Thus passed the greater part of the year 1777, in mutual accusations, excuses, half measures, diplomatic artifices, and untruths, which it would require too much space to relate in detail. It will suffice to communicate some interesting and instructive passages from Lord Stormont's reports. He thus writes, on the 13th of August, 1777: " M. de Vergennes said to me, 'The predilection for Americans in France is truly a very great and serious evil. Do not suppose that it arises from love to America or hatred against England; its root lies much deeper, and can easily escape the notice of a superficial observer, but it deserves our greatest and most serious attention. Although M. de Vergennes did not explain himself further, it was easy to see that he alluded to the licentious spirit that reigns in France, and is doubtless a chief cause of the enthusiastic delirium in favor of the Americans.

"I said to M. de Vergennes, that for my part I had long perceived the secret cause and public direction of this partiality. 'I assure you,' answered Vergennes, 'the king also perceives it. He made the same remark to me a few days ago; and I replied that it was of consequence by every proper means to restrain and counteract a spirit of whose nature he had formed so correct a judgment.' "I protest by God,' said Vergennes, 'that if you had orders to tender us Jamaica to-morrow, I would vote for rejecting the offer. What should we do with the island? we have more land than we want; our object must be to support our colonies, and improve their cultivation; they are large enough already. Too great colonies are a great evil, and what is now happening to you furnishes a terrible example. Believe me, we have no plans of conquest whatever. Our object is and ought to be, to improve what we possess, to secure the blessings of peace, and to give permanence to our happiness, which is never lessened by your welfare. It is a false, narrow, nay, impious policy, which desires to build up the greatness of one people on the distress and destruction of another. Viewed in a higher light, all are links of one and the same chain; and as the happiness and prosperity of individuals increase the happiness and prosperity of the state to which they belong, so the happiness of one people augments in a thousand ways the happiness of another. This is an evident truth which all men of plain good sense can perceive, when their sight is not obscured by national prejudices, national hate, and lamentable passions, which are so ready at hand to mingle in the affairs of mankind.'-I told him in reply how heartily I desired that the conduct of the French court would always be as much in accordance with it, as I was convinced our own would be."

Vergennes here certainly enounced in a laudable manner principles which are at once the simplest and the loftiest of all politi

cal wisdom; but which a foolish and sinful blindness has but too often caused both conquerors and nations to mistake and to transgress. At that time, too, men could not or would not practise them in their purity. In France louder and more numerous voices constantly asserted, that so favorable an opportunity for weakening England must not be suffered to pass unimproved; while Lord Stormont insisted more and more decidedly that France must keep true peace with England and leave the Americans to themselves, or henceforward support them and thereby force on a war.

"The behavior of the French ministers," writes the ambassador on the 19th November, 1777, "is now so constantly the same, that it is necessary to suppose they have a fixed, decided plan, viz. to do us secretly as much harm as possible, and to conceal these ill designs by the strongest assurances of friendship and the greatest apparent attention to our complaints."

It is true Maurepas repeated several times, "There exists no ground of dispute, no reason for a war, and France will certainly not make a beginning." But after the news of the capture of General Burgoyne had reached Paris, Lord Stormont wrote (28th December, 1777): "The general inclination of the people is more strongly expressed for war than I can ever recollect; and M. de Maurepas must certainly give way to the current, as so many timid ministers before him have done, who have failed in energetic measures out of mere weakness and indecision. one word, I now regard the whole French cabinet as inimically disposed towards us, only with different degrees of violence and activity, according to the measure of their different dispositions, characters, and designs."

In

Lord Stormont was not mistaken. On the 6th February, 1778, a treaty of commerce was concluded between France and America, which premised the latter's independence; and on the same day a treaty of friendly and defensive alliance was signed, which promised to mutually maintain this independence against England's opposition, and forbade the concluding of a separate peace. On the day when the Count de Noailles produced this treaty in London (13th March, 1778), commands were issued to Lord Stormont to quit Paris without taking leave. War had been decided on.

At that time the majority regarded the assistance of France as absolutely necessary to the liberation of America; but now this may well be doubted. A separation from the mother-country and an acknowledgment that they had attained their majority, would certainly have been extorted by the colonies at last, without foreign assistance. If they were ever so inclined, it was impossible for the French to sever all connection with America; and besides it would have been to them a serious injury. This

connection, however, in opposition to the demands of England, necessarily gave rise to numerous disputes; and that the alliance they had entered into must certainly lead to war, the French ministry were fully convinced.

