READING HALL

THE DOORS OF WISDOM

A HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE : A.D. 1453-1900

CHAPTER LI.

THE AMERICAN WAR AND AFTER

IN the events which agitated Eastern Europe since the Peace of Paris in 1763, are to be found indications of the decline of the political influence of France. That Power seemed to be no longer the same which had dictated the Peace of Westphalia, and during the reign of Louis XIV had terrified all Europe by her arms. Peace was now imposed upon her by the necessities of her internal condition, and especially by the disorder of her finances. So great was her need of repose, that one object alone, the desire of striking a blow at England, might tempt her to draw the sword. The Peace of Paris was felt as a humiliating blow by both the Bourbon Courts, and especially by that of Versailles. The Duke of Choiseul, in conjunction with Grimaldi, Minister of Charles III of Spain, made some endeavors to reopen the treaty of 1763, and renew the war with England. Circumstances, however, were not yet ripe for such an undertaking, and they deemed it prudent to defer their projects of revenge to a more favorable opportunity. A diabolical scheme which they had formed (1764), to burn the dockyards at Portsmouth and Plymouth, was fortunately discovered in time by Lord Rochford, our Ambassador at Madrid, and happily frustrated.

As the financial embarrassments of France paralyzed her foreign policy, so the profligate conduct of Louis XV and his Court was daily alienating the people. The death of Louis’s mistress Madame de Pompadour, in 1764, was followed by that of his Queen, Maria Leczynski, in June, 1768. The influence of a new mistress, the Comtesse du Barri, became predominant, and had a baneful effect upon French politics. The pride of Choiseul forbade him to court the new favorite, who, however, was supported by the Chancellor Maupeou, and by the Duke d'Aiguillon, a bitter enemy of Choiseul’s. In about a year the intrigues of this faction effected the overthrow of Choissul. Louis dismissed that Minister, December 24th, 1770, on the ground that he had nearly involved France and Spain in a war with England, and in a letter brutally abrupt, directed him to proceed forthwith to his chateau of Chanteloup.

The annexation of Corsica to France was among the last acts of Choiseul’s administration. That island had been under the dominion of the Genoese since the year 1284, when they had conquered it from the Pisans. The government of the Genoese Republic had been harsh and tyrannical. The cruelty exercised by its agents in collecting the taxes had occasioned an insurrection in 1729; since which time the island had been in a constant state of anarchy and semi-independence. They elected their own chiefs, and in 1755 they had chosen for their general the celebrated Pascal Paoli, second son of Hyacinth Paoli, one of their former leaders. Pascal Paoli, whose father was still alive, was now in his thirtieth year. He held a command in the military service of Naples, and was distinguished by his abilities and courage. Having established himself at Corte, in the centre of the island, he organized something like a regular government, and diverted the ferocious energy of the Corsicans from the family feuds in which it found a vent, to a disciplined resistance against the common enemy. The French had assumed the part of mediators between the Genoese and their rebellious colonists as early as 1751. That Republic had succeeded in retaining only some of the maritime places; and three of these had been occupied by the French in 1756, in their quality of mediators. The occupation, however, was abandoned at the end of two years; till, in 1764, the Genoese having experienced the difficulty, not only of subduing the rebels, but even of retaining the places which they held, besought the French to return; and by the Treaty of Compiegne put into their hands for a term of four years Ajaccio, Calvi, Bastia, and San Fiorenzo. The Corsicans made a fruitless attempt to induce France to recognize their independence by offering the same tribute which they had been accustomed to pay to the Genoese. It may be mentioned, as illustrating the degree to which the philosophical notions then prevalent had affected the minds even of practical men, that Colonel Buttafuoco, the Corsican agent, was instructed to request the groundwork of a constitution from the pen of J. J. Rousseau, and to invite that philosopher to Corsica in the name of Paoli’s government. The French Court behaved disloyally both towards their allies the Genoese and to the Corsicans. The latter were deceived with false hopes; while, during a four years’ occupancy, a debt was contracted which the Republic of Genoa was unable to discharge. The Genoese, too proud to recognize the independence of their rebellious subjects, made over Corsica to France for a sum of two million francs, May 15th, 1768. The Corsicans resolved to defend themselves, but in the following year were subdued by superior forces, and placed under the government of France. These proceedings excited great indignation in England. General Paoli and many of his companions fled their country. Paoli came to England, where he was feted; but the English Government did nothing for Corsica, and ultimately acquiesced in its subjection.

Among the causes of Choiseul’s fall was the part which he had taken against the Duc d'Aiguillon. That nobleman had been accused of maladministration in his office of Governor of Brittany, and a process had been instituted against him in the Parliament of Rennes. The King evoked the suit before the Parliament of Paris; and finding that body hostile to his favorite, he annulled their proceedings in a Lit de Justice, and published an Edict infringing the privileges of the Parliament. That body tendered their resignation, and refused to resume their judicial functions, though commanded to do so by the King, till the obnoxious Edict should be withdrawn. The Court solved the question by a coup d'état. On the night of January 19th, 1771, the members of the Parliament were awakened in their beds by the Royal musquetaires, with a summons from the King to declare yes or no, whether they would resume their functions. All but thirty or forty refused. Even these, having speedily retracted, were sent into exile, as their refractory comrades had been before, and the Council of State was charged with the provisional administration of justice. These proceedings were followed by others still more arbitrary. The Parliaments throughout the Kingdom were entirely suppressed, and in their place six Superior Councils (conseils superieurs), with power to pronounce judgment without appeal, except in a few cases, both in civil and criminal causes, were erected in the towns of Arras, Blois, Chalons, Clermont-Ferrand, Lyons and Poitiers. For the Parliament of Paris was substituted a body of seventy-five persons, nominated by the King, whose places, therefore, were neither purchased nor hereditary as formerly, and who were forbidden to take presents (épices) from suitors. This body was nick­named, after its contriver, the Parlement Maupeou.

All this was done under the colour of reform and intellectual progress, affected in those days by the most arbitrary Sovereigns. The preamble of Maupeou’s Edict, abolishing the Parliaments, developed ideas designed to attract the philosophers, and really succeeded in catching some of the Encyclopaedists, including Voltaire. Nor can it be denied that some of the alleged motives were sufficiently specious. Thus Maupeou took credit for abolishing the sale of offices, which often prevented the admission of persons into the magistracy who were most worthy of it; and for rendering the administration of justice both prompt and gratuitous, through the suppression of the Judges’ fees, and by relieving, through the establishment of the conseils superieurs, provincial suitors from the necessity of going to Paris. The political powers of the Parliament also deserved abolition. A Royal Edict was of no avail till sanctioned and registered by the Parliament; yet, if this sanction was withheld, the King had only to hold a Lit de Justice, and enforce compliance. A body so constituted, and composed principally of one class in the State, could never hope to be a constitutional power; and, accordingly, its resistance to the royal will, though sometimes productive of serious disturbance, always ended in defeat. Nevertheless, the abolition of the Parliaments was unpopular with the great majority of the French nation. In the first place, the Ministry from which these reforms proceeded was despised. The Parliaments, again, despite the vices of their constitution, were popular. They were the only exponents of the national voice; and in general the members, whose dignity and independence were secured by their places being hereditary, though purchased, had shown themselves the opponents of the royal despotism.

This blow against the Parliaments had been preceded a few years before by one against the Church. Choiseul, in conjunction with Madame de Pompadour, had effected the expulsion of the Jesuits from France; and it has been thought that the fall of that Minister was hastened by the intrigues of the disciples of Loyola. The movement against the Jesuits originated in Portugal, and was the work of Pombal. To the influence of the Jesuits it was ascribed that the weak and superstitious John V had destroyed all hope of progress, by throwing his Kingdom entirely into the hands of the clergy; and this circumstance is the best justification of Pombal’s harsh and arbitrary proceedings against the Society. John V had founded the Royal Convent of Mafra, at an expense of forty-five million crusades, or near four millions sterling. In one wing of this building 300 Franciscans were lodged in regal splendor; their church occupied the centre, and the other wing formed the King’s Palace. John also founded a patriarchate in Lisbon, and towards the end of 1741 caused at least a hundred houses to be pulled down in that city, in order to build a patriarchal church and palace. The Civil Government was also under ecclesiastical control, and promulgated the strangest regulations. Thus, for instance, the importation of costly manufactures in gold, silver, silk, fine stuffs, etc., was suddenly prohibited, except such as were to be used by the clergy, and in the churches. The liberty to display his whims and caprices in Church matters was bought by John at a high price from the Court of Rome, and no country was more profitable to the Papal Court than the little Kingdom of Portugal. Hence he earned from Pope Benedict XIV the equivocal title of Fidelissimus.

