect is equally to be regretted."

"Nov. 7th, 1792.

"I bless God, that we had the wit to keep ourselves out of the glorious enterprise of the combined armies, and that we were not tempted by the hope of sharing the spoils in the division of France, nor by the prospect of crushing all democratical principles all over the world with one blow. But having so sturdily resisted all solicitations to join in these plans, we have been punished for our obstinacy by having been kept in profound ignorance of the details by which they were to be executed, and even of the course of events as far as that could be done, which occurred during the progress of the enterprise. Now that it has failed, we must expect these deep politicians to return to the charge, and to beg us to help them out of the pit into which they wanted to help us. But they have as yet been in no hurry to begin this pleasant communication, and most assuredly we are in no disposition to urge them on faster."

The

Yet it was now obvious that the struggle was becoming one of the most fearful nature. procession of the 10th of August, and the massacres of September, showed how dreadful a contest was begun. Still at the beginning of November, Lord Grenville wrote as a spectator :-

"Nov. 7th, 1792.

"The Emperor must feel that he has now got an enemy whom he must devour, or be devoured by it.

And the governing party at Paris have very many very obvious reasons for continuing the war. The rest of the empire will give their contingent, unless they have been lucky enough to be forced to sign a capitulation of neutrality. The king of Sardinia and Italy will defend themselves as they can, which will probably be very ill. What Spain will do, she does not know and therefore certainly we do not. Portugal and Holland will do what we please. We shall do nothing.

All my ambition is that I may at some time hereafter, when I am freed from all active concern in such a scene as this is, have the inexpressible satisfaction of being able to look back upon it, and to tell myself that I have contributed to keep my own country at least a little longer from sharing in all the evils of every sort that surround us. I am more and more convinced that this can only be done by keeping wholly and entirely aloof, and by watching much at home, but doing very little indeed; endeavouring to nurse up in the country a real determination to stand by the Constitution when it is attacked, as it most infallibly will be if these things go on; and, above all, trying to make the situation of the lowest orders among us as good as it can be made."

The next witness is Mr. Dundas, who writes thus, in 1791:

THE RT. HON. HENRY DUNDAS TO RICHARD BURKE, JUN. ESQ. "LONDON, September 20th, 1791.

"You will naturally feel that my

situation prevents me entering into any of the

discussions you are so good as to lay before me. The line of the British Government, to adhere to an honest and fair neutrality, being taken, and everywhere announced, it is impossible for any member of Government to give way to any indulgence of any speculations on the subject of French affairs. I had a visit from your father this morning, and I took occasion to express to him my surprise at the contents of your last letter; never having heard, and at this moment not believing, that this country ever interfered, directly or indirectly, to prevent the Emperor moving any of his troops in any manner he pleased. I need not repeat to you again, that I cannot enter into the discussion of that subject; but I could not refrain saying this much in answer to your letter. I could say a great deal more, but I must not. When I see a single step that looks like any of those great powers taking a part, I shall believe it, but not till then."

Lastly, Mr. Pitt, in the financial debate of February, 1792, said, "We must not count with certainty on the continuance of our present prosperity; but unquestionably there never was a time in the history of this country when, from the situation of Europe, we might more reasonably expect fifteen years of peace than we may at the present moment.

*

While such was the conduct and the view of the Ministry, the members of the Whig Opposition were becoming widely separated from each other. Mr.

Parliamentary Debates, Feb. 1792.