Although we will not strongly denounce the equivocation, artifices, and subterfuges so often revealed in the history of diplomatic negotiations, and of which France was doubtless guilty on this occasion, as being in a manner established by custom and to be expected also from her opponent,-yet we must not leave unnoticed a censure pronounced from another quarter with great earnestness and weight. "The principle," it has been said, "of true, eternal right, according to which every disobedience to authority is prohibited by laws both human and divine, should alone have been permitted to decide. France was the first to sanction the principle, that subjects who are discontented with their government, or have reason to complain of it, may renounce their allegiance and revolt." In this conclusion there certainly reigns the spirit of the school; that is to say, all is exhibited in a connected, consistent, absolute manner; but to this abstraction (as I remarked before at the end of the preceding chapter) it is necessary there should be added contemplation and critical examination of the living and the multifarious. In fact human and divine laws equally forbid the tyranny of governments and of popular rebellions; and the school or schools which are always complaining and striving against the one, while they disregard, and through passion or wilfulness remain ignorant of the other, have scarcely apprehended one half of the truth.

Furthermore, it is historically erroneous to say that France then first gave the example of strengthening or sanctioning a vicious principle. From the assistance with which Athens furnished the Greek colonies in Asia Minor against the Persians, down to the recognition of the independence of Texas, examples are found in history of similar proceedings; and France and England in particular had already acted in a like manner with respect to the United Netherlands.

CHAPTER VI.

FROM THE BREAKING OUT OF THE WAR BETWEEN FRANCE AND ENGLAND (1778) TO THE PEACE OF VERSAILLES (1783).

Views in England-Chatham's Death-Disasters of the Americans-Paper Money -Rochambeau, Arnold, André-Capture of Cornwallis-Treaties of PeaceResults.

AFTER the disaster at Saratoga, the attacks of the opposition against the government in England became constantly louder, although they were by no means agreed among themselves. Thus one party, with Chatham at its head, wished to treat the Americans justly and put them on a level with themselves, but not to recognise their independence; while the second party, led by Rockingham, declared that this independence must be recognised, and that they must content themselves with an advantageous treaty of commerce. For, said they, North America can no more be conquered again, than Normandy or Brittany; and in no other way is it possible to make a good stand against France, who is certainly about to begin the war.

A plan of reconciliation, which ministers did not propose until France had joined America, was then of course rejected, as it did not include independence. When the Duke of Richmond, on the 7th of April, 1778, declared himself strongly in favor of this recognition, Chatham (who had long been prevented by illness from attending Parliament) determined to make an impressive effort for retaining that quarter of the world which the force of his genius and character had won in the seven years' war. He was dressed in a suit of black velvet, and had to be supported to his seat by his son William Pitt and his son-in-law Viscount Mahon. All the lords rose out of respect, and greeted him as the first and noblest of English statesmen. With the greatest earnestness and eloquence he laid before them his views and convictions. His strength and voice then left him; he fell back, and expired on the 11th of May, in the 70th year of his age. The interest awakened by this event was universal; and bitter was the recollection, on comparing the glory and greatness of Great Britain in the time of his administration with its present deplorable condition.* He was buried at the public expense, and a monument was erected to him in Westminster Abbey;

* Belsham, vi. 365.

moreover, the debts of this disinterested public servant were paid, and a yearly income affixed to the earldom of Chatham.

In America, in the meanwhile, the war was carried on not only against the English, but also amid greater sufferings against the Indians, who for the most part were connected with them. The English shifted the seat of war to the southern states; obtained possession of Georgia and Carolina; and, under the command of Lord Cornwallis, defeated near Camden, on the 16th of August, 1780, the weaker American army under General Gates. This again inspired the British ministry with the fallacious hope of speedily reducing all the colonies to obedience. Lord Cornwallis, too, losing sight of moderation and prudence, ordered that all the inhabitants who had supported the Americans should be punished in the severest manner. And in fact many were banished from the country, their property confiscated, their slaves stirred up against them, and even several of them hanged. By measures such as these the steadfastness of the better sort was confirmed; the timid were forced to be courageous; and the bravery even of the women was excited to such a pitch, that they encouraged their husbands to resistance and dared the greatest dangers.

At the moment when the Americans succeeded by redoubled exertions in arresting the progress of the English, they found themselves afflicted with a new misfortune. Immediately on the breaking out of the revolution, those at the head of American affairs perceived that it was not to be carried through without money. But since there was none on hand, and none was to be obtained from mines and commerce, or to be raised by taxes, it was concluded to issue paper-money, to be redeemed at certain intervals in gold and silver, and which at first (in the general enthusiasm and good understanding of the people) every one received willingly and at par. But now, when the war had been protracted beyond expectation, and when, as the promised times of redemption came round, the distress was becoming more and more pressing, and the issues of paper-money kept constantly increasing, its full value could of course no longer be maintained. The evil was augmented by excessive credits, by ignorance and error with respect to money and exchanges, by fraudulent counterfeits of the paper-money, and by its being made in the several states. It gradually became so depreciated in value, that 40, and even from 85 to 110 dollars of currency were given for one silver dollar. All propositions to pay interest on the paper-money, to reduce it within certain bounds, or to do away with it altogether, failed of accomplishment; partly from want of means, and partly because the proposed amendments were * Polit. Journal, 1781, pp. 102, 169. Gallatin on Currency, p. 26,