In these and the like acts there was enough to excite the rage of a less fiery reformer than Pombal. That Minister regarded the Church, and especially the Jesuits, as the chief authors of the declining state of the Kingdom; and he had been further incensed against that Society by their conduct in Paraguay. Through the influence of John V’s daughter, Barbara, who had married Ferdinand VI of Spain, a settlement had been effected, in 1750, of the long disputes respecting the colony of San Sacramento on the river Plata, which had been assigned to Portugal by the Treaty of Utrecht. Portugal abandoned that colony to Spain, receiving in return the town and district of Tuy, in Galicia, and the Seven Missions of Paraguay. The native Indians of this district were to be transferred to Spanish soil; but their rulers, the Jesuits, incited them to oppose this arrangement, and for some time they succeeded in resisting the 3,000 or 4,000 Spaniards and Portuguese, under the command of the Commissioners appointed to effect the exchange. Pombal dispatched his brother with a considerable army, in 1753, to put an end to the dominion of the Jesuits; which, however, was not effected till 1756. Meanwhile, the great earthquake of Lisbon had taken place. The Jesuits did not let slip so favorable an opportunity for working on the superstition of the people. Pombal was denounced from the pulpits, and the earthquake was appealed to as the visible judgment of God upon his profanity.

The Portuguese Minister was not a man to be daunted by such attacks. He resolved on the destruction of the Jesuits. His first victim was Gabriel Malagrida, a fanatical Jesuit, whom he banished to Setubal. This step was followed up by a seizure of all the Jesuits at Court (September, 1757), and the publication of a manifesto against them which created a great sensation in Europe. The principal charge alleged against them in this document was their conduct with regard to the Indians of Paraguay. In the following year Pombal denounced them to Pope Benedict XIV as violating the laws of their Society by illicit traffic and plots against the Government; he forbade them to engage in commerce, and finally even to preach and confess. The answer of the Papal See to this application was deferred by the death of Benedict (May, 1758); but, soon after, the attempt on the life of King Joseph afforded Pombal a pretext to root out the Society. They were accused of being privy to that attempt; the new Pope, Clement XIII, was applied to for a brief authorizing their degradation and punishment; and on the Pope’s hesitating, Pombal caused all the Jesuits in Portugal, to the number of 600, to be seized and thrown on the Italian coast at Civita Vecchia (September, 1759). Clement, in retaliation, ordered Pombal’s manifesto to be publicly burnt; to which that Minister replied by confiscating all the possessions of the Society, and breaking off diplomatic relations with Rome. Pombal, who was no philosophic reformer, and was not averse even to an auto da fe which might increase his popularity, proceeded against the unfortunate Malagrida by ecclesiastical methods. Instead of arraigning him for high treason, he caused him to be declared a heretic by the Inquisition, which was conducted by Dominicans. He was then delivered to the secular arm and burnt September 20th, 1761.

Considering the light in which the Jesuits were generally regarded, Pombal’s act did not receive as much approval from the public opinion of Europe as might have been anticipated. Nevertheless a strong feeling of dissatisfaction with the Society prevailed throughout the greater part of Europe, which the example of Portugal served to stimulate to action. France was the first nation to imitate it. The Jesuits, generally so accommodating to the manners of the age, had been imprudent enough to display their hostility towards Madame de Pompadour, and, by a strange coalition, the Royal mistress combined with the Jansenists of the Parliament for their destruction. Their commercial transactions in the French colonies afforded a handle against them. Their house at Martinique, governed by La Valette, had been converted into a great commercial and banking establishment. Their consignments having been intercepted by the English, the merchants who had accepted their bills became insolvent, and the creditors then proceeded against La Valette, who declared himself bankrupt. The creditors hereupon brought an action at Marseilles against the whole Society established in France, and obtained a verdict (May, 1760), which was confirmed on appeal by the Parliament of Paris.

The scandal of this affair caused a great sensation in Europe. The Genoese Government ordered the Jesuits to close their commercial establishment in that city. Venice forbade them to receive any more novices. In France, their trade, principally in drugs, was suspended, and their affairs, as well as the constitutions of their Society, were submitted, in spite of the intervention of Pope Clement XIII, to the examination of the various Parliaments. That of Paris severely denounced their doctrines as murderous and abominable, condemned a multitude of their books, and forbade them any longer to teach. Louis XV endeavored to effect a compromise, and, by the advice of some of his chief prelates, proposed to them to modify their institutions. Their General, Ricci, at once rejected the proposal, and declared that they must remain as they were, or cease to exist. Clement XIII in vain endeavored to rouse the fanaticism of France in their favour. Choiseul and Pompadour triumphed over all opposition, though the Queen and the Dauphin were ranged on the other side. But the Minister prudently left the odium and responsibility of the proceedings against the Jesuits to the Parliament, who, in the winter of 1761, issued against them several celebrated comptes rendus. The Parliament of Rouen took the lead in these proceedings by a decree annulling the statutes of the Society, condemning them to be burnt, and directing all the Jesuits in their jurisdiction to evacuate their houses and colleges (February, 1762). The Parliament of Paris followed this example in April, and similar measures were adopted by those of Bordeaux, Rennes, Metz, Pau, Perpignan, Toulouse, and Aix. Some of these Courts, however, as those of Dijon and Grenoble, did not go to such lengths, while others, as those of Besan9on and Douai, were altogether favorable to the Society. The Parliament of Paris, in a decree of August 6th, charged the Jesuits with systematically justifying crimes and vices of all sorts; brought against them the political charge of owing their allegiance to a foreign Sovereign, thus forming a State within the State; and finished with pronouncing them irrevocably excluded from the King­dom. But though this decree was published in the King’s name, it did not bear his signature; and it was not till November, 1764, that the Society was entirely suppressed in France by Royal authority.

Choiseul’s enmity against the Jesuits was not satisfied with their expulsion from France. He resolved to effect their entire destruction, and especially he contributed to their banishment from Spain; where he is said not to have scrupled at circulating forged letters in the names of their generals and chiefs, with the design of bringing them into hatred and suspicion. Several of the Spanish Ministers of that day, Aranda, Campomanes, Monino (afterwards better known as Florida Blanca), were imbued with the spirit of the French philosophy, and were disposed to follow the example of Choiseul; but Charles III hesitated long before he adopted any violent measures against the Society. Some occurrences, however, which took place in 1765 and the following year, excited his suspicions against them. They were accused of being the authors of the disturbances which arose in the Spanish colonies in America on the occasion of a new code of taxes, as well as of the tumults at Madrid in the spring of 1766. These riots, however, were really caused by the conduct of the Marquis Squillaci, Minister of Finance and War. Squillaci had introduced a better system of police at Madrid; but being himself an Italian, he had paid little attention, in prosecuting his reforms, to the national customs and prejudices; nor were these much more respected by the King, who, though born in Spain, had quitted it too early to retain much love for its manners. Squillaci had also incurred the hatred of the people by establishing a monopoly for supplying Madrid with oil, bread, and other necessaries. But his interference with the national costume was the immediate cause of the insurrection. The huge mantles and hats with flaps that could be let down had been found to favor the commission of murders, robberies, and other crimes, and Squillaci therefore published an edict forbidding them to be worn. Its appearance was the signal for an uproar. The populace surrounded the Royal Palace; loud cries arose for the head of Squillaci; nor could the tumult be appeased till the King appeared on his balcony, promised to dismiss the obnoxious Minister, and to appoint a Spaniard in his stead. Instead of doing so, however, Charles fled to Aranjuez in the night with Squillaci. But the tumult was renewed, the King was again forced to capitulate, and to perform his promise of dismissing the Minister. Charles attributed these affronts to a conspiracy of the Jesuits with a view to drive him into a retrograde policy. They were also charged with a design to exterminate the King and all his family, of which, however, there appears to be no proof. The Society was suppressed in Spain by a Royal Decree, April 2nd, 1766, and all the members of it were banished the Kingdom. It was further ordered that the Jesuits in all the Spanish possessions throughout the world should be arrested on the same day and hour, carried to the nearest port, and shipped off to the Roman States, as being the subjects of the Pope rather than of the King. Clement XIII, at the instigation of Ricci, declared that he would not receive them. The Spanish vessels which arrived at Civita Vecchia were fired upon; they were repulsed at all the ports on the Italian coast; and the miserable exiles with whom they were filled, after enduring terrible hardships, were at length indebted to Charles III for procuring them an asylum in Corsica. The Court of Rome ultimately relaxed in its severity, and received the Jesuits dispatched from the East Indies and America; to each of whom the King of Spain allowed a small pittance of two pauls, or about a shilling a day.

The decree of Charles III was followed by another blow against the Jesuits in France. The measures taken against them in that country had not been rigorously carried out. They had found support in the differences of opinion respecting them which prevailed in the various parliaments, as well as the quarrels of those bodies with the Court, and they had still retained influence enough to cause fear and embarrassment to their opponents. But when the news of the proceedings against them in Spain arrived in France, the Parliament of Paris was encouraged to declare them public enemies, to command them to quit the Kingdom in a fortnight, and to supplicate the King, in conjunction with all Catholic Princes, to obtain from the Pope the entire suppression of the Society (May 9th, 1767). Choiseul, in conjunction with Pombal, urged the King of Spain to support them in this undertaking; but though Charles had acted so rigorously against the Jesuits in his own dominions, he could not at first persuade himself to aid in their entire destruction. While he was thus hesitating, the Pontiff, by an imprudent provocation, determined him to assist the views of the French and Portuguese Ministers. The Bourbon Sovereigns in Italy, the King of Naples, and the Duke of Parma, had followed the example of Spain, and expelled the Jesuits. Clement XIII was impolitic enough to show his displeasure by attacking the weakest of these Sovereigns. He excommunicated the Duke of Parma, and declared him deprived of his principality as a rebellious vassal of the Church (January 20th, 1768). To avenge this insult to the House of Bourbon, Charles III urged the Kings of France and Naples to take vigorous steps against the Pope. Louis XV responded to his appeal by seizing Avignon and the Venaissin, whilst the Neapolitans invaded Benevento. The movement against the Jesuits spread throughout Catholic Europe. They were expelled from Venice, Modena, and even from Bavaria, the focus of German Jesuitism. The pious scruples of Maria Theresa deterred her at present from proceeding to such extremities; although her son Joseph II, and her Minister Kaunitz, disciples of the French philosophy, would willingly have seen them adopted; but the Jesuits were deposed from the chairs of theology and philosophy in the Austrian dominions. At length an alarming proof of the influence still retained by them in Spain induced Charles III to cooperate vigorously for their suppression. On St. Charles’s day, when he showed himself on his balcony, the people raised a unanimous cry for their recall. The Spanish Ambassador at Rome was therefore instructed, in conjunction with those of France and Naples, to require from the Pope the abolition of the Society (January, 1769). This demand proved a death-blow to the aged Clement XIII, who died on the very eve of the day when the question was to come before the Consistory (February 3rd). The Jesuits moved heaven and earth to procure the election of a Pope favorable to their cause; but, owing to the efforts of Cardinal Bernis, they missed their aim by two votes. The choice of the conclave fell on Ganganelli, a minor conventual, whose opinion on the subject was unknown. Ganganelli, who assumed the title of Clement XIV, was of quite a different character from his rigid and obstinate predecessor. He possessed considerable abilities, was enlightened and tolerant, and bore some resemblance to Benedict XIV. The Jesuit question was a terrible embarrassment to him. On one side he found himself menaced by the Bourbon Sovereigns; on the other, the obscure threats of the Jesuits filled him with the apprehension of poison. To conciliate the former, he revoked the Brief against the Duke of Parma, suppressed the famous bull In Coena Domini, and even wrote to the King of Spain (April, 1770), promising to abolish the Jesuits. That Society struggled with all the tenacity of despair, and scrupled not to invoke the aid even of heretical Powers, as England, the Tsarina, and Frederick II. The fall of Choiseul filled them with hope; but Charles III was now become even more implacable than he, and appealed to the Family Compact to urge on the French King. The last support of the Jesuits gave way when Maria Theresa, at the instance of her son Joseph, at last consented to their abolition. Clement XIV now found himself compelled to defer to the wishes of the allied Courts. On July 21st, 1773, he issued the bull Dominus ac Redemptor noster, for the suppression of the Society, in which he acknowledged that they had disturbed the Christian Commonwealth, and proclaimed the necessity for their disappearance. The houses of the Society still remaining were now shut up, and their General, Ricci, was imprisoned in the Castle of St. Angelo, where he died two years after. It was in Protestant countries alone that the Jesuits found any sympathy and defence. Frederick the Great especially, who considered their system of education to be useful, forbade the bull against them to be published in his dominions. Clement XIV was rewarded for his compliance by the restoration of Avignon and the Venaissin, which, however, the Revolution was soon to reunite to France. On the other hand, this measure is thought to have cost him his life. In the Holy Week of 1774 he was suddenly seized with symptoms which appeared to indicate poison; and died on September 22nd. All Rome ascribed his death to the aqua tofana; and such also was the opinion of Cardinal Bernis, the French Ambassador at Rome, as well as of Pius VI, Clement’s successor. The Spanish and Neapolitan Ministers, on the other hand, attributed his malady to fear.

After the dismissal of Choiseul, the government of France was conducted by a sort of triumvirate, composed of the Chancellor Maupeou, the Abbé Terrai, who administered the finances, and the Duke d'Aiguillon, who was appointed Secretary for Foreign Affairs in June, 1771; while over all the infamous Du Barri reigned supreme. Nothing of importance occurred in the external relations of France during the remainder of Louis XV’s reign, except the successful revolution carried out with French encouragement by Gustavus III in Sweden. The only other event of European interest was the partition of Poland, which country D'Aiguillon was forced to abandon to its fate. Meanwhile domestic maladministration was producing those evils and exciting those class-hatreds, which, though kept down for a time, exploded in the Revolution. The finances were every day growing worse and worse. Terrai, to avert a total bankruptcy, resorted to a partial one by cheating the public creditors, plundering annuitants, and arbitrarily reducing the interest on Government debts. These measures, indeed, touched only the richer classes of society, but the arbitrary taxes which he imposed were felt by the people at large. The widespread misery and discontent were aggravated by dearth. Several bad harvests had succeeded one another; the scarcity became intolerable, although the exportation of corn had been prohibited, and frequent riots took place in the provinces. In this state of things the public hatred found an object in the King himself. The Parliament of Rouen openly charged Louis XV with being a forestaller, nor could he satisfactorily refute the imputation. About the year 1767 a company had been established under the control of Government called the Société Malisset, with the professed object of keeping the price of corn at a certain level, and insuring a supply for Paris by buying up and storing grain in plentiful years in order to resell it in times of scarcity. Through the agency of Terrai, who bought up corn at low prices in Languedoc, where exportation had been prohibited, large quantities were sent to Jersey, through the ports of Brittany, which had been opened, in order to be reimported into France after prices should have been raised to a maximum by artificial methods. The King’s participation in these nefarious transactions was notorious, and the Société Malisset obtained the name of the Pacte de Famine, under which it was destined to appear at the breaking out of the Revolution.

The notoriously depraved character of the King, combined with his avarice, caused him to be despised as well as hated. Already in his lifetime the people bestowed on his heir the title of Louis le Désiré, so low had Louis, once the bien Aimé, fallen in the popular estimation. The universal wish for his death was gratified May 10th, 1774. He had reigned fifty-nine years, during which he had contrived totally to destroy the prestige of Royalty, created by the brilliant reigns of Henry IV and Louis XIV.

He was succeeded by his grandson, Louis XVI, whose father the Dauphin had died in 1765. The new Monarch had married, in May, 1770, the Austrian Archduchess, Marie Antoinette, daughter of Maria Theresa. He was now in his twentieth year, and his character was yet undeveloped. Though he had both good sense and good principles, he was devoid of grace and dignity of manner, and his lack of energy and resolution proved the chief cause of his ruin. He was fond of books, and still more of the natural sciences and mechanical arts. His first act was to send Madame du Barri to a convent; but, with his usual indecision, this severity was not sustained, and she was permitted to retire to her estate near Marli. The fall of the mistress was soon followed by that of the Ministers who had supported her. Maupeou, D'Aiguillon, and Terrai were succeeded by Maurepas, Vergennes, and Turgot. The last, who had distinguished himself as a political economist, after filling the office of Minister of Marine, was placed at the head of the finances.

Soon after his accession, Louis XVI, by the advice of Maurepas, reestablished the Parliaments—one of the greatest mistakes, perhaps, of his reign. Turgot had opposed this measure. Louis’s address to the Parliament of Paris was, however, very despotic in tone, and he made several alterations in its constitution, of which the chief was the suppression of the two chambers of requests. By the dismissal of Turgot, in May, 1776, through the intrigues of Maurepas and other enemies, the Monarchy lost its last chance; he was, perhaps, the only man in France who, by means of reform, might have averted revolution. His ministry only lasted two years, but he had time to show how France might restore her finances. In 1774 he reestablished the freedom of the corn trade, and he abolished gratuities to the Farmers-General, who collected most of the taxes. In 1775 he removed monopolies, relieved the small farmers and shopkeepers, reformed Government contracts, abolished sinecures, and suppressed the Corvée and the Jurandes, or the government of privileged corporations. Six edicts embodying his chief measures of reform were, after a fierce resistance, registered by the Parliament of Paris in March, 1776. Turgot was succeeded as controller of the finances by M. de Clugni, and, after his death, by Taboureau de Reaux. The latter was an insignificant person, and the finances were really managed by Necker, a Genevese banker, under a new title of Director of the Royal Treasury. In the following year, on the resignation of Taboureau, Necker was made Director-General of the Finances, but without a seat in theCouncil, on the ground of his religion. Nevertheless, France and Europe called it the Necker Administration. Necker was a good practical man of business, and introduced many useful reforms ; but he possessed not the broad and daring grasp of mind and the statesmanlike views which characterized Turgot.

The state of the revenue compelled France, at this period, to play but a minor part in the general affairs of Europe, and the reign of Louis XVI might probably have been passed in profound tranquility, had not the quarrel of Great Britain with her North-American colonies offered an opportunity, too tempting to be resisted, to gratify the national hatred and revenge. We need only briefly recapitulate some of its leading events: the Stamp Act of 1765, attempted to be thrust on the Americans by the mother-country, and resisted by them on the ground that they were not represented in the British Parliament; its withdrawal in the following year, accompanied, however, with a declaration of the supreme rights of the mother-country over her colonies; the renewed attempt, in 1767, to raise duties in America, on tea, paper, painters’ colours, and glass; the abandonment of these by Lord North, except the duty on tea, in 1770; the permission given to the East India Company, in 1773, to export their surplus stock to America, and the destruction of some of these cargoes in Boston Harbour. The quarrel soon became serious, and the measures of the English Government in 1774 and 1775 were shortly followed by a collision. General Gage, who had received reinforcements, having dispersed some American militia at Lexington, April 19th, 1775, the colonists assembled on all sides, and drove the English back to the suburbs of Boston.

.The Congress now appointed George Washington commander-in-chief; and on the 6th of July they published a Declaration explaining their motives, but denying any intention to separate from the mother-country. Washington, with 20,000 men, now blockaded Boston. In an attempt to relieve themselves, the English, under Generals Howe and Burgoyne, fought the Battle of Bunker’s Hill, July 17th, when, but with considerable loss, they ultimately defeated the Americans under Putnam. The blockade of Boston, however, still continued, and in March, 1776, Howe was compelled to abandon that town, and to retire to Halifax in Nova Scotia. The Americans, elated with their success, made an attempt upon Canada, but were repulsed.

The English Ministry had felt the necessity for making vigorous efforts, and, early in 1776, treaties had been concluded with some German Princes, the Duke of Brunswick, the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, his son, the Count of Hanau, and the Prince of Waldeck, by which they engaged to supply between 17,000 and 18,000 men to serve against the Americans. These proceedings afforded the Americans a pretext for altogether renouncing their connection with the mother-country, in order that they might be able to hire foreign mercenaries themselves. Public opinion in America had been stimulated in this direction by many publications and addresses, and especially by Thomas Paine’s celebrated pamphlet entitled Common Sense. On July 4th, 1776, Congress, under the Presidency of John Hancock, made its Declaration of Independence; and, in the following October, thirteen States confederated themselves together at Philadelphia, under the title of the United States of America.

The German contingents had raised the British army in America to 55,000 men, and the campaign of 1776 proved very unfavorable to the Americans. From desertion and other causes Washington at one period found his army reduced to 3,000 men. But he retrieved his fortunes in a winter campaign, in which, being aided by reinforcements under General Lee, he reconquered the greater part of Jersey, and drove the English back to Brunswick. The American Declaration of Independence encouraged France to afford more active, though still underhand, assistance to the nascent Republic. Already before that event, Silas Deane had been dispatched to France, where, under the guise of a merchant, he intrigued with the Government, and endeavored to obtain supplies of arms and money. His negotiations were earned on through Baron de Beaumarchais, now best known as a successful dramatist, but who himself regarded literature as very subordinate to his commercial and political pursuits. Louis XVI was averse to a war with England, and in this view he was supported by Maurepas and Necker. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, was ardent in the cause of American liberty, and this feeling was shared by what was called the Austrian party. Vergennes, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, inclined the same way, but from different motives; a bitter hatred of England, and a desire of over­throwing the peace of 1763, which he regarded as ignominious, and detrimental to French interests. The French Ministry secretly encouraged the Americans, flattered their military ardour, and gave circulation to the writings of their partisans, while, at the same time, the French Ambassador in London was instructed to assure that Court of the strictest neutrality on the part of France. The French Government did not merely connive at the Americans being furnished with supplies and munitions; it gave them active assistance. Beaumarchais was provided with a million livres to found a commercial house for supplying the Americans with the materials of war, and the public arsenals were placed at his disposal for the purchasing of warlike stores. On the recommendation of the Court of Versailles, Beaumarchais obtained a second million from Spain. Other commercial houses were also assisted with money by the Government, and from these Silas Deane procured all that he wanted. Aids in money were also directly forwarded to the Congress through private channels. Privateers, fitted out in France, but sailing under American colours, committed great depredations on the English trade. Towards the end of 1776 the arrival of Dr. Franklin and Dr. Lee, in Paris, as envoys from the American Congress, excited great enthusiasm. These representatives of the New World, by the simplicity of their dress and manners, attracted the attention of a people which fancied that it had grown philosophical. To many of the tetes exaltées of the times, the opportunity of striking a blow at once in the cause of liberty and against England was irresistible. Among the most distinguished Frenchmen who offered their swords to the Americans may be named La Fayette, the Viscount de Noailles, and the Count de Segur.

It was not, however, till 1778 that France formally recognized American independence. The American campaign of that year had at first gone in favor of the English. Howe had defeated Washington at Brandywine September 11th, had subsequently taken Philadelphia (26th), and again repulsed Washington at German Town, October 24th. But these successes were more than counterbalanced by the fate of General Burgoyne. That commander, advancing from Canada by Lake Champlain, was surrounded by the enemy at Saratoga; where, not having received the support which he expected from General Howe and Sir H. Clinton, he was compelled to surrender with his whole remaining force to the American General Gates (October 16th).

The capitulation of Saratoga formed a crisis in the American war. France, which had been gradually increasing her navy and preparing for events, was induced by this disaster of the British arms to side openly with the revolted colonists. She entered into a treaty of friendship and commerce with them, February 6th, 1778, and on the same day was concluded between them a defensive and offensive treaty, to take effect in case Great Britain should break the peace with France; an event which France was at all events determined to bring about, and which must have been foreseen as a certain consequence of the recognition of American independence. She promised pecuniary aid, and both parties agreed not to lay down their arms, nor to conclude a separate truce or peace with Great Britain, till she should have recognized the United States. Long after these treaties had been arranged, both Maurepas and Vergennes, the latter upon his honor, denied all knowledge of them when questioned by Lord Stormont, the British Ambassador. On March 13th, the French Ambassador at London announced with offensive brusquerie the measures taken by his Court. He declared that Louis XVI, having resolved to uphold the commercial liberties of his subjects, and to maintain the honor of the French flag, had taken for this purpose certain measures with the United States. Such an announcement so delivered could only be regarded as a declaration of war, and accordingly the English Ambassador was recalled from Paris.

Louis XVI had thus struck a blow, which, it can hardly be doubted, contributed to the overthrow of the French Monarchy. The financial embarrassments of France were augmented by the expenses of the war, and the maxim, new in France, was sanctioned by the Sovereign himself, that a people who consider themselves oppressed are at liberty to rebel. A school was opened to young Frenchmen who brought back with them from America a spirit of innovation and a resolution to carry this maxim into execution in their own country.

The war, which had not been formally declared, was begun by an affair off Ushant, June 17th, between Keppel’s fleet and two French frigates, one of which was captured. On July 27th an indecisive engagement took place in the same neighborhood between the fleets of Keppel and D'Orvilliers. The Duke of Chartres, afterwards the noted Duke of Orleans, was on board the latter; and some imputations on his courage during the action, attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette, caused him to conceive against her an implacable hatred.

A French fleet, under D'Estaing, had been dispatched to surprise Admiral Howe in the Delaware. D'Estaing, however, was three months in sailing to America, and the English division occupying Philadelphia had time to escape to New York. An engagement between Howe and D'Estaing was prevented by a storm. An English fleet, under Admiral Byron, which had been dispatched in quest of D'Estaing, compelled him to abandon an enterprise against Rhode Island which he had concerted with the Americans, and to retire to Boston, where he was blockaded by Byron; but in November he succeeded in escaping to the Antilles. Other operations this year were the taking, by the English, of St. Lucia and of St. Pierre and Miquelon, two small islands off Newfoundland, and the capture of Dominica by the French. The land campaign terminated on the whole in favor of the English, Colonel Campbell, towards the close of the year, having reduced the greater part of Georgia.

The war had also extended to the East Indies. In that country, as in America, the French had secretly assisted the enemies of the British Crown, and especially Hyder Ally, the formidable Sovereign of Mysore; who had been disgusted with the refusal of the English to grant him the aid against the Mahrattas to which he thought himself entitled by a treaty concluded with them in 1769. But the efforts of the French were not so successful in these regions as in the other hemisphere. As soon as the certainty of a war with France was known in India, the Government of Calcutta suddenly attacked the possessions still retained by France in India. Chandernagor and the factories at Masulipatam and Karical surrendered without a blow. A military force, supported by a naval squadron, was then directed against Pondicherry, which surrendered after a siege of seventy days (October, 1778). Fort Mahé was captured in the following March, and the French flag disappeared, for a while, from the Indian continent.

The year 1779 added Spain to the list of Powers arrayed against England. That country had long displayed a hostile feeling against England, and the Spanish Minister, Florida Blanca, had been endeavoring to raise up enemies against her by his intrigues and negotiations with Hyder Ally, the King of Prussia, the Empress of Russia, and even the Emperor of Morocco, whose aid might be of service in an attempt to recapture Gibraltar. Charles III offered his mediation, proposing terms which were wholly inadmissible by the British Government, although they met the views of France and the American Envoys; and when they were declined, he declared war against Great Britain, June 16th, 1779. France, also, after a year’s war, now first published a manifesto in justification of her views and conduct, which was answered by the historian Gibbon.

The union of France and Spain threatened England with dangers such as she had not experienced since the days of the Armada. The combined fleets, when united in July, formed a total of sixty-eight ships of the line, besides frigates and smaller vessels. On the coasts of Brittany and Normandy a host of 60,000 men had been assembled for a descent upon England, and 800 transports had been prepared for their conveyance. The English Government, lulled into a false security by the professions of Spain, and by the idea that a war was quite opposed to her interests, had neglected to take the necessary precautions; and an appeal to Holland to furnish the succors stipulated by treaty had proved unavailing. The fleet which mustered under the flag of Admiral Hardy numbered only thirty-eight ships of the line, and was therefore compelled to remain on the defensive. The combined French and Spanish fleets appeared three consecutive days before Plymouth, and chased Hardy towards the Wight. An action was momentarily expected, when the French and Spanish commanders suddenly retired to their ports. This mortifying failure occasioned for a time a serious misunderstanding between the Bourbon Courts. Florida Blanca induced Charles III to make a secret proposition to the English Cabinet for a peace, on condition of the surrender of Gibraltar; but, though the English Government seemed inclined to listen to the offer, the negotiations came to nothing, and were probably only intended by Spain to stimulate France to more vigorous action. The Spaniards, however, had much at heart the recovery of that fortress. They had laid siege to it immediately after the rupture with England; but Rodney managed to revictual it, and reinforce the garrison by landing a regiment. On his way he had captured a convoy of fifteen sail, with a sixty-four gun ship, and four frigates, carrying naval stores and provisions to Cadiz, which thus contributed to the supply of Gibraltar. In the following January he defeated, off Cape St. Vincent, the Spanish blockading squadron under Admiral Langara, after a severe engagement of eight hours, during a dark and tempestuous night. Rodney, after relieving Gibraltar, sailed for the West Indies. The Spaniards had soon after some revenge, by surprising and capturing, off the Azores, a British West Indian fleet. Near sixty vessels were carried into Cadiz, with property estimated at two millions sterling.

The chief incident of the war in America, during the year e 1779, was the capture of St. Vincent and Grenada by D'Estaing. An indecisive action took place between him and Admiral Byron, July 6th. Towards the autumn, D'Estaing made an attempt to reconquer Georgia, and, in conjunction with the American general, Lincoln, he attacked Savannah, October 9th, but was repulsed with great loss. In Africa, the English took the Isle of Goree from the French. The campaign of 1780 was also marked with varying success. General Clinton undertook from New York an expedition into South Carolina, and captured Charlestown, May 12th; but by Clinton’s departure, Rhode Island was left exposed, and, in July, the French established themselves in it. Lord Cornwallis, whom Clinton had appointed commandant at Charlestown, defeated the American general, Gates, who was endeavoring to surround him with superior forces, at Camden, August 16th. In the South, the Spaniards took most of the English forts on the Mississippi. At sea, Rodney fought three indecisive actions with Count de Guichen off Martinico. During this year, the formation of the league called the Armed Neutrality, and the rupture between Great Britain and Holland, seemed to array against the former Power nearly the whole of Europe.

 From the earliest periods of maritime commerce the attention of European jurists had been directed to the question of the rights of neutrals during war. One of the oldest Maritime Codes, the Consolato del Mare, established the principles “that neutral merchandise carried by an enemy is free; but that the neutral flag does not neutralize an enemy's merchandise”. These principles were subsequently restricted; the former was rejected, the latter retained. Francis I of France, by an Edict in 1543, rendered maritime law still less liberal, by declaring that the goods of an enemy found in a neutral vessel, entailed the confiscation of the rest of the cargo, and even of the ship. This continued to be the general maritime law, especially in France, though with some particular exceptions, down to about the middle of the seventeenth century, when greater privileges were accorded to the neutral flag. The reverse of the principle laid down by the Consolato del Mare had, about the period named, been pretty generally established; namely, that in all instances goods follow the flag; so that neutral goods on board an enemy’s vessel might be confiscated; whilst the neutral flag rendered an enemy’s merchandise sacred, always excepting contraband of war. This principle it was that enabled the Dutch to become the carriers of Europe. It had been recognized in several treaties by the States-General, France, Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal, between the years 1642 and 1674; but Denmark and Sweden adhered to the old system. Louis XIV, however, finding himself in possession of an enormous fleet, and considering himself master of the seas, issued in 1681, in contempt of treaties, the famous Ordinance, which condemned all ships laden with an enemy’s goods, as well as the goods of his own subjects and allies found in an enemy’s vessel; or, in other words, he ordained that the neutral flag does not. cover the goods, and, on the other hand, that the enemy’s flag condemns neutral merchandise. In the war of the Spanish Succession, the French Government established the maxim that the quality of the merchandise seized does not depend on the quality of the owner; but that every production of the soil or manufacture of an enemy, whoever the proprietor might be, was liable to confiscation.

Great Britain restrained these excesses by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, by proclaiming the principle that the neutral flag covers an enemy’s goods; though it was tacitly recognized that neutral merchandise in an enemy’s vessel was not exempt from seizure. France subsequently repudiated this principle in various treaties; and Louis XV, by an Ordinance of October 21st, 1744, declared as lawful prize not only an enemy’s goods on board a neutral vessel, but, in general, all productions of an enemy’s soil or manufacture, by whomsoever owned; with exceptions, however, in favor of the Dutch and Danish flags. Even so late as 1779, when the war with Great Britain had commenced, France had not yet recognized the principle that the flag covers the goods. An ordinance of July 26th, 1778, confirms that of 1681, in all particulars not altered by the later one; and as in this nothing is said about the principle in question, it must, of course, be regarded as recognizing the ancient theory. Nay, this theory was acted upon in a treaty concluded between France and the Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, September 18th, 1779. It was not till 1780 that France suddenly changed her tone, and subscribed to the principles adopted by the Armed Neutrality.

This famous League was caused as follows. The North of Europe abounds with materials, such as timber, hemp, pitch, etc., for the construction and equipment of ships. When the war between Great Britain and the Bourbon Courts broke out, the English cruisers intercepted neutral vessels conveying such materials to French and Spanish ports, on the ground that they were contraband of war. To prevent this practice was one of the motives of Catharine II for forming the Armed Neutrality; a measure which has been considered as redounding to her glory, yet which was, in fact, effected, almost against her will, by a ministerial intrigue. A struggle was going on between England and the Powers inimical to her to obtain the friendship and support of the Tsarina. Catharine herself was friendly toward England, and her sentiments were shared by Prince Potemkin. The British Cabinet, to lure Catharine, had offered to cede to her Minorca; and Potemkin, in return for the exertion of his influence, was to have two millions sterling, the computed value of the stores and artillery. On the other hand, Potemkin was enticed by Prussia and France with, the prospect of Courland and the Polish Crown. Catharine’s minister, Count Panin, was, however, adverse to Great Britain, and a warm supporter of Frederick II, who, at that time, entertained a bitter animosity against George III and the English nation. Florida Blanca, nevertheless, by his intrigues and negotiations with Count Panin, was the chief instrument in bringing about the Armed Neutrality. Orders were issued directing the Spanish cruisers to imitate the example of England in overhauling neutral vessels; and when Russia, and other neutral Powers, complained of this practice, the Cabinet of Madrid replied that, if they would defend their flags against the English, when conveying Spanish effects, that Spain would then respect those flags, even if conveying English goods. The decision of the Russian Court was influenced by two occurrences. A fleet of Dutch merchantmen, bound for the Mediterranean, and convoyed by some ships of war under Count Bylandt, was encountered and stopped by an English squadron under Commodore Fielding; Bylandt made some show of resistance, but submitted, after an exchange of broadsides, and a few of the merchantmen were captured and carried to Spithead (January 1st, 1780). This affair concerned not only the Dutch, but also all neutral maritime Powers, among which it was a very generally received maxim that neutral ships, under neutral convoy, were exempt from the right of search; the presence of the ships of war being a Government guarantee that the vessels under convoy were not abusing the rights of neutrals. England had not accepted a principle easy of abuse, and which, in fact, the contraband articles in some of the vessels captured sufficiently proved had been abused in this instance. The other occurrence touched Catharine still more nearly. The Spaniards, in conformity with Florida Blanca’s policy, having seized two Russian ships in the Mediterranean, the Tsarina, at the instance of Sir James Harris (Lord Malmesbury), the English Ambassador, proceeded to fit out a fleet at Cronstadt, to demand satisfaction. Panin at first pretended to approve; but passing from this incident to general considerations, he chalked out a magnificent plan, founded on the rights of nations, and calculated to rally every people round the Russian flag, and render the Tsarina the arbitress of Europe. Catharine, ever dazzled by brilliant ideas, gave her assent to the scheme, without perceiving that it was principally directed against England. Panin immediately seized the opportunity to forward to the Courts of London, Versailles, Madrid, Stockholm, and Copenhagen (February 28th, 1780), a Declaration announcing the four following principles:—1. That neutral vessels may freely navigate from one port to another on the coasts of belligerent nations. 2. That goods, except contraband of war, belonging to the subjects of such belligerent Powers, are free on board of neutral vessels; in other words, that the flag covers the cargo. 3. That with regard to contraband, the Empress adhered to the definition in her commercial treaty with Great Britain, June 20th, 1776. 4. That a blockade, to be effective, must be maintained by vessels sufficiently near to render the entrance of the blockaded port dangerous. And she declared her resolution to uphold these principles by means of an armed force.

This declaration was joyfully received by the Courts of Versailles and Madrid. Great Britain abstained from discussing the principles which it promulgated, and continued to act on the system which she had adopted. That system was certainly contrary to the regulations she had laid down at the Peace of Utrecht in the treaties between herself, France, and Holland; but she defended her course on the ground that these were only particular Conventions, not intended to assert any general principle; and that nothing had been said about any such principle in the other treaties which go to make up the Peace of Utrecht. Denmark and Sweden accepted the declaration of Russia, as advantageous to their commerce, and concluded with that Power the treaties which constitute the Armed Neutrality. The King of Denmark further informed the belligerent Powers (May, 1780) that the Baltic, being in its nature a closed sea, he should not permit their armed vessels to enter it. This regulation was also adopted by Russia and Sweden, and recognized by France. The three Northern Powers agreed to maintain their principles by arms, and to assemble, if necessary, a combined fleet of thirty-five ships.

The Armed Neutrality obtained the approbation of most of the European Courts, as well as of the philosophic writers of the period. The United Netherlands acceded to it January 3rd, 1781, but not unanimously; the three Provinces of Zealand, Gelderland, and Utrecht, in which the Orange interest prevailed, withheld their consent; Zealand even entered a formal protest against the accession. The King of Prussia, the Emperor Joseph II, Portugal, and the Two Sicilies, also gradually declared their adhesion to the League. Joseph II, however, acceded only to the principles laid down by the League, and not to the Conventions formed on them. That Sovereign took a lively interest in the success of the Bourbon Courts against England, though he was far from approving the American rebellion. After all, however, this great combination produced very insignificant results. Catharine II soon repented of it, called it the armed Nullity, and took no measures to follow it up. After the conclusion of the American war it fell into oblivion, and Europe did not derive from it the advantages which had been anticipated.

The Armed Neutrality was in some degree connected with the rupture between Great Britain and the United Netherlands. Between these countries several disputes had arisen. The English Cabinet had demanded from the States-General certain succors which the Dutch had engaged to supply by the Treaty of Westminster in 1674. The Republic was torn by two factions : the patriot party, which favored France, and whose main object was to increase the navy for the protection of commerce; and the Orange party, in the interest of England, which was for maintaining the army on a respectable footing as a security against French aggression. This latter party was for complying with the demand of England for aid, but it was opposed by the Republicans, and in this division of opinion no definite answer was returned to the application. Paul Jones, the noted pirate, who sailed under the American flag, but who was in reality a Scot, having put into the Texel to refit, with two English frigates which he had captured, the States-General not only refused the demand of the British Cabinet for the extradition of Jones, but also declined to detain his prizes. But the incident which led to hostilities was the discovery of proof that the Dutch had formed treaties with the United States of America, and war was declared by England, December 20th, 1780. Great Britain precipitated this step in order to anticipate the accession of the Dutch to the Armed Neutrality, which would place them under the protection of the Northern Powers. The States-General, owing to the dilatoriness inseparable from the form of the Dutch Government, did not, as we have seen, formally accede to that League till January 3rd, 1781, though a majority of the Provinces had resolved on the accession a month or two earlier. The States, pretending that the English declaration of war was the consequence of that step, demanded from the three Northern Powers the aid stipulated to be afforded by the Armed Neutrality to members of the League. But although these Powers recognized the accession of the Dutch as the cause of the English declaration, they inconsistently excused themselves from giving any help, on the ground that the rupture had occurred before the accession of the Republic. They offered, however, their mediation; but England rejected it, and the Dutch were left to their fate.

The seas were covered with English privateers, and the Dutch commerce suffered immensely. In February, 1781, Rodney seized the Dutch West India Islands St. Eustatia, Saba, and St. Martin, and captured a rich merchant fleet of thirty vessels; which, however, when on its way to England, was retaken by a French squadron and conducted to Brest. The Dutch settlements in Demerara and Essequibo were reduced in March by a detachment of Rodney’s fleet. Vice-Admiral Parker, with a far inferior force, attacked off the Doggerbank, August 5th, a Dutch squadron convoying a merchant fleet to the Baltic. The conflict was undecided, and both fleets were much crippled; but the Dutch abandoned their voyage and returned to the Texel. An attempt by Commodore Johnstone on the Cape of Good Hope was unsuccessful. He was attacked off the Cape de Verde Isles by a superior French squadron, under the celebrated Commander, the Bailli de Suffren, who arrived first at the Cape, and took possession of that colony. Suffren then proceeded to the East Indies, where he distinguished himself in several engagements with the English. The French were also successful in the West Indies. The Count de Grasse captured Tobago, June 2nd. The Marquis de Bouillé surprised the English garrison at St. Eustatia in the night of November 25th, and compelled them to surrender. He also took the small adjacent islands, which, with St. Eustatia, were restored to the Dutch.

The result of the campaign in North America was also adverse to the English. Lord Cornwallis, after defeating General Green at Guildford, March 15th, 1781, penetrated into Virginia, captured York Town and Gloucester, and made incursions into the interior. All the enemy’s forces were now directed to this quarter. Washington, Rochambeau, and La Fayette, formed a junction in Virginia; the Count de Grasse entered Chesapeake Bay with his fleet, and landed 3,000 men. Cornwallis was now compelled to shut himself up in York Town, and finally, after exhausting all his resources, to capitulate, October 19th. In the South, the Spaniards, by the capture of Pensacola, May 8th, 1781, completed the subjugation of Florida, which they had commenced in 1779. In Europe they succeeded in recovering the important Island of Minorca. The Duke de Crillon landed with a Spanish army, August 23rd, and laid siege to St. Philip. He endeavored to bribe the Commandant, General Murray, with 100,0002. and the offer of lucrative employment in the Spanish or French service; which proposals were indignantly rejected. After a long siege, in which the Spaniards were aided by a French detachment, sickness and want of provisions compelled General Murray to capitulate, February 5th, 1782, but on honorable terms.

The defeat of Lord Cornwallis, the loss of Minorca, to which was soon added the news of the capture of St. Kitts, Nevis, and Montserrat, by De Grasse (February, 1782), occasioned the downfall of the English Ministry. Lord North, finding himself in a minority, was compelled to retire, March 20th, and was succeeded by the Rockingham Administration, including Fox and Lord Shelburne, the last of whom, on the death of the Marquis of Rockingham in June, became Prime Minister. The views of the new Ministry were directed to peace. One of their first measures, the recall of Admiral Rodney, to whom they had conceived an antipathy, was very unfortunate and unpopular. Before Admiral Pigot, who had been appointed to succeed him, could arrive in the West Indies, Rodney achieved one of the most splendid victories of the war, by defeating the Count de Grasse near Dominica, April 12th, 1782. The French were endeavoring to form a junction with the Spanish fleet at St. Domingo, which, had it been effected, must have resulted in the loss of all the English West India colonies. Five French ships of the line were captured on this occasion, including the Admiral’s, and De Grasse was brought prisoner to London.

This year was remarkable by the efforts of the enemy to 0btain possession of Gibraltar. Encouraged by their success at Minorca, the Spaniards converted the blockade of Gibraltar, which had lasted three years, into a vigorous siege, directed by the Duke de Crillon, who, including a French division, commanded more than 40,000 men, while the bay was blockaded by more than forty Spanish and French ships of the line. The eyes of all Europe were directed on General Elliot’s admirable defence. Two French princes, the Count d'Artois and the Duke of Bourbon, hastened to view this imposing spectacle, and enjoy the anticipated triumph. On September 13th, ten floating batteries, heavily armed, ingeniously constructed by the French Colonel d'Arçon and thought to be fireproof, were directed against the place, but they were destroyed with red-hot shot. About a month afterwards Admiral Howe, in face of the greatly superior force of the enemy, which, however had been damaged by a storm, contrived to revictual Gibraltar, and fling in a reinforcement of 1,400 men. The combined fleet subsequently pursued and came up with him near Cadiz, October 20th, when a combat of a few hours had no result. The siege of Gibraltar was now again converted into a blockade.

 During this year the Dutch concluded with the Americans the treaty of commerce projected in 1778. They had gradually lost all their settlements on the coasts of Malabar and Coromandel. Trincomalee, in Ceylon, surrendered to the English, January 11th, 1782, but was retaken by Suffren in the following year. That commander also achieved several victories over Admiral Hughes.

The English Ministry was now earnestly bent on effecting a peace. France had declined the offers of Austria and Russia to mediate, because Great Britain had required as an indispensable base, that France should abandon the American cause. Lord North, a little before his resignation, had attempted direct negotiations at Paris, and this course was also followed by Lord Shelburne. Several envoys were successively dispatched to Paris, and on the side of the French, M. Rayneval was sent with a secret commission to London. This eagerness to negotiate increased the demands of France. Vergennes proposed a scheme essentially at variance with the Peace of 1763, and calculated to ruin the commerce and naval power of England. All the captured French colonies were to be restored, while France was to retain many which she had taken. It was also demanded that England should acquiesce in the principles of the Armed Neutrality.

These demands could not be conceded; but at length, in October, 1782, conferences for a definite peace were opened at Paris, under the ostensible mediation of the Emperor and the Tsarina, though, in fact, those Sovereigns had no voice in them. The general negotiations were nearly upset by the signing of a secret treaty between Great Britain and America. The discovery of Vergennes’ duplicity had produced this result. The French Ministry were, in fact, alarmed at the magnitude of the new Power which they had conjured up in America, and even seem to have apprehended a future league between that country and Great Britain, though such an event was highly improbable. Hence, while pretending conciliation, Vergennes endeavored to sow dissension between the two countries, as well as to weaken the new Republic. With this view he secretly instigated the Americans to claim, and the English to withhold, a share in the Newfoundland Fishery. But what induced the Americans to conclude with Great Britain was a dispatch of Marbois, the French agent at Philadelphia, to his Government, in which, at their desire, he had drawn up an elaborate plan for dividing and weakening the new Republic. This dispatch being intercepted by an English cruiser, was forwarded by the Government to Mr. Oswald, a merchant and shipowner whom Lord Shelburne had employed to negotiate with the American Commissioners at Paris. The production of this dispatch filled them with such indignation that, as the English Government had now resolved to concede American independence, they signed the preliminaries of a peace with Great Britain without the knowledge of Vergennes, November 30th, 1782. The French Minister, on being acquainted with this step, bitterly reproached the American Commissioners, who excused themselves by protesting that the treaty should not be definitive till France and Spain had also terminated their arrangements with England. The English Cabinet used the advantage they had obtained to press on France the necessity for a speedy conclusion of the negotiations : the financial condition of that country rendered a peace desirable; and Vergennes, anxious to gain the cooperation of England in checking the designs of Catharine II and Joseph II upon Turkey, did not insist upon onerous terms. On January 20th, 1783, preliminaries were signed at Versailles between Great Britain, France, and Spain. The Dutch, who, from the forms of their constitution, moved very slowly, and who had refused to enter into separate negotiations with England, were thus left without help, though a suspension of arms was agreed upon, and Louis XVI promised to use his good offices that the Republic might obtain an honorable peace. After the ratification of the peace between Great Britain and America in August, Vergennes, however, told the Dutch Ministers that the definitive treaty between France, Spain, and Great Britain could no longer be delayed, and the States-General were compelled to sign preliminaries with the last-named Power on the terms which she had demanded (September 2nd). The definitive treaties of the Peace of Versailles, between Great Britain, the United States of America, France, and Spain, were signed on the following day. By the treaty with America, Great Britain recognized the thirteen United States as sovereign and independent. The second article, defining boundaries, comprised vast regions inhabited by unsubjected races, which belonged to neither of the contracting parties. The American loyalists were rewarded with lands in Nova Scotia, or pensions in Great Britain.

The loss of the American colonies to the mother-country was rather apparent than real. They contributed nothing to the British treasury; and though the commercial monopoly was lost, the trade between the two countries actually went on increasing after the peace of Versailles, as the agricultural population of America could not dispense with British manufactures.

By the definitive treaty with France that country acquired Tobago (assigned to Great Britain by the peace of 1763), as well as the establishments on the Senegal. All other conquests were restored on both sides. France was delivered from the commissioners residing at Dunkirk since the Peace of Utrecht, and her political consideration seemed placed on a better footing than at the peace of 1763. But, on the other hand, she had rendered the disorder of her finances irretrievable, and thus hastened the Revolution. She not only abandoned the Dutch, but also her ally, Tippoo, Sultan of Mysore, the son and successor of Hyder Ally. It was stipulated that the Peace of Versailles should be followed by a commercial treaty between France and England, which was accordingly concluded at Paris, September 26th, 1786. By the 20th Article it was established that the neutral flag covers the cargo, except, of course, contraband of war.

Spain was the greatest gainer by the peace, the best she had made since that of St. Quentin. She recovered Minorca and the two Floridas; but she was reluctantly compelled to abandon Gibraltar. Count d'Aranda, the Spanish Plenipotentiary, displayed great violence on this subject. He declared that his Sovereign would never consent to a peace without the restoration of that fortress, and he was encouraged in this course by Vergennes and Franklin. At an early period of the negotiations Lord Shelburne had seemed disposed to cede Gibraltar, but became alarmed on finding how much the heart of the English people was set upon that rock, now doubly endeared to it by Elliot’s glorious defence; and its retention became a sine qua non with the British Ministry, though Spain showed a disposition to give Porto Rico and Oran in exchange for it.

The definitive treaty between Great Britain and the States-General was not signed till May 20th, 1784. Negapatam was ceded to England; but a more important concession was, that British navigation should not be molested in the Indian seas, where the Dutch had hitherto maintained an exclusive commerce.

The Peace of Versailles was received with loud murmurs in England. Lord Shelburne was driven from the helm, and was succeeded by the Duke of Portland and the Coalition Ministry. Yet, on the whole, considering the extent and power of the combination formed against her, England seems to have escaped better than might have been anticipated. France, meanwhile, in spite of her apparently advantageous peace, was sinking deeper into financial difficulties, while the unpopularity of the Queen increased the general discontent, and led to the diffusion of scandals. The character of Marie Antoinette, which bore a considerable resemblance to that of her brother Joseph II, made her the easy victim of malice. Lively and impetuous, governed by her feelings rather than by reflection, badly educated and of unregulated judgment, she exposed himself from the first day of her entry into France to the calumnies of her enemies. These were chiefly to be found in the party of Madame du Barri, and among the ex-Jesuits, who regarded her marriage as the work of Choiseul. Among them was her own brother-in-law, the Count of Provence, afterwards Louis XVIII. The celebrated affair of the diamond necklace, which happened about the time of the Dutch Treaty, also contributed to injure her in the public opinion. This necklace, worth 1,600,000 francs, had been ordered by the Cardinal de Rohan, as he affirmed, for the Queen, by order of the Countess de La Motte Valois; but the Queen, when applied to by the jeweller for payment, denied all knowledge of the matter. The questions at issue were, whether the Queen had really ordered the necklace and wished to evade paying for it; whether Madame de La Motte had falsely used the Queen’s name, with a view to appropriate the jewels for herself; or whether Rohan was the swindler. The Cardinal was notoriously expensive, profligate, and unscrupulous, and he openly professed that his enormous income of 1,200,000 francs sufficed not for a gentleman. But the Court took an imprudent step in dragging the matter before the Parliament of Paris. Rohan, Bishop of Strassburg and Grand-Almoner of the Crown, a member of the family of Condé, was seized at Versailles in his pontifical robes as he was about to enter the chapel, and conducted to the Bastille (August, 1785). He, and Madame de La Motte and her husband, were then arraigned before the Parliament; the first time that a Prince of the Church had been brought before a secular judge. The trial, a great public scandal, lasted nine months, affording a rich treat to curiosity and malice. The efforts of the Court to procure the acquittal of Madame de La Motte had only the effect of turning public opinion the other way. The Parliament, glad of an opportunity to avenge the affronts it had received, acquitted Rohan by a majority of five, and condemned Madame de La Motte and her husband to be whipped and branded; after which the latter was to be sent to the galleys, and the lady to the Salpetrière. The public hailed with frantic joy a decree that degraded the Throne, while the Cardinal was honored with a complete ovation. The Queen avenged herself by banishing Rohan to Auvergne by a lettre de cachet.

While the Court was thus plunging deeper into public odium, the ever-declining state of the finances threatened a national bankruptcy. Necker had for some time made head against the deficit by reforms, reductions of expenditure, and especially by loans. Credit, however, the only support of the last method, began to get exhausted; and in order to revive the public confidence, Necker persuaded Louis XVI to publish the celebrated Compte rendu (January, 1781). The effect at first was prodigious. The public was overwhelmed with joy at being for the first time entrusted with the secret of the national balance-sheet. The statement, too, seemed really satisfactory. The receipts appeared to exceed the ordinary disbursements by eighteen million livres; while the promise of extinguishing a great part of the enormous sum paid in pensions, of reforming the system of taxation, etc., showed a sincere disposition to amend past disorders. In the first moments of enthusiasm Necker succeeded in raising an enormous loan. But gradually the enchanting visions of the Compte rendu began to melt away. The statement was found to be anything but trustworthy, and the asserted surplus a pure delusion. On the other hand, the persons interested in the abuses denounced, with Vergennes at the head of them, began to league themselves against Necker, and in May, 1781, he found himself compelled to tender his resignation. The  management of the finances, after passing through two or three hands, came, in October, 1783, into those of Calonne, a frivolous man, with a reputation for talent. During two or three years, by clever expedients, and especially by loans, Calonne contrived to keep the machine in motion, and even to carry on a reckless expenditure. But at length his subterfuges were exhausted; he was compelled to acknowledge a deficit of 100 millions (four millions sterling) per annum, and to consider the alternative of a national bankruptcy or a thorough reform of the State. The first of these, in the state of public feeling, could not be contemplated a moment. On the other hand, reform seemed almost equally dangerous. It could not be effected through the Parliaments, the only constitutional bodies in the State, as they would resist the diminution of their privileges which it involved; while an appeal to the people, and the assembling of the Etats generaux, seemed fraught with danger. In this perplexity Calonne hit upon a middle term, an Assembly of Notables, which had sometimes been convoked in the exigencies of the Kingdom.

The Notables, to the number of 144, were accordingly assembled at Versailles, January 29th, 1787. The Tiers état, or commons, was only represented by six or seven municipal magistrates; all the rest were clergy and nobles, or persons having the privileges of nobles. The Assembly had been announced in the Journal de Paris in the most offensive terms, intimating that the nation should be transported with joy at the condescension of the King in appealing to it. Vergennes died before the Assembly proceeded to business. He was succeeded by the Count de Montmorin, who was quite unequal to the position. The Assembly was opened by the King, February 22nd. Calonne, in an elaborate and clever, but indiscreet address, communicated his plans to the Notables. The main feature of them was the abolition or reform of some obnoxious imposts, and the substitution for them of a land-tax, varying from one-fortieth to one-twentieth, to be received in kind, and to which all orders alike were to be liable, including the clergy and even the royal domains. On the other hand, the privileged classes were to be relieved from the capitation, or poll-tax, to which roturiers were still to be subject, as well as to the taille, but at a largely reduced rate. Calonne also proposed a stamp act, and a reduction of the public expenditure, including that of the King’s household. It was soon evident, however, that the proceedings of an Assembly not based upon popular representation could never be satisfactory. Irritated by the opposition of the Notables, Calonne threatened them with an appeal to the people. This threat produced an almost universal coalition against him, which was joined by the Queen. The King’s brother, afterwards Louis XVIII, had made himself conspicuous by his opposition; and almost the only supporter of Calonne was the Count d'Artois, afterwards Charles X. Among his most formidable adversaries was Necker, whose Compte rendu he had attacked. That document was not invulnerable; but Necker proved that Calonne had wrongfully accused him of not having left a sufficient sum in the treasury to cover the expenses of 1781. The result of the league against Calonne was, that, at the instigation of Marie Antoinette, he was dismissed. Necker’s turn, however, was not yet come. In fact he also was banished twenty leagues from Paris, for having ventured to publish without permission an apologetic memoir.

Calonne was succeeded by Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse, with the title of Chief of the Council of Finance; while the Controller Fourquex was little more than a head clerk. Brienne had been among the foremost of Calonne’s opponents; yet he found himself compelled to bring forward several of his plans. Amid the stormy discussions which ensued, La Fayette proposed the convocation of a National Assembly within five years. The Notables would not take upon themselves the responsibility of voting the taxes proposed. They left the decision to the King; in other words they resigned their functions. The Government now proceeded to publish edicts in conformity with the plans of taxation proposed by Calonne. When the edicts for raising stamp duties was brought before the Parliament of Paris, that body refused to register it without first receiving a statement of the public accounts; and ended by beseeching the King to withdraw the edict, and by declaring that the Etats generaux alone were entitled to grant the King the necessary supplies. Such was the extraordinary change in public opinion! The Parliament, formerly so opposed to these National Assemblies, now declared them indispensable. The King frustrated the opposition of the Parliament by causing the different edicts to be registered in a Lit de Justice, and when they protested against this step, he banished them to Troyes; where, however, their opposition only became more violent. The feeling which animated them spread through all ranks of the people. It was taken up by the clubs recently established in Paris in imitation of the English. The Minister caused them to be closed. Popular hatred had fixed itself on the Queen more than the King. The irritation against her had reached so high a pitch that Louis XVI forbade her to show herself in Paris.

The fermentation spread through the Kingdom. The provincial Parliaments loudly denounced the banishment of that of Paris, demanded the convocation of the Etats généraux, and the indictment of Calonne. Brienne compromised matters by allowing the Parliament to return, and engaging to call the Etats in 1792. The return of the Parliament to Paris was celebrated by an illumination, accompanied with serious riots, in which Calonne, who had escaped to England, was burnt in effigy. Brienne hoped in four years to reestablish the finances, so that the meeting of the Etats in 1792 should be a mere spectacle. But Mirabeau, who now began to play a prominent part, incited the Parliament to demand that they should be assembled in 1789; and a loan of 120 millions was agreed to by the Parliament only on this condition. The King was present at the sitting, which was suddenly converted into a Lit de Justice, and Louis decreed the registration of the edict for the loan in the usual forms, amid the murmurs of the Assembly. The Duke of Orleans rose, and ventured to observe that the step appeared to him illegal. Louis hesitated, stammered, and at length faltered out—“Yes; it is legal, if it is my will”. The protest of the Duke was recorded, but he was banished to Viller Cotterets, and two counsellors, supposed to have incited him, were imprisoned.

The disputes between the Court and Parliament continued more violently than ever. Among the Parliamentary agitators, Duport and D'Epremesnil were conspicuous. The boldest sentiments were uttered in the name of law and liberty. It having been discovered that the Court were preparing edicts, intended to strike a blow at the Parliaments, of which proof-sheets were obtained by means of a printer’s boy, meetings to organize resistance were held at Duport’s house, and were attended by La Fayette, Condorcet, the Due de la Rochefoucauld, Talleyrand-Perigord, the famous Bishop of Autun, and others. On May 3rd, 1788, the Parliament, having drawn up a sort of Remonstrance and Declaration of Rights, the King, two days after, caused Goislard and D'Epremesnil, the chief promoters of them, to be seized in their places and thrown into prison. On the 8th the Parliament was summoned to Versailles to hear the edicts read. Their effect was, in a great measure, to supersede the Parliaments, by substituting other Courts for them, and especially a Cour plenière. At the same time resort was to be had to Etats généraux whenever the public necessities should require it. It was, in fact, a new Constitution, many of the features of which were excellent. But it was clearly perceived that the object of the Court was only to temporize and to cover despotism under the veil of progress and reform. The provincial Parliaments, and especially those of Brittany and Dauphiné, displayed the most violent resistance against the edicts. The latter may be said to have initiated the Revolution by the first act of the sovereignty of the people. The Parliament, having been banished by the Government, the citizens of Grenoble assembled at the Hotel de Ville in August and decreed the spontaneous Assembly of the States of Dauphiné, which had fallen into desuetude for many generations. They were accordingly held at the Chateau de Vizille, and the Government found itself compelled to come to a compromise with them. Everything seemed to threaten universal anarchy. As a last resource, Brienne assembled the clergy, in hope that the danger with which their order was threatened by a meeting of the Etats généraux would induce them to grant him a loan, and thus obviate the necessity for that Assembly. The clergy, however, sided with the Parliaments, their ancient adversaries, and demanded the Etats; at the same time protesting, with a ludicrous inconsistency, against ecclesiastical property being subjected to taxation! Brienne now found it impossible to resist the popular voice. The Etats généraux were summoned for May 1st, 1789; and, meanwhile, the establishment of the Cour plenière was suspended. Brienne, after some steps which very much resembled a national bankruptcy, found himself compelled to resign, and Louis had no alternative but to recall Necker. Brienne’s retirement was soon after followed by that of Lamoignon. Serious riots occurred on both occasions, the latter being attended almost with a massacre.

With the return of Necker financial prospects revived. His second Ministry closes the ancient regime. By engaging his personal fortune and other methods, he contrived to tide the nation over the few months which preceded the Revolution. The Parliament was now re-established for the second time during this reign. But it lost its popularity by registering the Royal Declaration that the Etats généraux should be convoked according to the form observed in 1614; which implied that their votes should be taken by orders and not per capita. Necker, however, though a good financier, was a mediocre statesman. He reassembled the Notables to decide on the composition of the Tiers état, or Commons. That Assembly adhered to ancient forms as to the number to be summoned, but sanctioned a democratic constitution of the Commons. Necker nevertheless persuaded the King to summon at least 1,000 persons, of whom the Tiers état was to consist of as many as the other two orders united, or half the whole Assembly. This concession, which had been demanded by most of the municipalities, would, as Necker pretended, be unimportant, if the States were to vote by orders, according to ancient custom; yet in a Report to the King previously to the Royal Declaration of December 27th, 1788, he appears already to have anticipated their voluntary union in certain cases.

The Etats généraux, elected amid great excitement, were opened by the King, May 5th, 1789. The Assembly consisted, in all, of 1,145 members, of whom more than one-half belonged to the Tiers état. The first business was to verify the returns. For this purpose the Commons invited the other two orders to the great hall in which they sat; but as this proceeding would also have implied the mode of voting, that is en masse, the nobles and clergy declined the proposal, although the latter order consented to a conference. The Commons refused to proceed to business, and nothing was done for several weeks; till, on the motion of the Abbe Sieyes, deputy of the Tiers état of Paris, a last invitation was sent to the clergy and nobles (June 10th), and on their failing to appear, the Commons proceeded to business. After the verification of powers, Sieyes, in spite of the opposition of Mirabeau, moved and carried that the Etats should assume the title of the National Assembly. The Revolution had begun.

CHAPTER LII

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION